4.6 Article

Integrating innovation diffusion theory with technology acceptance model: supporting students' attitude towards using a massive open online courses (MOOCs) systems

期刊

出版社

ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/10494820.2019.1629599

关键词

Technology acceptance model (TAM); innovation diffusion theory (IDT); massive open online courses (MOOCs) system; structural equation modelling; students' perception

资金

  1. Research Management Centre (RMC) at Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM) [PY/2019/00809]
  2. Deanship of Scientific Research at King Faisal University [186216]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This research intends to investigate factors affecting students' behavioural intentions to use a massive open online courses (MOOCs) system. Integrating the technology acceptance model (TAM) with the innovation diffusion theory (IDT), the present research proposes an extended technology acceptance model. Testing of data collected from 1148 students using (MOOCs) system in Malaysia achieved the research objective. The findings obtained via a quantitative research method, based on analysing the results using a Structure Equation Modeling (SEM). The outcomes reveal that six views of novelty features swayed students' a (MOOCs) scheme behavioural objective. The properties of the relative advantages, intricacy, trialability, observability, compatibility, and perceived enjoyment on the perceived ease of use are significant. Also, the effects of the relative advantages, complexity, trialability, observability, compatibility, and perceived enjoyment on the usefulness have a substantial impact. Therefore, the practical outcomes offer robust backing for the integrative method between TAM and IDT. The results recommend a prolonged model of TAM with IDT for the taking of MOOCs) system used to improve students learning performance, which can help decision makers in higher education, universities and colleges to planning, evaluating and executing the use of (MOOCs) systems.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据