Cloud computing adoption and usage in community colleges

Cloud computing is gaining popularity in higher education settings, but the costs and benefits of this tool have gone largely unexplored. The purpose of this study was to examine the factors that lead to technology adoption in a higher education setting. Specifically, we examined a range of predictors and outcomes relating to the acceptance of a cloud computing platform in rural and urban community colleges. Drawing from the Technology Acceptance Model 3 (TAM3) (Venkatesh, V. and Bala, H., 2008. Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a research agenda on interventions. Decision Sciences, 39 (2), 273–315), we build on the literature by examining both the actual usage and future intentions; further, we test the direct and indirect effects of a range of predictors on these outcomes. Approximately 750 community college students enrolled in basic computing skills courses participated in this study; findings demonstrated that background characteristics such as the student's ability to travel to campus had influenced the usefulness perceptions, while ease of use was largely determined by first-hand experiences with the platform, and instructor support. We offer recommendations for community college administrators and others who seek to incorporate cloud computing in higher education settings.

[1]  Ritu Agarwal,et al.  A Conceptual and Operational Definition of Personal Innovativeness in the Domain of Information Technology , 1998, Inf. Syst. Res..

[2]  Timothy Teo,et al.  A Cross-cultural Examination of the Intention to Use Technology between Singaporean and Malaysian pre-service Teachers: An Application of the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) , 2008, J. Educ. Technol. Soc..

[3]  R. Dodhia.  A Review of Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (3rd ed.) , 2005 .

[4]  Sergio L. Toral Marín,et al.  A technological acceptance of e-learning tools used in practical and laboratory teaching, according to the European higher education area 1 , 2008, Behav. Inf. Technol..

[5]  Byung Gon Kim,et al.  Factors affecting the usage of intranet: A confirmatory study , 2009, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[6]  Karen A. Conklin.  COURSE ATTRITION: A 5‐YEAR PERSPECTIVE ON WHY STUDENTS DROP CLASSES , 1997 .

[7]  Izak Benbasat,et al.  Development of an Instrument to Measure the Perceptions of Adopting an Information Technology Innovation , 1991, Inf. Syst. Res..

[8]  Bart Nooteboom,et al.  A theoretical model , 2018 .

[9]  Gordon B. Davis,et al.  User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward a Unified View , 2003, MIS Q..

[10]  Matthew K. O. Lee,et al.  Acceptance of Internet-based learning medium: the role of extrinsic and intrinsic motivation , 2005, Inf. Manag..

[11]  I. Ajzen,et al.  Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research , 1977 .

[12]  AgarwalRitu,et al.  Reconceptualizing compatability beliefs in technology acceptance research , 2006 .

[13]  Libby Sander.  Rising Cost of Gasoline Pinches Students at Rural Community Colleges. , 2008 .

[14]  Martin Wetzels,et al.  A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model: Investigating subjective norm and moderation effects , 2007, Inf. Manag..

[15]  Jennifer M. Heisler,et al.  A Negotiated Order Exploration of Critical Student-Faculty Interactions: Student-Parents Manage Multiple Roles , 2002 .

[16]  A. Yuen,et al.  Exploring teacher acceptance of e‐learning technology , 2008 .

[17]  Fred D. Davis,et al.  Modeling the Determinants of Perceived Ease of Use , 1994, ICIS.

[18]  Said S. Al-Gahtani,et al.  Attitudes, satisfaction and usage: Factors contributing to each in the acceptance of information technology , 1999, Behav. Inf. Technol..

[19]  F. Schmidt.  Meta-Analysis , 2008 .

[20]  Fred D. Davis,et al.  Dead Or Alive? The Development, Trajectory And Future Of Technology Adoption Research , 2007, J. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[21]  Fred D. Davis.  User Acceptance of Information Technology: System Characteristics, User Perceptions and Behavioral Impacts , 1993, Int. J. Man Mach. Stud..

[22]  Errol Yudko,et al.  Attitudes, beliefs, and attendance in a hybrid course , 2008, Comput. Educ..

[23]  William R. King,et al.  A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model , 2006, Inf. Manag..

[24]  Deborah Compeau,et al.  Computer Self-Efficacy: Development of a Measure and Initial Test , 1995, MIS Q..

[25]  Heshan Sun,et al.  The role of moderating factors in user technology acceptance , 2006, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[26]  Joseph J. Martocchio,et al.  Microcomputer playfulness: development of a measure with workplace implications , 1992 .

[27]  Fred D. Davis.  Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology , 1989, MIS Q..

[28]  Richard J. Holden,et al.  A theoretical model of health information technology usage behaviour with implications for patient safety , 2009, Behav. Inf. Technol..

[29]  Eran Chajut,et al.  Internet-assisted versus traditional distance learning environments: factors affecting students' preferences , 2003, Comput. Educ..

[30]  Akshay Anand,et al.  raising the bar , 2010, Annals of neurosciences.

[31]  Jacob Cohen,et al.  Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences , 1979 .

[32]  Viswanath Venkatesh,et al.  Determinants of Perceived Ease of Use: Integrating Control, Intrinsic Motivation, and Emotion into the Technology Acceptance Model , 2000, Inf. Syst. Res..

[33]  Alex Stone.  The Holistic Model for Blended Learning: A New Model for K-12 District-Level Cyber Schools , 2008, Int. J. Inf. Commun. Technol. Educ..

[34]  Viswanath Venkatesh,et al.  Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions , 2008, Decis. Sci..

[35]  Fred D. Davis,et al.  A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies , 2000, Management Science.

[36]  Hassan M. Selim,et al.  Critical success factors for e-learning acceptance: Confirmatory factor models , 2007, Comput. Educ..