Students' Acceptance

7/28/2019 Students' Acceptance

1/21

A Model of Business SchoolStudents Acceptance of

a Web-Based CourseManagement System

LUIS L. MARTINS

Georgia Institute of Technology

FRANZ WILLI KELLERMANNS

Mississippi State University

As business schools increasingly seek to incorporate Web-based information and

communication technologies into the instructional process, there is a need for rigorousresearch into the factors affecting the successful integration of these technologies into

management education. A key factor identified in prior management education research

as critical to the successful implementation of such instructional technologies is student

acceptance. We use the literatures on management education, technology acceptance,

and change implementation to develop and test a model predicting business school

students acceptance of a Web-based course management system. Arguing that such a

system which transitions traditional course-management processes to the Web constitutes

an instance of a process change, we examine the role played by various change-enabling

factors as well as change-motivating factors in students acceptance of the system. We

find that perceived incentive to use the system, perceived faculty encouragement to use

the system, and peer encouragement to use the system are positively related to perceived

usefulness of the system, which in turn is positively related to student acceptance of thesystem. We also find that awareness of the capabilities of the system, perceived

availability of technical support, and prior experience with computer and Web use are

positively related to perceived ease of use of the system, which in turn is positively

related to student acceptance of the system. Implications for management education

research and practice are discussed.........................................................................................................................................................................

One of the most significant trends in manage-ment education today is the incorporation of theworldwide Web (the Web) into the educationalprocess (Chen, Newman, Newman, & Rada, 1998;

Dillon, 2000; Dos Santos & Wright, 2001; Green &Gilbert, 1995; Ives & Jarvenpaa, 1996). Web-basedinstructional technologies present both threatsand opportunities for business schools. Thethreats come mainly in the form of potential skillobsolescence in the instructional techniques andtechnologies needed to educate an increasinglytechnology-savvy business school student popu-

lation, and from increased competition for stu-

dents from on-line universities offering manage-

ment programs (e.g., Bilimoria, 1997; Ives &

Jarvenpaa, 1996). The opportunities presented by

using the Web include the potential to leveragethe brand of a business school to reach students

beyond a certain geographic area through on-

line course offerings, the enhancement of tradi-

tional face-to-face courses by using the Web to

virtually extend the classroom experience, and

improvements in efficiency and student service

(e.g., Dos Santos & Wright, 2001; Parikh & Verma,

2002; Salmon, 2000). Thus, it is no surprise that

business schools have been investing heavily in

new Web-based instructional technologies (DosWe thank Allen Bluedorn and the anonymous reviewers for

their helpful comments on this article.

Academy of Management Learning and Education, 2004, Vol. 3, No. 1, 726.

........................................................................................................................................................................

7


2/21

Santos & Wright, 2001; Ives & Jarvenpaa, 1996;Leidner & Jarvenpaa, 1995; Shrivastava, 1999).

The Web has been incorporated into manage-ment education in two principal ways. First, many

business schools have started offering on-linecourses, in which all or most instruction is con-ducted over the Web. Second, business schools are

enhancing traditional classroom instruction usinga Web-based course management system (CMS),such as WebCT or Blackboard. A CMS is a col-lection of information and communication technol-ogies, including bulletin boards, chat rooms, con-tent repositories, e-mail, instant messaging, and

document-sharing systems, that together trans-form several paper-based, synchronous, and face-to-face instructional processes into paperless,asynchronous, on-line ones. The use of the Web foron-line management education has received themajority of research attention, primarily with theobjectives of comparing it to traditional manage-ment education (e.g., Alavi, 1994; Scifres, Gun-dersen, & Behara, 1998), and of understanding the

factors that lead to effective on-line instruction inmanagement courses (e.g., Arbaugh, 2000; Salmon,2000). However, a growing body of research is nowfocusing on the latter application, that of using aWeb-based course management system, with theobjective of advancing our understanding of thefactors that lead to successful implementation ofCMSs in traditional classroom-based managementcourses (e.g., Bilimoria, 1997; Human, Kilbourne,

Clark, Shriberg, & Cunningham, 1999; Jones & Rice,

2000; Meisel & Marx, 1999; Miesing, 1998; Parikh &Verma, 2002). Developing such an understanding isimportant because anecdotal and research evi-dence suggest that this latter form of incorporationof the Web into management education will likelybecome a dominant concern for management edu-cators at least in the near term (e.g., Cohen &Lippert, 1999; Dos Santos & Wright, 2001; Miesing,

1998; Parikh & Verma, 2002; Shrivastava, 1999).Management education researchers have found

that purely on-line instruction is a useful but insuf-ficient pedagogic tool for teaching the complex

interpersonal, conceptual, and analytical skillsthat form the core of a management education(e.g., Bigelow, 1999; Dos Santos & Wright, 2001;Miesing, 1998; Salmon, 2000; Scifres et al., 1998). Forexample, Cohen and Lippert (1999: 745) commented

that computer-based instruction may be useful forskills-based training but may not be useful forcreative-thinking instruction or general manage-ment education. Thus, several researchers havesuggested that rather than replacing traditionalwith on-line instruction, the benefits of both in-structional techniques could be realized through

mixed-mode instruction in which face-to-face in-struction is enhanced by using the Web (Bigelow,1999; Bilimoria, 1997; Dos Santos & Wright, 2001;Human et al., 1999; Miesing, 1998; Parikh & Verma,

2002; Salmon, 2000). Such a mixed mode of interac-tion usually consists of traditional classroom in-struction augmented by using a CMS that enables

students toamong other thingscontinue dis-cussion of course concepts and cases outside theclassroom using a bulletin board; conduct groupwork on-line through chat rooms; take tests on-line;and access taped lectures, handouts, assignments,records, and grades on-line (e.g., Bigelow, 1999;

Dos Santos & Wright, 2001; Fredickson, 1999; Shriv-astava, 1999).

Researchers have argued that management ed-ucation in particular, could benefit from the use ofsome of these technologies in conjunction withtraditional instructional methods (Bilimoria, 1997;Dos Santos & Wright, 2001: 53; Salmon, 2000). Trans-ferring administrative and purely informationalaspects of instruction to the CMS frees up class

time for students to work on interpersonal andcommunication skills, which are critical to successin a management career and which have beenfound to be best developed through face-to-faceinstructional methods (e.g., Bigelow, 1999; Dos San-tos & Wright, 2001; Scifres et al., 1998). The use of aCMS as a supplement to traditional managementcourses has also been found to increase studentsparticipation in discussion of cases and course

concepts and to lead to more thorough and higher

quality discussion than in traditional classroomsalone (Bilimoria, 1997; Dos Santos & Wright, 2001).Management education researchers have alsodemonstrated that by encouraging an active learn-ing process in which students communicate virtu-ally and asynchronously, the use of a CMS canhelp develop technological and communicationsskills that prepare students for computer-medi-

ated interaction in the workplace (Meisel & Marx,1999: 719). A CMS can also be used to reduce thenumber of in-class lectures and face-to-face groupmeetings in part-time and executive MBA courses,

which enroll a large percentage of the students inU.S. business schools (Dos Santos & Wright, 2001).

Whereas these potential benefits have gener-ated enthusiasm for using CMSs among businessschool administrators and some faculty, research-

ers have found mixed responses from studentsto their use in management courses (Arbaugh,2000; Bilimoria, 1997; Leidner & Jarvenpaa, 1995;Miesing, 1998; Salmon, 2000). For example, in re-porting findings of an experiment using a CMS topromote out-of-class discussion of concepts in abusiness ethics course, Miesing (1998: 763) la-

8 MarchAcademy of Management Learning and Education


3/21

mented, Students did not participate as greatly asI had hoped. My vision of eager students debatingoutside of class never materialized. A similar lackof students acceptance of Web-based enhance-

ments to management courses has been reportedby other researchers (e.g., Scifres et al., 1998). Onthe other hand, Bilimoria (1997) found a high de-

gree of student acceptance of a CMS in her re-quired MBA organizational behavior course, as didParikh and Verma (2002) in several undergraduatebusiness courses. Given the mixed findings on thisimportant success factor in the implementation ofa CMS, management education researchers have

called for more, and more theoretically grounded,research on the factors that affect student re-sponses to such systems in management courses(e.g., Arbaugh, 2000; Bilimoria, 1997; Miesing, 1998).

As with any implementation of a new informa-tion technology, student acceptance and use of aCMS are prerequisite to successful implementa-tion of such a system. The acceptance of a CMS bystudents is not a significant issue for purely on-

line courses, because the Web-based process isthe primary, and usually only, method of coursedelivery for such courses. However, in the case ofmixed-mode courses that use a CMS as a supple-ment to in-class instruction, students often havethe option of reverting to the face-to-face processthat the CMS is designed to replace. Thus, inmixed-mode courses, student acceptance of thesystem is critical to the successful transition or

extension of certain activities and processes to the

CMS, and thus to the successful incorporation ofthe Web into the educational experience (Arbaugh,2000; Fredickson, 1999; Lightfoot, 2000; Miesing,1998). Whereas use of a CMS could be simply man-dated by a course instructor, prior research on theuse of mandated information systems suggeststhat such an approach to implementation, whileproducing some use of the system, would likely not

lead to full utilization of its capabilities (Venkatesh& Davis, 2000). Thus, an implementation approachthat is focused on not just requiring use of a CMS,but also on generating students acceptance of the

system is likely to produce better overall resultsthan a simple mandate to use the system (Agarwal& Prasad, 1997; Hartwick & Barki, 1994; Venkatesh& Davis, 2000).

In this study, we develop and test a model of

student acceptance of a CMS which was imple-mented as a supplement to the traditional in-classcourse-delivery method in several managementcourses. In developing the model, we draw on theliteratures on management education, technologyacceptance, and organizational change. The coreof the research model is an application of the Tech-

nology Acceptance Model (TAM), which has beenused in prior research in management education(Arbaugh, 2000), and explains user acceptance ofan information system as a function of users per-

ceptions of usefulness and ease of use of the sys-tem (e.g., Agarwal & Prasad, 1997; Davis, 1989; Le-derer, Maupin, Sena, & Zhuang, 2000; Venkatesh &

Davis, 1996). We build on the TAM by using theliteratures on change implementation (e.g., Bikson,Gutek, & Mankin, 1987; Judson, 1991; Kotter, 1995)and on implementation of new instructional tech-nologies in management education (e.g., Arbaugh,2000; Bilimoria, 1997; Meisel & Marx, 1999; Miesing,

1998; Parikh & Verma, 2002; Salmon, 2000).With the strong push by business schools to in-

corporate the Web into their courses, managementeducation researchers as well as academic admin-istrators are seeking to develop an understandingof the factors that affect the successful implemen-tation of CMSs. Our study seeks to contribute tobuilding such an understanding by drawing onestablished research streams in the areas of man-

agement education, technology acceptance, andchange implementation, to develop and test amodel of students acceptance of such CMSs in amanagement education context. Thus, it answerscalls for theoretically grounded research into anoften-neglected or taken-for-granted aspect of suc-cessful implementation of Web-based instruc-tional technologies into management education,namely, student acceptance (e.g., Arbaugh, 2000;

Miesing, 1998; Parikh & Verma, 2002; Salmon, 2000).

The article proceeds as follows: In the next sectionwe develop our research model and hypotheses. Inthe following sections we discuss our researchmethodology and results. In the final section wediscuss our findings and their implications for fu-ture research and practice.

THEORY AND HYPOTHESES

In this section, we first derive predictions regard-ing students acceptance of a CMS based on theTAM. We then build on the TAM, using the litera-

tures on management education and change im-plementation, to derive our final research model.

The TAM and Student Acceptance of a CMS

We based our research model on the TAM becauseit is a well-accepted, theoretically grounded, gen-eral model of user acceptance of new informationtechnologies, which has also been used in priormanagement education research (Arbaugh, 2000).Originally proposed by Davis (1989) the TAM is anapplication of the theory of reasoned action (Fish-

2004 9Martins and Kellermanns


4/21

bein & Ajzen, 1975). It explains user acceptance of aninformation system as a function of two key userperceptions: the perceived usefulness of the systemand the perceived ease of its use (Davis, 1989; Davis,

Bagozzi, & Warshaw, 1989; Karahanna & Straub, 1999;Venkatesh & Davis, 1996). In TAM research, user ac-ceptance is defined as an interlinked combination of

a positive attitude toward the system, behavioralintention to use the system, and use of the system(Davis et al., 1989; Igbaria, 1993; Taylor & Todd,1995b). Of these variables, there is relative consis-tency in the definition and measurement of the lattertwo in the literature. However, the definition and

measurement of user attitude toward the systemtends to vary across studies, with the most commondefinition as user satisfaction with the system (Com-peau, Higgins, & Huff, 1999; Davis et al., 1989; Igbaria,1993). In this study, we conceptualize attitude towardthe system as a combination of student satisfactionwith the system and student preference for the sys-tem over the traditional instructional processes itreplaces. The additional dimension of attitude which

assesses student preference for the system capturesattitudes toward the system as a new process forconducting tasks relative to the traditional instruc-tional processes it replaces, that is, it captures atti-tude toward a CMS as a change of process. Becausea CMS transitions certain traditional instructionalprocesses to the Web, the extent to which users pre-fer the system to the processes it replaces is an im-portant aspect of attitude toward the system.

According to the TAM, greater perceived useful-

ness and perceived ease of use of a system lead tomore favorable attitude toward the system, whichleads to greater behavioral intention to use the sys-tem, which in turn results in greater use of the sys-tem (Adams, Nelson, & Todd, 1992; Davis et al., 1989;Lin & Lu, 2000; Szajna, 1996; Venkatesh & Davis, 2000).In addition, perceived ease of use of the system ispredicted to be positively related to perceived use-

fulness of the system. Of the links proposed in theTAM, prior research in management education hastested the relationships of perceived usefulness andease of use with student satisfaction in several on-

line MBA courses and found that student satisfactionwas positively related to perceived usefulness butnot related to ease of use (Arbaugh, 2000). Applyingthe TAM to the current context, we propose the fol-lowing hypotheses predicting student acceptance of

a CMS:Hypothesis 1: Perceived usefulness of a CMS will be

positively related to a students atti-

tude toward the system.

Hypothesis 2: Perceived ease of use of a CMS will be

positively related to a students atti-

tude toward the system.

Hypothesis 3: A students attitude toward a CMS will

be positively related to the students

intention to use the system.

Hypothesis 4: A students intention to use a CMS will

be positively related to the students

use of the system.

Hypothesis 5: Perceived ease of use of a CMS will be

positively related to perceived useful-ness of the system.

Change Management and Student Acceptance of

a CMS in a Management Education Context

As noted above, the two core predictors of accep-tance of a system in TAM research are perceivedusefulness and perceived ease of use of a system(Davis, 1989; Davis et al., 1989; Karahanna &Straub, 1999; Venkatesh & Davis, 1996). The TAMproposes that various external variables may in-fluence a users perceptions of the usefulness andease of use of a system (Davis et al., 1989). Re-search on such external variables has extended

the TAM using a variety of literatures, such asself-efficacy (e.g., Taylor & Todd, 1995b; Venkatesh& Davis, 1996); motivation (Venkatesh, 2000); demo-graphics (Gefen & Straub, 1997; Igbaria, 1993; Ven-katesh & Morris, 2000); and training (Al-Gahtani &King, 1999; Igbaria, 1993). In this study, we seek toextend the TAM using the literatures on manage-ment education and change implementation topredict students perceptions of the usefulness and

ease of use of a CMS in a management education

context. The introduction of a CMS migrates sometraditional instructional processes to a centralWeb-based system. Therefore, from a studentsperspective, such a system constitutes a change inthe instructional process. For example, a CMSchanges certain activities such as taking quizzesand discussing course topics from traditional in-class processes to Web-based processes. Thus, ex-

amining a new CMS as a process change is likelyto provide a fruitful avenue for extending the TAMto develop a model predicting students accep-tance of the system.

The literature on change implementation, in-cluding the literature on resistance to change, sug-gests that a change targets level of acceptance ofa change is a function of the targets motivationand ability to change (e.g., Kotter, 1995; Lewin,

1951). Thus, in this study we focused on changemotivating factors (change motivators) andchange enabling factors (change enablers) influ-encing student acceptance of a CMS. As we dis-cuss below, we propose that the change motivatorswill positively influence perceived usefulness of asystem and that the change enablers will posi-



5/21

tively influence perceived ease of use of the sys-tem, thus affecting user acceptance of the system.Our research model is presented in Figure 1.

In developing the research model, we incorpo-

rated prior research that has examined some of thechange motivators and enablers in the context ofimplementing new information technologies in

management education. Also, in selecting indica-tors of change motivators and enablers, we usedvariables that have been examined in previousstudies using the TAM (e.g., Taylor & Todd, 1995a;Venkatesh & Davis, 2000) and in other studies of

information systems implementation (e.g., Griffith,1996; Hartwick & Barki, 1994; Karahanna & Straub,1999; Taylor & Todd, 1995b; Venkatesh & Davis,2000) to provide ready linkages to the technology

implementation literature.

Change Motivators

The change implementation literature suggeststhat several extrinsic and intrinsic factors may mo-tivate change targets to accept a change. The ex-trinsic change motivators that are commonly stud-

FIGURE 1

Theoretical Model



6/21

ied are implicit and explicit coercion, supervisoryencouragement and support, and peer encourage-ment, along with user participation in the develop-ment of the change program (Bikson et al., 1987;

Goodman & Griffith, 1991; Griffith, 1996; Judson,1991; Kotter, 1995; Leidner & Jarvenpaa, 1995; Leo-nard-Barton & Deschamps, 1988; Leonard-Barton &

Kraus, 1985). However, of these variables, user par-ticipation is less relevant in our research contextbecause CMSs are developed by outside vendors,and was, therefore, excluded from the model. Weused perceived incentive to use the system (Com-peau et al., 1999; Henry & Stone, 1997), perceived

faculty encouragement to use the system (Igbaria,1993; Taylor & Todd, 1995b), and peer encourage-ment to use the system (Karahanna, Straub, &Chervany, 1999; Taylor & Todd, 1995b) as extrinsicmotivators affecting perceived usefulness of thesystem.

When a student perceives that using the systemwill have implications for his or her performancein a class, he or she will be likely to perceive the

system as being useful, and will show greater ac-ceptance of it. In keeping with this logic, manage-ment education researchers have suggested thatin implementing a CMS, it is important for instruc-tors to require a certain level of use of the CMS foractivities such as discussing cases on bulletinboards (Dos Santos & Wright, 2001). Also, becausestudents seek the approval of their instructors andpeers, perceived encouragement by their instructor

and peers to use a CMS functions as social persua-

sive information that may motivate students to per-ceive the system as useful and foster its accep-tance. This line of reasoning is consistent withprior research in management education that hasfound that greater instructor encouragement forstudent interaction in on-line MBA courses wasrelated to greater student satisfaction with thecourse (Arbaugh, 2000). Intrinsic factors motivating

change acceptance include expectations regard-ing the change and intrinsic interest in the change(Griffith, 1996; Jackson, Chow, & Leitch, 1997). Wecaptured these two constructs using a surrogate

construct assessing students awareness of the ca-pabilities of the CMS (Nambisan, Agarwal, & Tan-niru, 1999). Our reasoning was that such aware-ness of the systems capabilities would provideknowledge of its benefits over traditional pro-

cesses, thus highlighting the usefulness of the sys-tem. Consistent with this logic, prior research inmanagement education has found that once stu-dents have used it [i.e., a bulletin board, which is apart of a CMS], they pester faculty in other coursesto provide such a facility for their classes (DosSantos & Wright, 2001: 59).

Because the extrinsic motivators may affect sig-nificant outcomes of value to a student (e.g., per-formance in the course, or the instructors andpeers approval), and the intrinsic motivator may

drive the student to view the system as beneficial,we expect these motivators to positively affect astudents perceptions of the CMSs usefulness:

Hypothesis 6a: Perceived performance incentivesto use the CMS will be positively

related to a students perceived use-

fulness of the system.

Hypothesis 6b: Perceived faculty encouragement to

use the CMS will be positively re-

lated to a students perceived use-


Hypothesis 6c: Perceived peer encouragement to


lated to a students perceived use-


Hypothesis 6d: Awareness of the capabilities of the

CMS will be positively related to a

students perceived usefulness of

the system.

The implementation of a CMS in a course couldbe viewed as a case of mandatory system use. Inprior research, the TAM and the theory of reasonedaction have shown good predictive power in ex-plaining user acceptance in mandatory-use set-tings (e.g., Agarwal & Prasad, 1997; Hartwick &Barki, 1994; Venkatesh & Davis, 2000). This might beexpected because even if use of a system is man-

dated, individuals can still vary in the intensity

with which they use it. Venkatesh & Davis (2000)have shown that in mandatory-use settings, per-ceived social norms have a direct positive effect onusers attitude toward the system in addition totheir indirect effect through perceived usefulnessof the system. Applying this finding to the currentcontext, we expect that in our model perceivedpeer encouragement will have a direct positive

effect on a students attitude toward a CMS.Hypothesis 6e: Perceived peer encouragement to


lated to a students attitude toward

the system.

Change Enablers

The change implementation literature suggests

several factors that enable change targets to ac-cept a change, focusing on access to training andsupport, and access to tools necessary to operatein the changed contextincluding technology,ability, and skills (Bikson et al., 1987; Compeau &Higgins, 1995; Igbaria, Zinatelli, Cragg, &Cavayne, 1997; Judson, 1991; Lederer et al., 2000;



7/21

Nambisan et al., 1999; Webster & Hackley, 1997).Essentially, these change-enabling factors facili-tate user acceptance of a change by amelioratingresource-related and knowledge-related concerns

that change targets tend to be faced with when achange is implemented (e.g., Griffith, 1996; Kotter,1995). Therefore, in this research, we focused on

students ease of access to the system (e.g., Ledereret al., 2000) and the perceived availability of tech-nical support for the new system (e.g., Igbaria,1993; Igbaria et al., 1997) as change enablers ad-dressing students resource-related concerns; andon students prior experience with computer and

Web use (e.g., Agarwal & Prasad, 1999; Jackson etal., 1997) and students perceived self-efficacy inusing the Web (e.g., Compeau et al., 1999; Torkza-deh & Koufteros, 1994) as change enablers address-ing students knowledge-related concerns.

When a change is implemented, resource sup-ports of change targets have been found to in-crease their ease of operating in a changed context(Griffith, 1996; Judson, 1991; Leonard-Barton &

Deschamps, 1988), which in the current case is easeof use of a new CMS. Prior information systemsresearch suggests that ready access to a new sys-tem and the availability of technical support to aidusers in using the new system are important re-source-supports that may enhance users per-ceived ease of use of the system (Igbaria et al.,1997; Lederer et al., 2000; Thompson, Higgins, &Howell, 1991). Similarly, prior research in manage-

ment education suggests that lack of access to the

right technology to appropriately utilize a CMSmay inhibit acceptance of the system (Miesing,1998), and that for a CMS to be successful, it isimportant to provide students with easy access tothe necessary technology and training (Bilimoria,1997; Dos Santos & Wright, 2001; Human et al.,1999).

A major concern that influences change targets

acceptance of a change is uncertainty about theirknowledge and competencies for functioning inthe changed context, which in the current case iscompetency in using a CMS. Prior research on in-

formation system implementation suggests that inthe absence of system specific experience, usersprior experience with information technology andtheir perceptions of competence or self-efficacy inusing information technology in general are im-

portant knowledge-related variables affecting per-ceived ease of use of a new system (Compeau &Higgins, 1995; Igbaria, 1993; Venkatesh, 2000; Ven-katesh & Davis, 1996). Similarly, prior research onmanagement education suggests that poor facilitywith the Web may cause students difficulties inusing a CMS (Miesing, 1998; Salmon, 2000). There-

fore, we propose that the greater a students priorexperience in using computers and the Web andthe greater a students perceived self-efficacy inusing the Web, the greater will be his or her per-

ceived ease of use of a CMS:Hypothesis 7a: A students access to the CMS will

be positively related to the stu-

dents perceived ease of use of thesystem.

Hypothesis 7b: The perceived availability of tech-

nical support for the CMS will be

positively related to a students per-

ceived ease of use of the system.

Hypothesis 7c: The extent of a students prior expe-

rience with using computers and

the Web will be positively related to

a students perceived ease of use of

the CMS.

Hypothesis 7d: A students perceived self-efficacy

with using the Web will be posi-

tively related to the students per-

ceived ease of use of the CMS.

METHOD

The CMS we focused on was WebCT, which is inwide use at universities and other educational or-ganizations throughout the United States and inseveral other countries. Using this system, stu-dents can access course materials and assign-ments, take tests or quizzes, access the course syl-

labus, participate in discussion groups, and send

private messages to other course participants. Stu-dents can also access the university library, theoffice of the registrar, and semester grade reports.If the instructor subscribes to supplemental coursepackages, the student can access them for a fee.WebCT also provides access to other resourcessuch as job or internship information, graduateschool information, and financial aid information.

Instructors can manage student records and postcourse materials on-line, moderate on-line discus-sions and chats, add links to Web pages, or evenset up conferences for the students to interview

experts. In addition, the system enables instructorsto monitor a variety of metrics such as the extent towhich a student participates in on-line discussions(for a detailed description of the WebCT CMSplease visit www.webct.com).

Sample

Data for the study were collected using a question-naire survey administered in class to 243 studentsregistered in nine business courses at a large uni-versity located in the northeastern United States.



8/21

Instructors for all courses surveyed required stu-dents to use WebCT to obtain course material(e.g., readings and slides), and access course as-signments and grade information. In addition to

these required uses, all instructors indicated thatthey encouraged (but did not require) students touse the other functions of WebCT, including post-

ing comments on discussion lists. All instructorswere early adopters of WebCT at the businessschool in which the study was conducted. Thesame facilitator administered the survey in allcourses. Respondents were instructed not to fill outthe survey if they had already filled it out in an-

other course (there were four such cases). We ad-ministered the survey in April 2001, one monthbefore the end of the spring semester. To avoidtime effects, we administered the survey within thesame week and only in courses that did not havean exam in the prior week, which might have af-fected use of WebCT.

Measures

We measured most constructs in the researchmodel using adapted versions of previously vali-dated scales and constructed measurement scalesfor constructs that we could not find existing mea-sures for in the literature. We assessed all mea-sures for content validity using expert judges andfor internal validity using a pilot study (Kerlinger,1986). We modified problematic items as neces-

sary. Factor and reliability analyses on the final

measures used indicated that all measurementscales demonstrated strong internal validity(Cronbachs alpha .80 for all scales). A list ofitems and the Cronbachs alpha for each scale arepresented in Appendix A. Except where noted, allitems were measured using 7-point Likert-typescales.

Perceived Usefulness and Ease of Use

We measured perceived usefulness of the system

and perceived ease of use of the system using

scales developed by Davis (Davis et al., 1989).These scales have been validated in numerousstudies on the TAM (e.g., Venkatesh, 2000).

Student Acceptance of the System

We measured student attitude toward the system

as a composite scale made up of two subscales:satisfaction with the system and preference for thesystem over the traditional process. As discussedabove, we used this expanded conception of userattitude toward an information system to address

the concern expressed in prior research that usersatisfaction with a system alone is not an ade-quate assessment of attitude toward the system(Al-Gahtani & King, 1999; Melone, 1990). We mea-

sured satisfaction with the system by modifyingfive items from the computer attitude scale (Loyd &Gressard, 1984). We developed a new 7-item mea-

surement scale of preference for the system overthe traditional process, based on input from 40students using WebCT, who were not partici-pants in the study. We used expert judges familiarwith TAM research to assess content validity of thescale and assessed the internal validity of the

scale in a pilot study of 25 students (Kerlinger,1986). Based on feedback from the expert judgesand on the pilot test, we re-worded and deleteditems as necessary to arrive at the final scale.

We measured students intention to use the sys-tem using a 4-item scale comprised of items usedin prior research (Davis et al., 1989; Taylor & Todd,1995b; Venkatesh & Davis, 1996). To measure use of

the system, we asked respondents to self-report the

number of hours they used WebCT in an averageweek (e.g., Adams et al., 1992; Compeau et al., 1999;Davis, 1989). We acknowledge possible problemswith self-reports of use of a system (Straub, Li-mayem, & Krahnna-Evaristo, 1995), but self-reportmeasures have been found in past research to cor-relate highly with actual usage (Taylor & Todd,1995b). Due to a skewed distribution, the measureof use of the system was log-transformed.

Change Motivators

The scale measuringperceived incentive to use thesystem, which assessed a students belief that useof WebCT would influence his or her grade, wasadapted from measures used by Henry and Stone(1997) and Compeau and Higgins (1995) to assess

user perceptions of rewards from using an infor-mation system. Perceived faculty encouragementto use the system was measured using itemsadapted from studies by Taylor and Todd (1995b)

and Igbaria (1990). It assesses the extent to which astudent perceives encouragement to use WebCT

from his or her course instructor. Peer encourage-ment to use the system was measured using ascale adapted from a study by Taylor and Todd

(1995b). It assesses the extent to which the respon-dent felt encouraged by fellow students to useWebCT. Awareness of the capabilities of the sys-tem was measured using items adapted from astudy by Nambisan, Agarwal, and Tanniru (1999).This assesses the extent to which a student isaware of the various functions of WebCT.



9/21

Change Enablers

We measured access to the system by using four

items informed by a scale used by Lederer and

colleagues (2000), to assess the extent to which the

student had easy and high-speed access to the

Web. Perceived availability of technical support

was measured using four items adapted from stud-

ies by Igbaria and colleagues (1997) and Thompson

and colleagues (1991). This assesses the extent to

which a student perceives the university as provid-

ing students with training, help, and support in

using WebCT. In order to measure prior experi-

ence with computer and Web use, we asked stu-

dents to report the extent of their use of applica-

tions such as Microsoft Word and PowerPoint,

as well as the extent of their use of the Web and

e-mail. We modified the items used from studies

by Igbaria (1990, 1993) to adapt them to the Web-

based setting. The scale measuring perceived self-

efficacy in using the Web was adapted from a

measure developed by Compeau and Higgins

(1991, 1995). It assesses students self-efficacy in

using the Web.

Post Hoc Testing for Common Method

Variance Effects

Because the data for the independent and depen-

dent variables in the model were obtained from a

single source, we tested for common method vari-

ance using the post hoc analysis suggested by

Podsakoff and Organ (1986). The logic of this test

suggests that if there is a relationship among two

or more variables, a factor analysis should yield a

single method factor when items measuring all

variables are entered together (Podsakoff & Organ,

1986). The factor analysis indicated 12 factors with

eigenvalues greater than 1. The first factor ac-

counted for 27.6% of the variance, while all factors

together accounted for 75.8%. Because a single fac-

tor did not emerge, we concluded that common

method variance is not a significant problem in our

tests of hypotheses (Podsakoff & Organ, 1986).

RESULTS

We analyzed the data using AMOS 4.0 and SPSS

10.0 and used structural equation modeling with

maximum likelihood estimation to test our hypoth-

eses. Table 1 presents descriptive statistics and

correlations for the variables in the research

model.

The Measurement Model

The measurement model represents a confirmatoryfactor analysis of all scales used in the study.Values that exceed .90 for normed comparative fitindex (NFI) and comparative fit index (CFI) aregenerally considered to indicate acceptable fit.Our model had an initial 2 2546 and showed a

very good fit with a NFI of .943 and CFI of .971. Theroot mean square error of approximation (RMSEA)for the model was .063, which is below the .08cut-off for indicating good fit (Hu & Bentler, 1995;Mulaik, James, Alstine, Bennett, Ling, & Stilwell,1989). Also, the 2/df ratio was 1.958 (p 0.001),which is well below the suggested 3.0 value, indi-cating a good fit (Kline, 1998). Overall, our mea-surement model indicated very good fit with thedata.

Due to the multidimensionality of the latent vari-able assessing attitude, loading all single indica-

tors of the subscales measuring satisfaction andpreference for the system onto a single latent vari-able is problematic (MacCallum & Austin, 2000).We therefore created two parcels consisting of themeans of the multiple items that identified the twosubscales, which then served as indicators of thelatent variable assessing attitude (Kishton &

Widaman, 1994). The standardized factor loadingsfrom the confirmatory factor analysis are reportedin Appendix A. All standardized factor loadingswere greater than or equal to .45, indicating thatall loadings were significant (Hair, Anderson,

Tatham, & Black, 1995).

The Structural Model

The results of our structural equation modeling arepresented in Figure 2 and Table 2. Figure 2 showsthe standardized path coefficients for the relation-ships in our final model as well as the variance

explained for each dependent variable in themodel. Table 2 reports the standardized path coef-ficients that we used to assess support for ourhypotheses. The initial structural model showed

that not all predicted paths were significant. Fur-thermore, two paths showed loadings that our re-search model did not predict. Therefore, we re-specified our hypothesized model. Figure 2 depictsthe hypothesized paths that were found to be sig-

nificant as well as the additional significant pathswe found in the process of model re-specification.

The results of the structural equation modelingindicate strong support for our hypotheses derivedfrom the TAM to predict student acceptance of aCMS. All paths reported are significant at p 0.05with critical ratios 1.96. Perceived usefulness



10/21

of the system and perceived ease of use of thesystem were significantly positively related to stu-dents attitudes toward the system, thus support-ing Hypotheses 1 and 2. Further, as predicted inHypothesis 3, a students attitude toward the sys-tem was positively related to his or her intention touse the system. Intention to use the system was inturn significantly positively related to a students

reported use of the system, thus supportingHypothesis 4. Also, perceived ease of use of thesystem was significantly positively related toperceived usefulness of the system, indicating

support for Hypothesis 5.The results largely support our hypotheses derived

from the change implementation and managementeducation literatures to predict students perceptionsregarding the usefulness and ease of use of a CMS in

business courses. The predicted relationships be-tween the change motivating factors and perceivedusefulness of the system were mostly supported.Specifically, perceived incentive to use the system,perceived faculty encouragement to use the system,and peer encouragement to use the system were allsignificantly positively related to a students per-

ceived usefulness of the CMS, indicating support forHypotheses 6a, 6b, and 6c. However, Hypothesis 6d,which predicted that a students level of awarenessof the capabilities of the system would be positivelyrelated to his or her perceived usefulness of the sys-tem, was not supported. The variable assessing levelof awareness of the capabilities of the system did notload significantly on perceived usefulness of the sys-

tem; instead, as our final model indicates (Figure 2),it loaded significantly on perceived ease of use of thesystem. Peer encouragement to use the system waspositively related to students attitude toward the

system, thereby supporting Hypothesis 6e. We alsofound a relationship between a change motivatingfactor and a variable from the TAM, that we did nothypothesize in our model. Perceived incentive to usethe system was significantly positively related to a

students intention to use the system.The predicted relationships between the change-

enabling factors and perceived ease of use of thesystem were partially supported. Availability oftechnical support and prior experience with com-puter and Web use were significantly positivelyrelated to perceived ease of use of the CMS. Thus,

TABLE 1

Descriptive Statistics and Correlations (N 243)

Variables M SD 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13.

1. Incentives to

use the

system

4.36 1.69

2. Facultyencouragement 5.02 1.22 0.20

3. Peer

encouragement

4.39 1.28 0.09 0.31

4. Awareness of

capabilities

3.83 1.45 0.14 0.19 0.14

5. Availability

of technical

support

3.98 1.36 0.10 0.51 0.29 0.39

6. Access to the

system

5.72 1.21 0.05 0.12 0.13 0.23 0.12

7. Self-efficacy 5.69 1.11 0.02 0.04 0.01 0.29 0.11 0.38

8. Prior

experience

with

computer

25.18 3.50 0.01 0.04 0.07 0.08 0.00 0.31 0.42

9. Perceived

ease of use

5.70 0.89 0.06 0.25 0.42 0.26 0.25 0.21 0.18 0.18

10. Perceived

usefulness

5.01 1.30 0.32 0.39 0.53 0.17 0.26 0.10 0.06 0.06 0.49

11. Satisfaction 5.04 1.41 0.09 0.26 0.60 0.20 0.22 0.15 0.07 0.15 0.65 0.60

12. Preference for

system

4.47 1.37 0.02 0.28 0.55 0.21 0.30 0.21 0.04 0.07 0.40 0.44 0.57

13. Intention to

use

4.80 1.58 0.21 0.20 0.55 0.09 0.16 0.11 0.06 0.05 0.43 0.49 0.61 0.37

14. System use 5.37 1.63 0.08 0.24 0.35 0.21 0.19 0.04 0.02 0.09 0.18 0.26 0.27 0.30 0.37

Correlations 0.13 are significant at p .05.



11/21

Hypotheses 7b and 7c were supported. However,access to the system and self-efficacy in using theWeb did not load onto perceived ease of use of theCMS, indicating a lack of support for Hypotheses7a and 7d.

Overall, our final model shows a very good fit

with 2 2243, CFI of .965, NFI of .940, relative fitindex (RFI) of .933, incremental index of fit (IFI) of.965, Tucker-Lewis index (TLI) of .961, RMSEA of .073

with a 90% confidence interval

(.069; .077), and a2/dfratio of 2.296 (p 0.001). All fit indices indicate

good-to-superior fit of this model (Hu & Bentler,1995; Mulaik et al., 1989).

DISCUSSION

As business schools invest large sums in newWeb-based instructional technologies, there is aneed for research on the factors affecting the suc-cessful integration of these technologies into man-agement education (Arbaugh, 2000; Bilimoria, 1997;

Ives & Jarvenpaa, 1996; Leidner & Jarvenpaa, 1995;Miesing, 1998; Salmon, 2000; Shrivastava, 1999).Thus, in this study we developed and tested amodel combining the technology acceptancemodel and the literature on change implementa-tion to understand student acceptance of a CMS in

a management education context. Consistent withour hypotheses, we found that change-motivatingfactors led to greater perceived usefulness of the

system and change-enabling factors led to greaterperceived ease of use of the system. Perceivedusefulness and ease of use of the system werepositively related to student acceptance of thesystem.

Among the effects of the change motivators, we

found that students were more likely to perceivea new CMS as useful when they perceivedgreater performance incentives to use the sys-tem, greater faculty encouragement to use thesystem, and greater peer encouragement to usethe system. These findings suggest that students

FIGURE 2

Final Model



12/21

are strongly influenced by perceived perfor-mance consequences and by social influencesfrom their instructors and their peers in assess-ing the usefulness of a new CMS. The perfor-mance consequences are to be expected, giventhat some use of the system was mandated in

this context, and they validate suggestions in the

management education literature that instruc-tors should provide students with performanceincentives to use a CMS (e.g., Dos Santos &Wright, 2001; Jones & Rice, 2000). In the case ofthe social influence of instructors, our findingpoints to the important role played by authorityfigures in influencing perceptions of a new infor-mation system by users in general (Igbaria, 1990;

Taylor & Todd, 1995b), and in management edu-cation in particular (Jones & Rice, 2000). The find-ing also reinforces calls by management educa-tion researchers for instructors to become

champions of new instructional technologies(e.g., Bigelow, 1999; Bilimoria, 1997; Dos Santos &Wright, 2001; Salmon, 2000; Shrivastava, 1999).

Peer encouragement was a strong predictor of per-ceived usefulness of the system, and a very strong

predictor of attitude toward the system indicatingthat students are influenced strongly by what theirpeers think in their assessments of a new CMS. Infact, students may be even more susceptible to peerencouragement than people in corporate settings,where also peer encouragement has been found tohave a strong effect on user attitude toward a system

(Venkatesh & Davis, 2000). Our findings suggest that

incorporating social group processes such as peer

social influence can help expand understanding of

factors affecting successful implementation of in-

structional technologies in management education.

The fourth motivating factor we examined,

namely, a students awareness of the capabilities

of the system, did not load onto perceived useful-

ness of the system, and instead loaded onto per-

ceived ease of use of the system. This finding is

somewhat different than anecdotal reports in man-

agement education research that experience with

using a system leads to greater enthusiasm for the

system on the part of students (e.g., Bilimoria, 1997;

Dos Santos & Wright, 2001). The finding that aware-

ness of the capabilities of the system functions as

an enabler rather than a motivator of student ac-

ceptance of the system suggests that awareness of

the capabilities of a system does not in itself make

students perceive the system as useful. Even

though they may know what a system does, they

may need convincing regarding the utility of the

system for conducting the processes that the sys-

tem enables. We also found that perceived perfor-

mance incentives to use the system had a direct

effect on intention to use the system. This finding

may be a consequence of the partially mandated

nature of the system and is consistent with the

finding in management education research that

some students use a CMS if required to do so

TABLE 2

Summary of Hypotheses

Hypothesis

Standardized Path Coefficients

for Final Model

H1: PU 3 Attitude toward the system .25

H2: PEOU 3 Attitude toward the system .48

H3: Attitude toward the system3

Intentions to use the system .68H4: Intentions to use the system 3 Usage .39

H5: PEOU 3 PU .28

H6a: Perceived incentives 3 PU .25

H6b: Faculty encouragement 3 PU .22

H6c: Peer encouragement 3 PU .38

H6d: Awareness of capabilities 3 PU Not supported

H6e: Peer encouragement 3 Attitude toward the system .53

H7a: Access to system 3 PEOU Not supported

H7b: Availability of technical support 3 PEOU .17

H7c: Prior experience with computer 3 PEOU .18

H7d: Self-efficacy 3 PEOU Not supported

Significant, but unhypothesized paths

Awareness of capabilities 3 PEOU .32

Perceived incentives 3 Intentions to use the system .17

Note. PU Perceived Usefulness; PEOU Perceived Ease of Use. All significant paths are significant at p 0.05 with critical

ratios 1.96.



13/21

regardless of their attitude toward the system(Miesing, 1998: 763).

Of the four change-enabling factors we pre-dicted would influence students perceived ease of

use of the system, only two were significant in thefinal model. Students were more likely to perceivethe system to be easy to use if they believed that

there was adequate technical support availablewhen they needed help with the system, and ifthey had greater prior experience in using comput-ers and the Web. Although management educationresearchers have not extensively discussed the is-sue of providing training in the use of a CMS

(Salmon, 2000; Warren & Rada, 1998), our findingssuggest that when a new CMS is implemented, it isimportant to make the users aware of the helpavailable with difficulties in using the system. An-ecdotal evidence from the management educationliterature suggests that students request technicalsupport (Miesing, 1998) and cite lack of such sup-port as a drawback in using a CMS (Salmon, 2000).The finding that prior experience in using comput-

ers and the Web led to greater perceived ease ofuse of the CMS is to be expected, given that theskills required to use such a system do not differvery much from those gained through general com-puter and Web use, and is consistent with priorresearch in management education (e.g., Human etal., 1999). It should be noted that prior researchsuggests that experience with computer use ismore likely to be a strong antecedent of perceived

ease of use in the early stages of the use of a new

information system, and that its effect diminishesover time (Venkatesh, 2000; Venkatesh & Davis,1996).

We did not find significant effects of access to thesystem and perceived self-efficacy in using the Webon perceived ease of use of the system. These non-findings were somewhat surprising, because Igbariaand Iivari (1995) have shown self-efficacy to have a

strong direct effect on perceived ease of use in priorstudies. However, some of these studies (e.g., Igbaria& Iivari, 1995) were conducted in corporate settingswith the average age of employees at 39 years. In our

sample the average age was 22 years, representing ageneration that has had significantly more accessand exposure to computers and the Web than previ-ous generations. Indeed the means of these two con-structs are high (see Table 1), possibly indicating

that access to the system and self-efficacy in usingthe Web are not serious concerns for the respondentsin our sample, and restricting the range on the vari-ables. Consistent with this reasoning, researchersexamining the implementation of advanced informa-tion technologies in management education havenoted that student access to and competence in us-

ing the technologies is usually not a significant prob-lem in the implementation process (e.g., Bilimoria,1997; Human et al., 1999; Ives & Jarvenpaa, 1996).

We found strong support for the basic TAM por-

tion of our research model. Perceived usefulnessand ease of use were both significantly related toattitude toward the system, which in turn was pos-

itively related to intention to use the system, whichwas positively related to use of the system. There-fore, our study adds to the growing body of evi-dence that confirms the predictive power of theTAM in nonvoluntary use settings (e.g., Venkatesh& Davis, 2000), for Web-based systems in general

(e.g., Lederer et al., 2000), and for Web-based sys-tems in management education (Arbaugh, 2000).

Limitations, Contributions to Research, and

Implications for Practice

In interpreting the findings of this study, readersmust keep a few of its limitations in mind. One isthat we used a cross-sectional measurement

method, thus reducing our ability to claim tempo-ral causality in the model. Although much of theresearch based on the TAM uses cross-sectionaldata, a longitudinal data collection method wouldhave provided a clearer basis for arguing the tem-poral causality implied in the model. Another lim-itation is our measurement of use of the systemthrough self-report. Although self-reports of systemuse are commonly used in TAM research (e.g., Le-

derer et al., 2000; Venkatesh & Davis, 2000) and

have been found to be strongly correlated withactual use (Taylor & Todd, 1995b), external valida-tion of system use would have been preferable. Inthis research context, due to human participantsconcerns regarding tracking students use of thesystem, we were not able to obtain usage datadirectly from the system. However, in future re-search we encourage the use of actual system us-

age data whenever the context allows their collec-tion. A third limitation is the potential for commonmethod bias as a consequence of using a singlerespondent for all the variables in the model. We

conducted post-hoc tests for common method bias(Podsakoff & Organ, 1986) and did not find it to bea significant concern. However, use of secondarysources for measures of variables in the model isencouraged in future studies. Last, the model ex-

plained 15% of system use, which although withina reasonable range compared to prior studies us-ing the TAM, is on the low end of the range (Adamset al., 1992). This is probably because to a largeextent use of the system was nonvoluntary. Ourfindings suggest that even if use of a system ismandatory, users may vary in their intensity of



14/21

use, producing variation around a high baselineproduced by the nonvoluntary nature of the usecontext (Hartwick & Barki, 1994).

Despite these limitations, our study contributes

to management education research and practice inseveral ways and highlights multiple potential av-enues for future research. At a basic level, this

study adds to research seeking to understand hownew information technologies can be effectivelyimplemented in management education (e.g.,Bigelow, 1999; Bilimoria, 1997; Dos Santos &Wright, 2001; Leidner & Jarvenpaa, 1995; Shrivas-tava, 1999). In particular, it responds to calls for

more research on the role of students and instruc-tors in fostering the active use of new Web-basedsystems in management education (Arbaugh, 2000;Miesing, 1998; Salmon, 2000). Our findings suggestthat instructors play a very important role in un-derstanding student reactions to new instructionaltechnologies. Prior research has found that theway in which instructors integrate Web-based sys-tems in management education affects student

satisfaction with the course (e.g., Alavi, 1994;Arbaugh, 2000; Parikh & Verma, 2002). Our findingsalso suggest that an additional avenue throughwhich instructors can influence student responsesto such systems is through their role as changeagents who use interpersonal and managerialskills to actively encourage student acceptance ofthe systems. Future research is needed to explorethis role of instructors in the implementation of

new Web-based instructional technologies. Fur-

ther, the importance of instructors influence onstudents acceptance of a system suggests that weneed to first develop a good understanding of thefactors that get instructors to become champions ofnew Web-based instructional technologies (Bili-moria, 1997; White & Myers, 2001). Several factorssuch as individual characteristics, considerationsof professional autonomy, and contextual support,

may influence instructors extent of support for anew system (Bilimoria, 1997; Ives & Jarvenpaa,1996). More research is needed to explore thesefactors.

By focusing on student acceptance of a CMS, thestudy addresses calls for more research on thiscritical success factor in the implementation ofnew instructional technologies. Whereas severalstudies have assessed student satisfaction with

on-line courses as a dependent variable (e.g.,Arbaugh, 2000; Salmon, 2000; Scifres et al., 1998),researchers have paid little attention to studentacceptance of Web-based systems that are supple-mental to traditional classroom-based instruction.Students in traditional classes have less need tobe self-driven and in active charge of the learning

process than are students in on-line courses (Dos

Santos & Wright, 2001; Ives & Jarvenpaa, 1996;

Shrivastava, 1999). Thus, getting students in tradi-

tional courses to accept and use Web-based CMSs

is a different challenge than that faced in on-line

courses. An exploration of differences in the fac-

tors affecting student acceptance and use of Web-

based instructional technologies in the two con-texts is a fruitful avenue for future research.

By drawing on well-established theoretical foun-

dations in the areas of technology acceptance and

change implementation, the study responds to con-

cerns that the literature on the incorporation of the

Web into management education has been based

extensively on macrotheoretical approaches to

delivery, . . . anecdotal examples, . . . or atheoreti-

cal empirical studies (Arbaugh, 2000: 33). Our

study establishes the utility of the TAM as a theo-

retical foundation for examining student re-

sponses to new instructional technologies. Giventhe demonstrated scalability and versatility of the

basic TAM model, it is a potentially useful common

foundation for future research into reactions of stu-

dents, faculty, and administrators to new informa-

tion technologies for management education.

By conceptualizing the implementation of a CMS

as a change event, our study contributes a novel

theoretical perspective on the implementation of

such systems. We believe that the change man-

agement literature is a particularly suitable theo-

retical foundation for future research into the inte-

gration of Web-based instructional technologiesinto management education. In this study, we fo-

cused at the individual level of analysis and ex-

amined students perceptions of the change imple-

mentation context. Future research could extend

our study to examine change processes at the

group or organizational levels of analysis. At the

group level of analysis, our study suggests that

socialpsychological factors and diffusion pro-

cesses promise a good avenue for future research

into predictors of student acceptance of new in-

structional technologies (Brancheau & Wetherbe,

1990). At the organizational level, future researchcould examine the effects of variation in change

implementation strategies across groups of stu-

dents on student acceptance of new instructional

technologies. Also, future research could explore

the effects of student participation in the decision

to use a particular CMS on student acceptance of

the system. We did not include this variable in our

model because the system in question had already

been chosen and was in use. However, in a context

in which a new system is planned for introduction,

researchers should examine the effects of students



15/21

participation in their eventual acceptance of thesystem.

Because of the versatility of a CMS, it can be usedto generate different levels of change in the instruc-

tional process, ranging from alpha change in whichthe CMS is used to simply make some aspects of theinstructional process more efficient, through beta

change in which the CMS is used to enable a widerrange of instructional processes, to gamma changein which the CMS is used to completely re-define thenature of the instructional process (Zmud & Ar-menakis, 1978; Rice & Contractor, 1990). Whereas thepotential for gamma change using such systems has

been highlighted in the management education lit-erature (Bilimoria, 1997; Ives & Jarvenpaa, 1996;Shrivastava, 1999), such a change has yet to occur atmost business schools; rather, anecdotal evidencesuggests that the systems have been effective atgenerating more alpha and beta change thangamma change in management education (e.g., Co-hen & Lippert, 1999; Dos Santos & Wright, 2001;Miesing, 1998; Parikh & Verma, 2002). Future research

could focus on success factors in the use of Web-based instructional technologies to generate eachtype of change in a management education context.

Our study offers several practical implicationsfor implementers of new Web-based instructionaltechnologies in management education. Research-ers have cautioned that before rushing to adoptnew Web-based instructional technologies, busi-ness school faculty and administrators should

carefully consider what needs to be done to effec-

tively integrate these technologies into the educa-tional process (e.g., Cohen & Lippert, 1999). Ourstudy provides some guidelines for factors thatshould be kept in mind when implementing newCMSs in particular, and new information technol-ogies in general, in management education. Forexample, our findings suggest that in the absenceof clear perceived consequences of the use of the

new system on their performance, students will beless likely to accept the system. Thus, to encouragestudents to use a new CMS, it is important that useof the system is linked to meaningful outcomes in

the courses in which it is implemented (e.g., DosSantos & Wright, 2001; Jones & Rice, 2000). Thefinding of a positive influence of instructor encour-agement to use the system on student acceptanceof the system suggests that instructors play an

important role in selling new information sys-tems to students (Bigelow, 1999; Salmon, 2000;Shrivastava, 1999; White & Myers, 2001). As such, itmay be important for implementers of a new sys-tem to first obtain faculty buy-in for the system(Bilimoria, 1997; Ives & Jarvenpaa, 1996).

Student peers played a significant role in moti-

vating students to accept a new system. Prior re-search suggests that in the implementation of aplanned change, early adopters can be used to sellthe change to later adopters (Brancheau & Weth-

erbe, 1990). Our finding suggests that, particularlyin an academic setting, in which peer encourage-ment might play a greater role in affecting individ-

ual behavior (Taylor & Todd, 1995b), it is importantfor implementers of a new information system toidentify early adopters or converts among the stu-dents and use them as champions of the system.

We found awareness of the capabilities of aCMS to be an important factor influencing student

acceptance of the system. Implementers of suchsystems may often assume that the capabilities ofthese relatively user-friendly systems are readilyapparent to students. However, it is important thatthe capabilities of the systems and the benefitsthey provide be made clear to students, and stu-dents should be encouraged to explore the capa-bilities of the system on their own to make them-selves aware of its functions. Our findings also

suggest that it is important to emphasize to stu-dents the available assistance with the system(Miesing, 1998; Salmon, 2000), as a means for in-creasing student acceptance of it.

In conclusion, as CMSs increasingly become astandard part of the instructional process in busi-ness schools, educators need advances in theoryand research to help in successfully incorporatingthem into management education. This study con-

tributes to this line of research by combining the

literatures on technology acceptance and onchange implementation to understand factors af-fecting student acceptance of a CMS in a manage-ment education context.

REFERENCES

Adams, D. A., Nelson, R. R., & Todd, P. A. 1992. Perceived use-

fulness, ease of use, and usage of information technology:

A replication. MIS Quarterly, 16: 227247.

Agarwal, R., & Prasad, J. 1997. The role of innovation character-

istics and perceived voluntariness in the acceptance of

information technologies. Decision Sciences, 28: 557582.

Agarwal, R., & Prasad, J. 1999. Are individual differences ger-

mane to the acceptance of new information technologies.

Decision Sciences, 30: 361391.

Alavi, M. 1994. Computer-mediated collaborative learning: An

empirical evaluation. MIS Quarterly, 18(2): 159174.

Al-Gahtani, S. S., & King, M. 1999. Attitudes, satisfaction and

usage: Factors contributing to each in the acceptance of

information technology. Behavior & Information Technol-

ogy, 18: 277299.

Arbaugh, J. B. 2000. Virtual classroom characteristics and stu-

dent satisfaction with Internet-based MBA courses. Journal

of Management Education, 24(1): 3254.



16/21

Bigelow, J. D. 1999. The Web as an organizational behavior learn-

ing medium.Journal of Management Education, 23(6): 635650.

Bikson, T. K., Gutek, B. A., & Mankin, D. A. 1987. Implementing

computerized procedures in office settings: Influences and

outcomes. Santa Monica, CA: The Rand Corporation.

Bilimoria, D. 1997. Management educators: In danger of becom-

ing pedestrians on the information superhighway. Journal

of Management Education, 21(2): 232243.

Brancheau, J. C., & Wetherbe, J. C. 1990. The adoption of spread-

sheet software: Testing innovation diffusion theory in the

context of end-user computing. Information Systems Re-

search, 1: 115145.

Chen, C., Newman, J., Newman, R., & Rada, R. 1998. How did

university departments interweave the Web: A study of

connectivity and underlying factors. Interacting With Com-

puters, 10: 353373.

Cohen, D. J., & Lippert, S. K. 1999. The lure of technology: Panacea

or pariah? Journal of Management Education, 23(6): 743746.

Compeau, D. R., & Higgins, C. A. 1991. A social cognitive theory

perspective on individual reactions to computing technol-

ogy. Proceedings of the Twelfth International Conference

on Information Systems, New York.

Compeau, D. R., & Higgins, C. A. 1995. Application of social

cognitive theory to training for computer skills. Information

Systems Research, 6: 118143.

Compeau, D., Higgins, C. A., & Huff, S. 1999. Social cognitive

theory and individual reactions to computing technology: A

longitudinal study. MIS Quarterly, 23: 145158.

Davis, F. 1989. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and

user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly,

13: 319 340.

Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. 1989. User accep-

tance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoret-

ical models. Management Science, 35: 9821003.

Dillon, A. 2000. Designing a better learning environment with

the web: Problems and prospects. CyberPsychology & Be-

havior, 3: 97101.

Dos Santos, B. L., & Wright, A. L. 2001. Internet-supported man-

agement education. Information Services & Use, 21: 5364.

Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. 1975. Attitude, intention, and behavior:

An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Ad-

dision-Wesley.

Fredickson, S. 1999. Untangling a tangled web: An overview of

web-based instruction programs. Technological Horizons in

Education Journal, 26: 6777.

Gefen, D., & Straub, D. W. 1997. Gender differences in the per-

ception and use of e-mail: An extension to the technologyacceptance model. MIS Quarterly, 21: 389400.

Goodman, P. S., & Griffith, T. L. 1991. A process approach to the

implementation of new technology. Journal of Engineering

and Technology Management, 8: 261285.

Green, K. C., & Gilbert, S. W. 1995. Great expectations: Content,

communications, productivity, and the role of information

technology in higher education. Change, 27: 818.

Griffith, T. L. 1996. Negotiating successful technology imple-

mentation: A motivational perspective. Journal of Engineer-

ing and Technology Management, 13: 2953.

Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. 1995.

Multivariate data analysis with readings. Englewood Cliffs,

NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Hartwick, J., & Barki, H. 1994. Explaining the role of user partic-

ipation in information system use. Management Science,

40: 440465.

Henry, J. W., & Stone, R. W. 1997. The development and valida-

tion of computer self-efficacy and outcome expectancy

scales in a nonvolitional context. Behavior Research Meth-

ods, Instruments & Computers, 29: 519 527.

Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. 1995. Evaluating model fit. In R. H.

Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues,

and applications: 7699. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Human, S. E., Kilbourne, L. M., Clark, T. D., Shriberg, A., &

Cunningham, B. 1999. Using Web-enhanced instruction in

an interpersonal skills course. Journal of Management Ed-

ucation, 23(5): 584606.

Igbaria, M. 1990. End-user computing effectiveness: A structural

equation model. OMEGA International Journal of Manage-

ment Science, 18: 637652.

Igbaria, M. 1993. user Acceptance of Microcomputer Technology:

An empirical test. OMEGA International Journal of Man-

agement Science, 21: 7390.

Igbaria, M., & Iivari, J. 1995. The effects of self-efficacy on com-

puter usage. OMEGA International Journal of Management

Science, 23: 587605.

Igbaria, M., Zinatelli, N., Cragg, P., & Cavayne, A. L. M. 1997.

Personal computing acceptance factors in small firms: A

structural equation model. MIS Quarterly, 21: 279 305.

Ives, B., & Jarvenpaa, S. L. 1996. Will the Internet revolutionize

business education and research? Sloan Management Re-

view, 37(3): 3341.

Jackson, C. M., Chow, S., & Leitch, R. A. 1997. Towards an

understanding of the behavioral intention to use an infor-

mation system. Decision Sciences, 28: 357387.

Jones, N. B., & Rice, M. 2000. Can Web-based knowledge sharing

tools improve the learning process in an MBA consulting

class? Technological Horizons in Education Journal, 27(8):

100106.

Judson, A. S. 1991. Changing behavior in organizations: Mini-

mizing resistance to change. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.

Karahanna, E., & Straub, D. W. 1999. The psychological origins

of perceived usefulness and ease-of-use. Information &

Management, 35: 237250.

Karahanna, E., Straub, D. W., & Chervany, N. L. 1999. Information

technology adoption across time: A cross-sectional compar-

ison of pre-adoption and post-adoption beliefs. MIS Quar-

terly, 23: 183213.

Kerlinger, F. N. 1986. Foundations of Behavioral Research. New

York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers.

Kishton, J. M., & Widaman, K. F. 1994. Unidimensional versus

domain representative parcelling of questionnaire items:

An empirical example. Educational and Psychological

Measurement, 54: 757765.

Kline, R. B. 1998. Principles and practice of structural equation

modeling. New York: The Guilford Press.

Kotter, J. 1995. Leading change: Why transformation fail. Har-

vard Business Review, 5967.

Lederer, A. L., Maupin, D. J., Sena, M. P., & Zhuang, Y. 2000. The



17/21

technology acceptance model and the world wide web.

Decision Support Systems, 29: 269 282.

Leidner, D. E., & Jarvenpaa, S. L. 1995. The use of information

technology to enhance management school education: A

theoretical view. MIS Quarterly, 19: 265291.

Leonard-Barton, D., & Deschamps, I. 1988. Managerial influence

in the implementation of new technology. Management

Science, 34: 12521265.

Leonard-Barton, D., & Kraus, W. A. 1985. Implementing new

technology. Harvard Business Review, 85: 102110.

Lewin, K. 1951. Field theory in social science. New York: Harper

& Row.

Lightfoot, J. M. 2000. Designing and implementing a full-

service classpage on the internet. Journal of Educational

Multimedia and Hypermedia, 9: 1933.

Lin, J. C.-C., & Lu, H. 2000. Towards an understanding of the

behavioral intention to use a web site.International Journal

of Information Management, 20: 197208.

Loyd, B. G., & Gressard, C. 1984. Reliability and factorial valid-

ity of computer attitude scales. Educational and Psycholog-

ical Measurement, 501505.

MacCallum, R. C., & Austin, J. T. 2000. Applications of structural

equation modeling in psychological research. Annual Re-

view of Psychology, 201216.

Meisel, S. & Marx, B. 1999. Screen to screen versus face to face:

Experiencing the differences in management education.

Journal of Management Education, 23(6): 719731.

Melone, N. P. 1990. A theoretical assessment of the user satis-

faction construct in information system research. Manage-

ment Science, 36: 7691.

Miesing, P. 1998. B-Schools on the I-Way: Avoiding potholes,

dead ends, and crashes.Journal of Management Education,

22: 753770.

Mulaik, S. A., James, L. R., Alstine, J. V., Bennett, N., Ling, S., &Stilwell, C. D. 1989. Evaluation of goodness-of-fit for struc-

tural equation models. Psychological Bulletin, 105: 430445.

Nambisan, S., Agarwal, R., & Tanniru, M. 1999. Organizational

mechanisms for enhancing user innovation in information

technology. MIS Quarterly, 23: 365395.

Parikh, M., & Verma, S. 2002. Utilizing Internet technologies to

support learning: An empirical analysis. International Jour-

nal of Information Management, 22(1): 2746.

Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. 1986. Self-reports in organiza-

tional research: Problems and perspectives. Journal of Man-

agement, 12: 531544.

Rice, R. E., & Contractor, N. S. 1990. Conceptualizing effects of

office information systems: A methodology and application

of the study of alpha, beta, and gamma changes. Decision

Sciences, 21: 301317.

Salmon, G. 2000. Computer mediated conferencing for manage-

ment learning at the Open University. Management Learn-

ing, 31(4): 491502.

Scifres, E., Gundersen, D. E., & Behara, R. S. 1998. Electronic

groups in the classroom: An empirical investigation. Jour-

nal of Education for Business, 73(4): 247250.

Shrivastava, P. 1999. Management classes as online learning

communities. Journal of Management Education, 23(6): 691

702.

Straub, D., Limayem, M., & Krahnna-Evaristo, E. 1995. Measuring

system usage: Implications for theory testing. Management

Science, 41: 13281342.

Szajna, B. 1996. Empirical evaluation of the revised technologi-

cal acceptance model. Management Science, 42: 8592.

Taylor, S., & Todd, P. 1995a. Assessing IT usage: The role of prior

experience. MIS Quarterly, 19: 561570.

Taylor, S., & Todd, P. A. 1995b. Understanding information tech-

nology usage: A test of competing models. Information Sys-

tems Research, 6: 144176.

Thompson, R. L., Higgins, C. A., & Howell, J. M. 1991. Personal

computing: Toward a conceptual model of utilization. MIS

Quarterly, 15: 125143.

Torkzadeh, G., & Koufteros, X. 1994. Factorial validity of a com-

puter self-efficacy scale and the impact on computer train-

ing. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 54: 813

821.

Venkatesh, V. 2000. Determinants of perceived ease of use: In-

tegrating control, intrinsic motivation, and emotion into the

technology acceptance model. Information Systems Re-

search, 11: 342365.

Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. 1996. A model of the antecedents of

perceived ease of use: Development and test. Decision Sci-

ences, 27: 451481.

Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. 2000. A theoretical extension of the

technology adoption model: Four longitudinal field studies.

Management Science, 46: 186 204.Venkatesh, V., & Morris, M. G. 2000. Why dont men ever stop to

ask for directions? Gender, social influence, and their role

in technology acceptance and usage behavior. MIS Quar-

terly, 24: 115139.

Warren, K. J., & Rada, R. 1998. Sustaining computer-mediated

communication in university courses. Journal of Computer

Assisted Learning, 14(1): 1316.

Webster, J., & Hackley, P. 1997. Teaching effectiveness in tech-

nology-mediated distance learning. Academy of Manage-

ment Review, 40: 12821309.

White, J. T., & Myers, S. D. 2001. You can teach an old dog new

tricks: The facultys role in technology implementation.

Business Communication Quarterly, 64: 95101.

Zmud, R. W., & Armenakis, A. A. 1978. Understanding the mea-

surement of change. Academy of Management Review, 3(3):

661669.

Luis L. Martins is an associate professor of organizational behavior at the DuPree College of

Management at the Georgia Institute of Technology. He received his PhD in management and

organizational behavior from the Stern School of Business at New York University. His current

research interests include new information technologies, managerial cognition, and diversity.

Franz W. Kellermanns is an assistant professor of management at Mississippi State Univer-

sitys College of Business and Industry. He received his PhD in strategic management from the

University of Connecticut. His primary research interests include strategic consensus, con-

structive confrontation, and management of family firms.



18/21

APPENDIX A

Scale Items and Measurement Model Loadings

Construct Items

Completely

standardized

factor loading Reliability

Perceptions

PerceivedUsefulness of the

System

Using WebCT

enables me to accomplish tasks forthis course more quickly 0.698

.94

Using WebCT improves my performance in this

course

0.896

Using WebCT increases my productivity in this

course

0.947

Using WebCT enhances my effectiveness in this

course

0.899

Using WebCT makes my job easier in this course 0.930

Using WebCT is useful to me in this course 0.745

Perceived Ease

of Use of the

System

WebCT is easy to learn 0.759 .91

It is easy to get WebCT to do what I want it to do 0.762

My interaction with WebCT

is clear andunderstandable

0.817

WebCT is flexible to interact with 0.766

It is easy to become skillful at using WebCT 0.799

WebCT is easy to use 0.852

Attitudes/Intentions

Attitude Satisfaction 0.870 .91

I like using WebCT

I am satisfied with using WebCT

I would recommend WebCT to my friends

I would rather not use WebCT1

I find it frustrating to use WebCT1

Preference 0.647 .91

WebCT is a better option than other (more

traditional) methods for distributing handouts/

materials


traditional) methods for taking quizzes and

exams


traditional) methods for getting grades


traditional) methods for discussing course topics


traditional) methods for contacting classmates


traditional) methods for contacting the instructor

or teaching assistantWebCT is a better option than other (more

traditional) methods for teamwork

Intention to Use

the System

I do not plan to use WebCT very often during the

rest of this semester10.791 .91

I do not plan to use WebCT very much during the

rest of this semester10.760

I intend to use WebCT frequently during the rest

of this semester

0.945

I intend to take full advantage of WebCT during

the rest of this semester

0.894

Use Self-reported amount of time spent

on the system in an average week

(log transformed).

(continues)



19/21

APPENDIX A continued

Construct Items

Completely

standardized

factor loading Reliability

Motivators

Perceived

incentive to

use WebCT

If I dont use WebCT, my grade in this course will

suffer

0.876 .84

Using WebCT improves my chances of getting a good

grade in this course

0.809

My grade in this course is not affected by whether or

not I use WebCT10.724

Perceived faculty

encouragement

The professor provides most of the necessary help and

guidance to enable students to use WebCT

0.762 .92

The professor is keen to see that the students are happy

with using WebCT

0.778

The professor has explained the features of WebCT

adequately in class

0.838

The professor has clearly communicated to the class

the benefits of using WebCT

0.731

The professor is always willing to help when a student

has difficulties using WebCT

0.677

The professor encourages the use of WebCT for class-

related work

0.728

The professor thinks that we should use WebCT as

much as possible

0.805

The professor encourages us to explore the various

functions of WebCT

0.864

The professor encourages us to use features of WebCT

beyond those that are required for this course

0.660

Peer

encouragement

My classmates who are close to me strongly support

using WebCT

0.826 .93

Most people I know in this class strongly support using

WebCT

0.912

My friends outside of class who have used WebCT

strongly support using WebCT

0.914

People whose opinion I value would strongly supportmy using WebCT

0.866

Awareness of the

capabilities of

the system

I am fully aware of the capabilities of WebCT 0.917 .82

I know all the functions that WebCT is capable of 0.900

I cant say that I know all the things that WebCT can

do for me10.529

Enablers

Access to the

system

I usually have a high-speed connection to the Web 0.792 .85

I have convenient access to the Web 0.719

I have easy access to the right technology to make Web

surfing fast and easy

0.843

I have no trouble accessing the Web 0.748

Availability oftechnical

support

I have received adequate training in using WebCT .474 .81

There is a designated person that I can call or e-mail

when I need help with using WebCT

.780

Assistance is readily available to help me with using

WebCT

.880

When I request help with using WebCT, someone gets

back to me quickly

.820

Prior experience

with computer

and Web use

How often do you use computer applications such as

Microsoft Word, Excel, or PowerPoint?

0.640 .81

How often do you use e-mail? 0.725

(continues)



20/21

APPENDIX continued

Contruct Items

Completely

Documents

Students' Acceptance