computer application anxiety, self-efficacy and open source learning management system acceptance

Computer Application Anxiety, Self-Efficacy and Open Source Learning Management System Acceptance

Norshidah Mohamed, PhDhttp://www.ibs.utm.myNor Shahriza Abdul Karim, PhDInternational Business SchoolUniversiti Teknologi MalaysiaKuala Lumpur, MALAYSIA

1st International Conference on Digital Services, Internet and Applications (DSIA '12)

Singapore 11 – 13 May 2012

2

OUTLINE

• Introduction• Problem formulation• Solution• Conclusion

3

INTRODUCTION

• The Internet • Learning takes place anywhere and anytime• Before, systems require years to be

implemented• Now, with open source software new systems

can be implemented in a day• Some examples of Open Source Learning

Management Systems: Moodle, Sakai Project and Claroline

4

INTRODUCTION .. Cont’

• Benefits of open source software implementation from educational policy makers’ perspective: ominimal spending on time / efforts in

system development and implementationofacilitating ease in interactions between

students and instructors oreducing costs for paper-based materials

5

PROBLEM FORMULATION

• Open source software presents quick benefits to educators and educational policy makers•May pose challenges on acceptance to

students as users

6

PROBLEM FORMULATION .. Cont’

• Research question: Do computer application anxiety and self-efficacy correlate to system acceptance?

• Research objective: To explore the relationship between computer application anxiety, self-efficacy and acceptance of open source learning management system.

SOLUTION

8

RESEARCH MODEL

Computerapplication

anxiety

Perceivedusefulness

Perceivedease of use

Intention to use

SYSTEM ACCEPTANCE

Selfefficacy

H1a

H1b

H1c

H2a

H2b

H2c

9

THEORETICAL BASIS

• Computer anxiety (Heinnsen et al. 1987)• Social cognitive theory (Bandura 1986;

1989; 1995)• Technology acceptance model (TAM)

(Davis, 1989; Davis et al. 1989)

10

DEFINITIONS USED IN THE STUDYConstructs Definitions

Intention to use A person’s decision on a specific behavioral outcome (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975; Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980)

Perceived usefulness The degree a person believes that using a particular system would enhance his or her learning performance (adapted from Davis, 1989)

Perceived ease of use The degree to which a person believes that using a particular system would be free of effort (Davis, 1989)

11

DEFINITIONS USED IN THE STUDY .. Cont’Constructs Definitions

Self-efficacy An individual’s beliefs about the ability to perform a specific behavior (Compeau and Higgin, 1995)

Computer application anxiety

An individual’s phobia of dealing with computer application (adapted from Heinnsen et al. 1987)

12

CONTEXT

• Research participants – postgraduate business students at a public institution of higher learning in Malaysia• Instrument – Survey questionnaire • Claroline an open source learning

management system was chosen for pilot implementation for a particular course in an eight-week semester (short semester)• Voluntary participation in Claroline and

survey research

14

POPULATION & SAMPLE

• Estimated number for population: 400• Sample for the study: 42

15

MEASURESConstructs

Sources

Intention to usePerceived usefulnessPerceived ease of useSelf-efficacy

Ajzen & Fishbein (1980)Davis (1989)Davis (1989)Compeau and Higgin (1995)

Computer anxiety Heinssen et al. (1987)

Five-point Likert scale for computer application anxiety, self-efficacy, perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use and intention to use measures where 1 refers to “strongly disagree” and 5 refers to “strongly agree”.

16

RESULTS – PROFILE OF RESPONDENTSProfile of respondents Frequency %

Gender Male 19 45.2Female 22 52.4Missing 1 2.4

Age 20-29 15 35.730-39 16 38.140-49 9 21.4Above 50 1 2.4Missing 1 2.4

17

PROFILE OF MEASURES  MeanIntention to use • It is worth to use the Claroline. 3.78• I will frequently use the Claroline in

the future. 3.78

• I will strongly recommend others to use the Claroline.

3.68

• I plan to use the Claroline. 3.83

Average intention to use score: 3.77

18

PROFILE OF MEASURES .. Cont’Mean

Perceived usefulness• Using the Claroline improves my learning

performance.  3.69

• Using the Claroline enhances my effectiveness in learning.

3.64

• Using the Claroline improves the quality of learning.

3.83

• Overall, I find using the Claroline useful in learning.

3.93

Average perceived usefulness score: 3.77

19

PROFILE OF MEASURES .. Cont’Mean

Perceived ease of use• Using the Claroline in learning is easy for me. 3.81• I find it easy to get the Claroline to do what I

want to do. 3.50

• Getting information from the Claroline is easy.

3.75

• My interaction with the Claroline is clear and understandable.

3.51

• It would be easy for me to become skillful at using the Claroline.

3.61

• Overall, I find the Claroline easy to use. 3.71Average perceived ease of use score: 3.65

20

PROFILE OF MEASURES .. Cont’Mean

Self-efficacy

• I would be able to use the Claroline if there is no one around to show me how to use it.

3.32

• I would feel comfortable using the Claroline on my own.

3.68

• I feel confident to download and save files from the Claroline when needed.

3.83

• I feel confident to post and reply to messages in a forum in the Claroline.

3.56

• I feel confident understanding the links in the Claroline.

3.59

Average self-efficacy score: 3.60

21

PROFILE OF MEASURES .. Cont’Mean

Computer application anxiety

• I feel nervous about using the Claroline. 2.22• It scares me to think that I could lose a lot

of information using the Claroline by clicking the wrong button.

2.37

• I hesitate to use the Claroline to post and reply to messages for fear of making mistakes I cannot correct.

2.61

• The Claroline worries me. 2.05Average computer application anxiety score: 2.29

22

RESULTS – RELIABILITY ANALYSISConstructs No. of

ItemsCronbach’s alpha (α)

Intention to use 4 0.854Perceived usefulness 4 0.811Perceived ease of use 6 0.881Self-efficacy 5 0.848Computer anxiety 4 0.884

All measures are reliable since Cronbach’s alpha (α) is > 0.70

23

RESULTS – CORRELATION ANALYSIS  ITU PU PEOU SE CAITU 1      

PU 0.318* 1    

PEOU 0.524** 0.458** 1  

SE 0.440** 0.317* 0.605** 1

CA -0.231 -0.163 -0.253 -0.488** 1

** correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2 tailed)* correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2 tailed)ITU: Intention to usePU: Perceived usefulnessPEOU: Perceived ease of useSE: Self-efficacyCA: Computer anxiety

24

SUMMARY – HYPOTHESES RESULTSHypotheses Results

H1a: Computer application anxiety is significantly and negatively correlated to perceived usefulness of open source learning management system.

Not supported

H1b: Computer application anxiety is significantly and negatively correlated to perceived ease of use of open source learning management system.

Not supported

25

SUMMARY – HYPOTHESES RESULTS .. Cont’Hypotheses Results

H1c: Computer application anxiety is significantly and negatively correlated to intention to use open source learning management system.

Not supported

H2a: Self-efficacy is significantly and positively correlated to perceived usefulness of open source learning management system.

Supported

26

SUMMARY – HYPOTHESES RESULTS .. Cont’Hypotheses Results

H2b: Self-efficacy is significantly and positively correlated to perceived ease of use of open source learning management system.

Supported

H2c: Self-efficacy is significantly and positively correlated to intention to use open source learning management system.

Supported

CONCLUSION

28

THEORETICAL IMPLICATION

• Contributed to new knowledge in the context of open source learning management system acceptance oComputer application anxiety is not a significant

factor oSelf-efficacy is a significant factor

29

PRACTICAL IMPLICATION

• For educators and educational policy makers – oSelection of open source learning

management system that promotes quick acceptance (perceived usefulness and ease of use for students)oPromotes environment that is supportive

of self-efficacy (belief to operate a new system) in students

30

LIMITATIONS

• Cross-sectional survey research approach• Only students of a particular course

participated in the research• The findings may not be generalized in the

context of the entire institution and thus may have to be carefully interpreted.

31

FUTURE RESEARCH AREAS

• Longitudinal approach• Undergraduates and postgraduates in

other courses or institutions using Claroline

THANK YOU