COMPUTER BASED TEST PERCEPTION MODEL: A MODIFICATION OF TECHNOLOGY
ACCEPTANCE MODEL
ABSTRACT
Studies on acceptance of technology for instruction and evaluation in higher
education provide the rationale behind the model being presented. It is imperative to
employ a conceptual framework to guide it. Thus, Technology Acceptance Model (TAM)
is modified to form a perception model for Computer-Based Test (CBT). The CBT
perception model modifies TAM by adding a new construct: “credibility” and added
intervening variables of gender and area of specialization and field of study for lecturers
and students respectively.
Keyword: CBT, TAM, instruction and evaluation
Introduction
The Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) has since become one of the most
widely accepted models of technology adoption. TAM is an adaptation of Fishbein and
Ajzen’s (1975) theory of reasoned action (TRA), in which TRA’s attitudinal determinants,
derived separately for each behavior, are replaced with a set of two variables perceived
ease of use and perceived usefulness McFarland, & Hamilton (2006). TAM suggests that
an individual’s perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness of a particular
technology determine the individual’s behavioral intention which in turn determines the
acceptance and use of the technology. TAM posits that the impact of other external
variables is fully mediated by the perceptions of ease of use and usefulness. Lee, Kozar
and Larsen (2003) found that the impacts of perceived usefulness and perceived ease
of use of technology adoption and usage remain consistent and significant across
educational different settings.
Few studies (Terzis& Economides, 2011, Nurcan 2010) have considered the TAM
in the adoption of computer for test. In a review of TAM research, Lee, Kozar and
Larsen (2003) suggested that more research is needed to investigate the adoption of
computer for test. Legris et al., (2003) point to the need for including additional
variables related to the use of computer for assessment. In response to the requests
and observation by these researchers, this study introduced perceived credibility as a
constructs used to modify TAM.
The factors that influence successful implementation of a system use have some
characteristics that are directly associated with the use of the system. These
characteristics also determine the use of the system. In this this study, lecturers’ gender
and area of specialization and students’ gender and field of study which are external
variables are associated to the factors that influence the actual use of computer-based
test. Gender, Area of Specialization and Field of Study were the external variables
added to TAM as it is in this study. This was done to capture the influence of the
characteristics of the lecturers and students on their perception about CBT and also to
increase the explanatory power of the model. This is on the assumption that this
research intended to find out the influence of gender, area of specialization and field of
study on the lecturers and students perceptions of computer-based test for assessment
in Nigerian Universities.
Literature Review
Researchers have used different models to explain the acceptance and the
intension to use computer assessment system (e.g. Teo, 2009). Perceived Usefulness
and Perceived Ease of Use from TAM has been used in many studies regarding
computer assessment system (e.g. Yi & Hwang, 2003). This study has a conceptual
framework adapted from Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) proposed by Davis,
Baggozi and Warshaw (1989). TAM is one of the most important models for
understanding adoption of information technology. TAM can be traced to Theory of
Reasoned Action (TRA) which was developed by Ajzen and Fishbein (1980) to explain
almost any human behaviour.
The Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) has two factors that affect behavioural
intentions, attitude towards behaviour, and subjective norms. Ajzen and Fishbein
(1980) Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) is a model developed to predict and explain a
consciously intended behaviour. The model proved the success in predicting a large
variety of different behaviors, like the prediction of computer use in assessing students
(Davis, Bagozzi,, &Warshaw, 1989). Also an important concept underlying TRA is the
assumption of specific, clearly defined behaviour, so that a person can decide at will to
perform the behavior or not (Ajzen& Madden, 1986). The Theory of Reasoned Action
asserts that the behavioral intention (BI) is a function of a person’s personal attitude
(A) and subjective norm (SN) regarding the behavior (Davis et al. 1989, Ajzen and
Fishbein, 1980). TRA shows that the intention to perform is determined by an
individual’s attitude toward performing the behavior and subjective norm held by the
individual. An organisation or individual may find their attitudes more important when
deciding whether to use the computer for assessment or for instruction. It shows that
the intention to perform is determined by an individual’s attitude toward performing the
behavior and the subjective norm held by the individual. Each individual may place a
different level of importance on attitudes and subjective norms, depending on the
situation and other influences. A group or an individual may find their attitudes more
important when deciding whether to use the computer for assessment or instruction.
Theory of Reasoned Action states that “the more a person perceives that others
who are important to him think he should perform a behavior, the more he will intend
to do so” (Ajzen&Fishbein, 1980). Theory of Reasoned Action has been successfully
applied to investigate behaviours (Bagozzi, Wong, Abe, &Bergami, 2000).
Figure 1: Theory of Reasoned Action, source: socialmediamashup.wordpress.com
The model works as intended with attitudes and subjective norms proven to
determine behavioral intention, to be a good indicator of behavior. Therefore,
Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) is based on the theoretical beliefs-attitudeintention, behaviour causal relationship initially established by Theory of Reasoned
Action. Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) is commonly used to explain and predict
the acceptance of technology. Technology Acceptance Model is designed to apply to
computer usage behavior (Davis, Bagozzi, &Warshaw, 1989).
Behavioural Intention is a measure of the strength of one’s intention to use the
computer. Attitude is defined as an individual’s positive or negative feelings (evaluative
affect) about performing the target behaviour. Subjective norm refers to the person’s
perception that most people who are important to him think he should or should not
make the use of the computer (Fishbein&Ajzen, 1975).
Based on the belief–attitude–intention–behaviour relationship from Fishbein and
Ajzen (1975), Davis proposed TAM for explaining and predicting user acceptance of
system. The major contribution of TAM is to measure development with two key beliefs:
perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use. Davis (1989) defined perceived
usefulness as ‘‘the degree to which individual’s believes that using a particular system
would enhance his or her job performance,’’ and perceived ease of use as, ‘‘the degree
to which individual’s believes that using a system would be free of effort’’.
Figure 2: Technology Adoption Model, Source: Technology Acceptance Model (Adapted
from Davis, Bagozzi, & Warsaw, 1989).
Technology Acceptance Model suggests that when users are presented with a
new technology, a number of factors influence the decision about how and when it will
be used. According to its theoretical postulates in figure 5, system usage is determined
by individual behavioural intention to use a system; these are jointly determined by
individual attitude toward a system use and perceived usefulness. Studies demonstrated
that perceived usefulness was positively related to behavioural intention to use a
system. However, some studies found that both perceived usefulness and perceived
ease of use are positively related to behavioural intentions to use a system (Davis,
Bagozzi& Warsaw, 1989). It is believes that a specific technology will increase the
individual performance.
TAM perceived usefulness and ease of use are directly determined by external
variables, as the external variables pertain to user characteristic and system
characteristic. Technology Acceptance Model also suggests the attitude that would be a
direct predictor of the intention to use technology as it can also predict the actual usage
of the system. Perceived ease of use (expectation that a technology requires minimum
effort) and perceived usefulness (perception that the use of a technology can enhance
performance of a task at hand) would determine the users intention to use a
technology. Technology Acceptance Model is an intention-based model developed for
explaining user acceptance of computer technology (Hu, Chau, Sheng, & Tam, 1999).
Perceived usefulness is the major determinant of individual intentions to use a system,
while perceived ease of use is a secondary determinant. Overall, TAM is superior to
Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) in predicting the user behavior of a system.
Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) is tailored to study the user acceptance of
computer technology. It has been applied across different user populations and a broad
range of end-user computing technologies, and it has been empirically approved to be a
strong model for studying user acceptance of computer-based test. TAM is easier to
apply when predicting computer usage. Therefore TAM is used as the main theory in
this study, however by the way of modification a construct (perceived credibility) is
added to it in this study. TAM is used in this study for the acceptance of the computer
as an assessment mode of testing students in Nigerian Universities which is known as
computer-based test. The Technology Acceptance Model has received great attention in
the information technology and information systems literature (Davis, 1989; Davis,
Bagozzi, & Warsaw, 1989). TAM is also considered because TAM traced the impact of
external variables on perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use and perceived
credibility.
This present study modified Technology Acceptance Model (TAM). This study
was done in the light of the need to determine lecturers and students perceived
usefulness; ease of use and credibility of computer-based test. There are studies in the
information science literature based on Technology Acceptance Model, which empirically
identify and validate various individual and technological factors associated with a
person's intention to use new information technology in many different contexts.
According to Venkatesh (2000), TAM has a predictive power that makes it easy to apply
to different situations. Though TAM has been extensively tested and validated among
users of technology but research on its application in the field of education is limited.
TAM has many limitations; some of the most common limitations of TAM have
been the lack of actionable guidance to practitioners, relatively low explanatory power
which has been attributed to not taking into account many influential factors especially
potential moderating variables ( Lee, Kozar& Larsen, 2003; Zhang, 2009). Lee et. al.
(2003) concluded that most of the studies that made use TAM have been conducted in
voluntary system usage environment, when in real life settings most organizations
usually require users to use the system available with little choice for alternatives.
Despite the limitations of TAM, few studies have expanded it beyond simply testing.
Slight differences in terms of relationships among the constructs were revealed. The
TAM2 was an expansion of the TAM, adding some additional determinants of perceived
usefulness and perceived ease of use (Venkatesh& Morris, 2000). Also the Unified
Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) was an expansion of TAM
(Venkatesh& Davies, 2000). Researchers like Agarwal& Prasad, (1999) and
Riemenschneider, Harrison, Jr., (2003) in their studies on users’ acceptance toward
various technology applications such as the Graphic User Interface and World Wide
Web have done so to suit the context of their studies. Studies like Vankatesh and
Davies (2000) have attempted to extend the Technology Acceptance Model.
Park, Son, Kim, (2012) argued that there are other factors that influence
successful implementation of a system use as researcher have to choose further
appropriate measures based on the objective of the study. Based on this argument,
appropriate measure of technology use was added to Technology Acceptance model to
capture the occurrence in the study, namely lecturers and students perceptions of
computer-based test in Nigerian universities. Perceived credibility was added to the
construct based on the fact that it is positively related to the use of computer-based
test (Tan &Teo; 2000; Bobbitt &Dabholkar, 2001; Gerrard& Cunningham, 2003).
Pikkarainen, Pikkarainen, Karjaluoto and Pahnila (2004) pointed out that perceived
credibility is needed to be considered to investigate the usefulness and ease of CBT.
Technology Acceptance Model includes “attitude to use and behavioural intention
to use”. In this study, attitudes to use and behavioral intention from the original
Technology Acceptance Model were excluded because the study focused on perceptions
of the users and not the attitude to use and behavioural intention to use CBT. Based on
Davis et al. (1989) Technology Acceptance Model, a research model for this study is
developed as shown in figures 3 and 4
Figure 3: Conceptual Model forLecturers Perception of CBT
Figure 4: Conceptual Model forStudents Perceptionof CBT
In this study, the independent variables are perceived usefulness, perceived ease
of use and perceived credibility. The intervening variables on the other hand are
gender, area of specialization and field of study. In the application of Technology
Acceptance Model developed by Davis et al. (1989), the constructs identified by TAM
and the additional ones by the researcher are defined below:
Perceived usefulness:This is taken directly fromDavis, et al. (1989) and refers to
a positive attitude to a system, so that the person will want to use the system again
(Davis, 1989, P 279). The importance of perceived usefulness has been widely
recognized in the field of education as regard testing of student. The usefulness of
computer- based test in this study was determined by how effective and productive the
system is when it comes to examination environment and control over examination.
Perceived ease of use:This is also taken directly fromDavis et al. (1989) and
refers to the degree to which an individual believes that using a system would be free
from effort. The easier users perceive the computer-based test to be, the more they
tend to form positive attitudes toward using the computer-based test in some form in
the future, or using it continuously. The perceived ease of use is measured by its
convenience, timeliness and access.
Perceived credibility (added variable):This is concerned with the confidence and
consequences associated with a user’s actions. Perceived credibility is the degree to
which users feel the certainty and pleasant consequences of using computer-based test.
This can be measured by the perception of users (lecturers and students) in terms of
the outcome of using computer-based test.
Conclusion
The study proposed model tested the perceived usefulness, ease of use and
credibility based on the external variable (gender, area of specialization and field of
study). In light of this, the study discovered that the usefulness, ease of use and
credibility are important in the’ use of computer-based test in Nigerian universities as
perceived usefulness, easy to use and credibility depend on each other and plays an
important role in the use of computer-based test.
The modification led to the introduction of variables such as gender, area of
specialization and field of study as external variables. Perceived credibility was also
added to reflect the perception of computer-based test in an educational setting. See
figure 5
Area of
Specialization
Figure 5: Computer-Based Test Perception Model: A modification of Technology
Acceptance Model.
References
Agarwal, R. & Prasad, J. (1999). Are individual differences germane to the acceptance
of new information technologies? Decision Sciences, 30(2), 361–391.
Bagozzi, R., Wong, N., Abe, S., &Bergami, M. (2000). Cultural and situational
contingencies and the theory of reasoned action: Application to fast food
restaurant consumption. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 9(2), 97-107.
Bobbitt, L. M., &Dabholkar, P. A. (2001). Integrating attitudinal theories to understand
and predict use of technology-based self-service: the internet as an illustration.
International Journal of Service Industry Management, 12(5), 423-450.
Davies, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., &Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance of
computertechnology: a comparison of two theoretical models. Management
Science, 35(8),982-1003.
Fishbein, M. &Ajzen, I. (1975).Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: an introduction
to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Gerrard, P. & Cunningham, B. J. (2003).The diffusion of internet banking
amongSingaporeconsumers.International Journal of Bank Marketing, 21(1), 1628.
Hu, P. J, Chau P. Y. K, Sheng O. R. L, Tam K. Y (1999). Examining The Technology
Acceptance
Model
using
Physician
Acceptance
Oftele
Medicine
Technology.Journal of Information System. 16(2), 91-112.
Lee, Y., Kozar, K. A., & Larsen, K. R. (2003). The Technology Acceptance Model: Past,
Present, and Future. Communications of the Association for Information
Systems, 12(50), 752-780.
Nurcan, A. (2010). Identifying factors that affect students' acceptance of web-based
assessment tools within the context of higher education.M.Sc Dissertation.Midlle
East Technical University.Retrieved from Middle East Technical University Digital
Thesis.
Park, Y., Son, H., & Kim, C. (2012).Investigating the determinants of construction
professionals' acceptance of web-based training: An extension of the technology
acceptance model. Automation in Construction, 22, 377-386.
Pikkarainen, T., Pikkarainen, K., Karjaluoto, H., &Pahnila, S. (2004). Consumer
acceptance of online banking: an extension of the technology acceptance model.
Internet Research: Electronic Networking Applications and Policy, 14 (3), 224235.
Riemenschneider, C.K., Harrison, D.A., and Jr, P. P. M (2003).Understanding IT
Adoption Decisions in Small Business: Integrating current theories.Information&
Management, 40 (4), 269-285.
Tan, M., &Teo, T. S. H. (2000).Factors influencing the adoption of internet
banking.Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 1(5), 22-38.
Teo, T. (2009). Pre-service teachers’ attitudes towards computer use: A Singapore
survey. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 24(4), 413-424.
Terzis, V., & Economides, A. A. (2011). The acceptance and use of computer based
assessment. Computers & Education, 56(4), 1032–1044
Vankatesh, A., & Morris, M. G. (2000). Why don't men ever stop to ask for directions?
gender, social influence, and their role in technology acceptance and usage
behavior. MIS Quarterly, 24(1), 115-139.
Vankatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology
acceptance model: four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2),
186-205.
Vankatesh, V. (2000). Determinants of perceived ease of use: integrating control,
intrinsic motivation, and emotion into the technology acceptance model.
Information Systems Research, 4(4), 342-365.
Yi, M. Y. & Hwang, Y. (2003).Predicting the use of web-based information systems:
Self-efficacy, enjoyment, learning goal orientation, and the technology
acceptance model.International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 59, 431449.