The Role of Technology Acceptance Model in Explaining University Academics’ Acceptance and Behavioural Intention to Use Technology in Education


As the use of modern technology in education continues to grow at all levels of education, and academics are believe to be among the major actors in educational transformation, there is an increasing need to better understand the acceptance and behavioural intention of University academics to use technology in education because few studies were conducted to that effect. Hence, the purpose of this research was to find the level of technology acceptance among university academics using TAM as theoretical model. A survey was used using a sample of 355 academics from Nigerian universities. Regression analysis and Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) were used for the data analyses and model fit using SPSS and AMOS softwares. The result proved TAM to be a good theoretical tool to understand users’ acceptance of technology. The findings revealed that the variances in Self Efficacy (SE), Social Influence (SI), System Accessibility (SA), Perceived Usefulness (PU) and Perceived Ease of Use (PEOU) really contribute to change in Behavioural Intention (BI) to use technology. However, the study also revealed that there are significant relationships between BI and SE, SA, and PU, but insignificant relationship was found between BI and the other two constructs i.e PEOU and SI. Since technology is not easy to use, and there is less social influence to help them use the system adequately, therefore, perhaps there is need for management to organize more trainings, seminars and workshops with regards to the use of the technology for the academics.

Keywords: Analysis of Moment Structure (AMOS), Behavioural Intention, Structural Equation Modelling (SEM), Technology Acceptance Model (TAM).Introduction

[1] Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

[2] Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179–211.

[3] Cronbach, L.J., & Meehl, P.E. (1955) Construct Validity in Psychological Tests, Psychological Bulletin, 52: 281- 302.

[4] Davis, F. D. (1986). A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new enduser information systems: Theory and results. Doctoral dissertation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Sloan School of Management.

[5] Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–339.

[6] Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35(8), 982–1003.

[7] Grandon, E., Alshare, O., & Kwan, O. (2005). Factors influencing student intention to adopt online classes: A cross-cultural study. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, 20(4), 46–56.

[8] Gefen D., and Straub, D. W. (1997). “Gender differences in the perception and use of e-mail: An extension to the technology acceptance model,” MIS quarterly, 1997, pp. 389-400.

[9] Legris, P., Ingham, J., & Collerette, P. (2003). Why do people use information technology? A critical review of the technology acceptance model. Information & Management, 40, 191–204.

[10] Malhotra, Y., & Galletta, D. F. (1999). Extending the technology acceptance model to account for social influence: Theoretical bases and empirical validation. Proceedings of the 32nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 1999.

[11] Nunnally, J.C., and Bernstein, I.H. (1994) Psychometric Theory, (3rd edn), McgrawHill: New York

[12] Park S. Y. (2009). “An analysis of the technology acceptance model in understanding university students’ behavioral intention to use technology,” Educational Technology & Society, 2009, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 150-162.

[13] Straub D., Keil M., and Brenner W. (1997). “Testing the technology acceptance model across cultures: A three country study,” Information & Management, 1997, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 1-11.

[14] Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (1996). A model of the antecedents of perceived ease of use: Development and test. Decision Sciences, 27, 451–481.

[15] Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal filed studies. Management Science, 46, 186– 204.

[16] Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425-478.

[17] Edition, Publisher, ISBN No. (if any), pp. (Printed Pages i.e. pp. 45-51)

[18] Author Name (s). (Year). Title of the Technical Report, Publisher, ISBN No. (if any), pp. (Printed Pages i.e. pp. 45-51)

[19] For online article: Author Name (if any), Title of the Article, URL: (i.e. http://, date retrieved:

[20] Author Name (s), Title of the Paper/Article, Proceedings of , Date & Year, Place & Country, Volume No., ISBN No. (if any), pp. (Printed Pages i.e. pp. 45-51)