Sie sind auf Seite 1von 133

COLLEGE STUDENTS ACCEPTANCE OF TABLET PERSONAL COMPUTERS:

A MODIFICATION OF THE UNIFIED THEORY OF ACCEPTANCE


AND USE OF TECHNOLOGY MODEL
by
Mark, J. Moran

A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment


Of the Requirements for the Degree
Doctor of Philosophy

Capella University
August 2006

Mark Moran, 2006

COLLEGE STUDENTS ACCEPTANCE OF TABLET PERSONAL COMPUTERS:


A MODIFICATION OF THE UNIFIED THEORY OF ACCEPTANCE
AND USE OF TECHNOLOGY MODEL
by
Mark, J. Moran
has been approved
August 2006

APPROVED:
CLIFF BUTLER, Ph.D., Faculty Mentor and Chair
VALERIE COXON, Ph.D., Committee Member
MARK HAWKES, Ph.D., Committee Member
ACCEPTED AND SIGNED:
__________________________________________
CLIFF BUTLER, Ph.D.
__________________________________________
Kurt Linberg, Ph.D.
Dean, School of Business & Technology

Abstract
Information technology can enhance the learning process for post secondary students.
Many universities have implemented ubiquitous or required notebook or tablet personal
computing for their students but have not studied the acceptance of the technology by
their student populations. This research examines student acceptance of mobile
computing devices using a modification of the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use
of Technology (UTAUT) recently developed by leading researchers in the technology
acceptance field. The objective of the study is to evaluate students acceptance of Tablet
PC (TPC) as a mean to forecast, explain, and improve usage patterns of UTAUT in
alternate contexts. The research contributes to UTAUTs theoretical validity and
empirical applicability and to the management of information technology (IT) based
initiatives in education.

Dedication

This dissertation is dedicated to my family who has been giving me their unwavering
support throughout this life-changing experience. To my wife, Mary, who has been so
strong and supportive all through this educational journey. To my children, Matthew and
Marin, you are my inspiration to reach beyond my potential and reach goals I thought
unattainable. I love you all so much.

Acknowledgments

First, I would like to extend a sincere thank you to Dr. Cliff Butler, who has been
a compassionate and diligent mentor during my voyage at Capella University. I thank you
for the guidance and support as my dissertation chair, professor, and mentor. Your work
ethic and leadership inspire me and I look forward to continuing our relationship for
many years to come.
I want to thank Dr. Valerie Coxon for agreeing to join my committee in a time of
need, and for your many insightful comments during the comprehensive and dissertation
process. Dr. Coxon, your supportive remarks often were inspirational and kept me
moving forward. Dr. Mark Hawkes, thank you for joining me on this trek your
knowledge of instructional technology in education was critical to this task. Because of
all of you I look forward to joining my academic peer in the pursuit of knowledge. I wish
you all the best in life.
Finally, I would like to thank Dr. Omar El-Gayar for being the catalyst that
spurred my dissertation process. Your tireless efforts at research and academia are
something I will strive to attain. Thanks for all your contribution to this dissertation
especially in the area of technology acceptance and the analysis of the data.

iii

Table of Contents
Acknowledgments

iii

List of Tables

viii

List of Figures

x
21

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
Wireless Data Communication

The Device

Pen Based Computing Background

The Adoption of Technological Innovations

Objective of the Study

10

Research Questions

11

Significance of the Study

13

Scope of the Study

14

Study Context

14

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

16

iv

History of Technology Acceptance Models

17

The Technology Acceptance Model

20

The Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology Model

24

UTAUT Supporting Research

27

CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH DESIGN

28

Performance Expectancy

31

Effort Expectancy

32

Social Influence

32

Facilitating Conditions

32

Supplementary Variables

33

Pilot Study

33

The Survey

35

Sample Size

40

Survey Sample Population

40

Human Subjects Protection

41

Survey Questions

42
v

Data Analysis Methodology

50

Measures

52

CHAPTER 4: DATA ANALYSIS

54

Data Sample

54

Data Validation

59

Model Validity

73

Reliability

74

Construct Validity

77

Partial Least Squares

82

Model Analysis

82

Structural Model Analysis

86

Freshman vs. Upper Classmen

88

CHAPTER 5: SUMMARY & CONCLUSIONS


Discussion

93
98

Moderating Conditions

100

Limitations

101
vi

Future research

102

REFERENCES

105

APPENDIX A: SELECTION OF COURSES TO SURVEY

113

APPENDIX B: SURVEY QUESTIONS

116

APPENDIX C: CROSS TAB REPORTS

120

vii

List of Tables
Table 1. Theory of Planned Behavior Constructs...........................................................19
Table 2. TAM Research..................................................................................................23
Table 3. UTAUT Components........................................................................................26
Table 4. UTAUT Moderators .........................................................................................26
Table 5. Performance Expectancy Questions .................................................................44
Table 6. Effort Expectancy Questions ............................................................................45
Table 7. Attitude Toward Using Technology Questions ................................................45
Table 8. Social Influence Questions ...............................................................................46
Table 9. Facilitating Conditions Questions.....................................................................46
Table 10. Behavior Intent Questions ..............................................................................47
Table 11. Self Efficacy Questions ..................................................................................48
Table 12. Anxiety Questions...........................................................................................48
Table 13. Usage and Other Information Questions ........................................................49
Table 14. Scale Reliabilities ...........................................................................................52
Table15a. Statistical Analysis of the Variables ..............................................................60
Table15b. Statistical Analysis (continued) .....................................................................61
Table 16. Cross tab report for PE1 by Gender................................................................63
Table 17. Cross tab report for PE1 by Class Status. .......................................................64
Table 18. T test and p Values for Participating Groups and PE1 ...................................66
Table 19. Cross tab report for PE1 by College Major ....................................................67
Table 20. Mean, Standard Deviation, Skewness, and Kurtosis for College and PE1.....68
viii

Table 21. Cross tab report for PE1 by First Computer Use. ............................................69
Table 22. Basic statistics for Computer Experience and PE1.........................................70
Table 23. T test and p values for Participant Groups and PE1 .......................................70
Table 24. Cross tab report for PE1 by First Tablet PC Use............................................71
Table 25. Basic Statistics for Tablet PC Use and PE1....................................................72
Table 26. T-test and p-Values for Tablet PC Use and PE1 ............................................72
Table 27a. Reliability of Performance Expectancy Construct Variables .......................75
Table 27b. Reliability of EE, ATUT, SI, FC, SE Variables ..........................................76
Table 28. Reliability of ANX, BI, & USE Variables......................................................77
Table 29. Internal Consistency Factor Analysis for PE1 PE10 ...................................79
Table 30. Correlation Coefficients for Performance Expectancy Indicators..................80
Table 31. Internal Consistency & Factor Loading Analysis for other Indicators...........81
Table 32. Individual Loadings, Weights, and Internal Consistencies.............................84
Table 33. AVE Scores and Correlation of Latent Variables...........................................86
Table 34. Comparison of Freshman and Upper Classman Model Contributions ...........91
Table 35. Comparison of All, Freshman, & Upper Class Models..................................92
Table A-1. Course on which Survey Tool was Administered ......................................114
Table A-2. Individual Course Section Participation .....................................................115

ix

List of Figures
Figure 1. Theory of Planned Behavior............................................................................18
Figure 2. Technology Acceptance Model.......................................................................20
Figure 3. Extended Technology Acceptance Model.......................................................22
Figure 4. Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT).................25
Figure 5. Dissertation Research Model...........................................................................30
Figure 6. Research Page Link .........................................................................................36
Figure 7. Web Survey Link.............................................................................................37
Figure 8. Questions and Concerns Information ..............................................................38
Figure 9. Web Survey Instrument...................................................................................39
Figure 10. Research Relationship Equations ..................................................................53
Figure 11. Survey Participants Class Status ...................................................................55
Figure 12. Survey Participants College Affiliation.........................................................56
Figure 13. Survey Participants First Computer Use .......................................................57
Figure 14. Survey Participants Length of Use of Table PC............................................58
Figure 15. Histogram of PE1 ..........................................................................................62
Figure 16. Tablet PC Structural Model...........................................................................88
Figure 17. Freshman PLS-Graph Model.........................................................................89
Figure 18. Upper Classman PLS-Graph Model..............................................................90

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
The application of computer technology in collegiate classrooms has been
demonstrated to improve teaching when used appropriately (Surry & Land, 2000). In the
past few years many universities have introduced mobile computing to their campus as a
way to improve the productivity of and communication between students and faculty. But
some faculty have raised concerns about the distractions caused by mobile computer
hardware (Groves & Zemel, 2000). However, even with philosophical differences among
faculty, many universities including Bentley College (Lowe, 2004), Notre Dame (Abbott,
2004), University of Texas (Mock, 2004), and the University of Washington (Willis &
Miertschin, 2004) have implemented, or are in the process of starting, mobile computing
initiatives.
Some colleges and universities have adopted computing initiatives that require
every student to acquire their own portable computing device or in some cases participate
in experiments with university supplied computers, more than fifty colleges and
universities have, or are in the process of, implementing various mobile computing
initiatives. A website administered by Dr. Ray Brown, of Valley City State University,
contains a list of over seventy institutions that are involved in various levels of mobile
computing implementation (Brown, 2000). Many of these implementations included reengineering of the institutions data communication facilities. Several of these have
decided to adopt a specialized development of notebook computers that allow pen based
data entry and screen manipulation.

Acceptance of Tablet PCs

Tablet Personal Computer (TPC) based mobile computing initiatives have been
documented in the literature with programs ranging from a preliminary pilot study at the
University of Houston (Willis & Miertschin, 2004) investigating TPCs in a mobile
learning laboratory used by faculty. A university that integrates the TPC into student
teacher interaction is the University of Washington where a Classroom Feedback System
(CFS) is being used to give students the ability to provide feedback and ask real time
questions during an instructor mediated lecture (Steel, et al., 2003). Every student
enrolled in Bentley College gets a TPC (Lowe, 2004). Other universities with TPC
programs include Purdue, MIT, Temple, Seton Hall, Chatham, and many others (Brown,
2000) (Wachsmuth, 2003).
One of these institutions to make significant commitment to ubiquitous, mobile
computing is a small Midwest public university located in South Dakota. This institution
started investigating pen based mobile computing in 2002 when thirteen wireless access
points were installed on their campus (DSU goes wireless, 2002). Approximately twenty
Center of Excellence (CEX) students were given tablet PC devices and given the
assignment to investigate the device as a learning instrument. The initial project was
found to be beneficial resulting in expansion of both wireless network availability and
students with table PCs. A task force was then organized to examine strategies for taking
mobile computing to scale at the university, and to investigate computing device options.
In the fall of 2004, this university moved wireless mobile computing from a small
number of Center of Excellence students and scaled it to include all first and second year
enrolled students (Knowlton, 2004). This initiative required each full time student to

Acceptance of Tablet PCs

lease a wireless, mobile tablet/laptop personal computing device. The program has been
entitled the wireless mobile computing initiative (WMCI). By the spring of 2006 all
students at this university should have their own TPC (Zolnowsky, 2006).
Wireless Data Communication
Wireless networks, by themselves, can not support the typical communication
traffic on a modern campus. The wireless aspect supports a continuous communication
environment but a high speed wired network backbone must be in place to support the
broadband applications that present applications require. Modern college students use
many bandwidth hungry applications such as instant messaging, music downloads and
peer-to-peer programs (Henderson, Kotz, & Abyzov, 2004). These data intensive
applications make it difficult to a consistent quality of service (QOS) for all of the
developing applications.
Over the past decade the nations commercial, academic, and telecommunications
sectors have made considerable improvements in their telecommunications infrastructure
(Decusatis, 2002). According to Dr. Kenneth Green (Green, 2004), who has been
conducting surveys of college campus computer use since 1990, roughly 4 out of 5
private and public four year colleges claim they have functional wireless LANs that can
be used by their students, faculty and staff in parts or all of their campus facilities. This
expansion of wireless connectivity capacity has been augmented with many universities
adopting pen based computing initiatives.
Considering the mobility of laptops and TPCs in a wireless LAN environment
steps need to be taken to allow the mobile computing device to keep one Internet

Acceptance of Tablet PCs

Protocol (IP) as the user moves across campus. Each access point covers about an area
with a radius of about 100 feet so computing devices moving from one area of campus to
another will move through several different AP zones. Most campuses need to segment
their networks to reduce data traffic congestion in any one zone or building. Mobile users
will move from their original zone to other zones as they move across campus requiring
them to obtain a new IP address for each subnet. Obviously this would not be an
acceptable requirement of a WLAN. The solution is to place all the wireless access points
on their own virtual LAN (VLAN) (Ciampa, 2001). Using a VLAN all wireless devices
exist in the same LAN segment so they are not required to change their IP address until
they leave the campus area.
The development of mature wired campus networks has enabled many
universities to provide both faculty and students with a ubiquitous wireless mobile
computing environment (Barkhuus, 2005). Initially mobile notebook computers filled this
need but gradually tablet PC devices have become more prevalent on college campuses.
Tablet PC technology is the newest development of pen based computing.
Security is an issue with wireless networks. Most wireless standards require some
configuration to provide a secure communication tool. Many university networks require
user authentication before a user is allowed access to the information on a network. A
common frame work to evaluate security is referred to as the CIA (Confidentiality,
Integrity, and Availability) of security (Maconachy, Schou, Ragsdale, & Welch, 2001).
Confidentiality addresses issues associated with the unauthorized disclosure of
information. Integrity refers to the actions taken to prevent and detect the unauthorized

Acceptance of Tablet PCs

alteration of the information being transmitted. Availability refers to the issues associated
with ensuring that information is reliably provided to authorize users.
The provision of adequate security in wireless networks requires that the network
be configured to require user identity. That can be accomplished by using provisions built
into existing wireless networking standards. 802.11b and g can be set to support security
equivalent to desktop computer workstation by using windows equivalent privacy (WEP)
and wireless application protocol (WAP). User authentication can be accomplished by
using proprietary applications or 802.1 which is built into Microsoft windows XP. Any
organization planning on adding wireless access to a network must evaluate their desired
level of security and implement solutions to ensure a secure computing environment.
The Device
The tablet PC is the current state of pen based computing. Since their initial
release in 2002 TPCs have gradually gained acceptance as a useful tool for educators,
professionals, and casual users. The devices are currently in their third generation and
now possess sufficient computing power to put them on par with the average desktop
computer (Mock, 2004). The TPC device is essentially an x86 microprocessor based
notebook with an active screen digitizer running Windows XP Tablet Edition.
This is a new version of Windows XP with add-ons that support pen-based input.
Microsoft became the leading provider of software for TPC devices when it introduced
the Tablet PC edition of Windows XP in 2002 (Microsoft, 2002). The pen can be used
as a navigation tool and an input device that allows users to write on the screen using
digital ink. This digital ink can be stored directly as a graphic or it can be converted to

Acceptance of Tablet PCs

text. A TPC can execute any program written for the Windows XP operating system
without a translation as needed on most personal data assistant (PDA) devices.
Models available now are either slate or convertible devices. A slate form factor is
similar to a PDA with a larger screen and, usually includes, a detachable keyboard. The
convertible TPC form factor is very similar to a traditional notebook computer with the
screen display attached with a single swivel hinge to the main portable PC body that can
rotate 360 degrees allowing the screen to lie flat on the keyboard, with the screen up, to
emulate a slate arrangement. Several manufacturers have slate and convertible notebook
tablet models available (Tablet PC 2004 Quick Comparison, 2004).
The TPC is usually used by the instructor in a classroom setting as a presentation
device that eliminates the need for a blackboard or whiteboard. The presentation is
typically projected onto a screen using an overhead projection device. With products such
as Microsoft OneNote, PowerPoint, or Journal, the instructor has the ability to use
prepared lecture notes or slides and annotate them on the fly. Teaching faculty at this
university are able to connect to the projection device wirelessly which eliminates the
need of providing a TPC docking station in each presentation classroom. All students also
have a TPC and, at the discretion of the instructor, can assume control of the projector
allowing them to share what is on their TPC desktop with other class participants. This
capability fosters an active learning environment where students are actively
participating in the presentation which has been shown to increase learning (Barkhuus,
2005).

Acceptance of Tablet PCs

Pen Based Computing Background


Many information systems professionals view the TPC to be the next release of an
existing technology. Pen based computing has been around since the 1950s. The SemiAutomated Ground Environment (SAGE) air defense system used a light gun to
interact with the computer screen (Ray, 2002). Computerized automated drafting
programs in the 1970s used light pens or pen based drawing tablets to manipulate objects
on the computer screen (Fisher, 1999).
The first pen based desktop computer system was introduced by Wang in 1988.
This computer allowed users to annotate screen captures with ink from an electronic
pen on an opaque tablet attached to a serial port of the computer (Francik 1991). This
Wang Freestyle later allowed voice recordings to be attached to a pen event that could
then be emailed to another Wang user.
The first tablet computer introduced was the GRiDPad in 1989 by Jeff Hawkins,
the founder of Palm and Handspring. It was a PC (Intel based) computing device that
used a pen attached by a cord. GRiDPad could recognize hand printed characters and was
used for data collection, such as filling out forms. GRiDPad devices were used by several
state police agencies and some specialized form filler applications (Jones, 2002).
In 1993 Apple jumped onto the pen based computing bandwagon with the
Newton. This device was the first palm based computing device and was marketed by
Apple from 1993 to 1998. The official name of the device was the MessagePad but the
devices operating system called Newton (Apple Newton, 2006) became the devices

Acceptance of Tablet PCs

name. The Apple iPod is the latest version of this device since it operates by using the
original Newton operating system.
The most successful pen based device, prior to the TPC, was the Palm Pilot. Jeff
Hawkins, originally of Grid computing, founded the company in 1992. Later the
company was acquired by US Robotics and soon after that by 3com, the communications
company (Dillion, 1998). The Pilot was essentially a personal organizer device capable of
storing thousands of phone numbers and addresses. The device suffers from a number of
limitations including; small viewing screen, low processor power, insufficient memory,
and crippled applications. But the devices became popular with frequent travelers due to
their convenience features. Computer Business Review reports that makers shipped
nearly one million units in 2005 and projects that nearly two million units will be sold in
2006 (Fujitsu claims top tablet spot in EMEA, 2006).
In the eighteen years since the original GRiD computer introduction computer
hardware has significantly come down in price while micro processors have become
much more powerful. For these reason, and other developments of computer hardware
components, TPC devices are more affordable and powerful. The entry of Microsoft into
the market in 2000 (Gates, 2000) is the most recent event in TPC development. The
combination of a larger screen, increased computing capacity, and the way people use
computers today contribute the success of TPCs. With the ubiquitous availability of the
Internet more users are reading information on their mobile computing devices (Taylor &
Todd, 2001). Students use their devices to read email, news, web pages and other
information. The present college environment is an ideal environment for TPC adoption

Acceptance of Tablet PCs

(Abbott, 2004). As the TPC models have matured they have become very price
competitive with their notebook counterparts. Jeff Van West, of Microsoft, estimates that
a TPC will cost about $200-700 more than a comparably equipped notebook computer
(West, 2005). When the performance, features, and convenience of use are considered the
TPC is a viable alternative to notebook computing devices.
The Adoption of Technological Innovations
Many information systems (IS) researchers have published on various theories
that could be used to explain the adoption of information technology innovations. These
theories include; the technology acceptance model (TAM) (Davis, Bagozzi, & Warshaw,
1989); the theory of reasoned action (TRA) (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975); the theory of
planned behavior (TPB) (Ajzen, 1991) among others which are modifications or
developments of these models. The various lines of research are more extensively
discussed in chapters two and three in this dissertation.
The models were developed to help estimate and measure IS innovation success.
An estimate of the success rate of new IS technology implementation projects since the
1980s is about 50% (Westland & Clark, 2000). Explaining the adoption of new
information technologies has been described as the most mature research area in
contemporary information systems research literature (Hu, Chau, Sheng, & Tam, 1999).
Research in this area has generated adoption metrics that can be used to determine the
probability of successful implementation of information system initiatives. The
combination of these metrics into a single model entitled the Unified Theory of
Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) was proposed by several of the fields

Acceptance of Tablet PCs

10

leading researchers (Venkatesh, Morris, Davis, & Davis, 2003). The models used for
technology adoption were able to successfully predict the acceptance of an innovation in
only 40%of the cases (Davis et al., 1989) (Taylor & Todd, 2001) (Venkatesh & Davis,
2000). The new proposed model UTAUT has been demonstrated to be up to 70%
accurate at predicting user acceptance of information technology innovations (Venkatesh
et al., 2003). By generating a significantly higher percentage of technology innovation
success the UTUAT is deemed a superior metric than the prior metrics.
Objective of the Study
The objective of this study is to measure the acceptance of TPCs by students at
this university. This setting provides a unique context for the study of adoption of
technological innovations because of the ubiquity of TPCs, and wireless computing in
general on the campus. The primary instrument used to gather adoption data is a web
survey based on the variables defined in the UTAUT and other TAM studies. The
UTAUT constructs are performance expectancy, effort expectancy, social influence, and
facilitating conditions. Other technology research variables included are self efficacy,
attitude towards using technology, and anxiety. These were added to ensure a thorough
investigation of the acceptance of technology in this environment. The survey instrument
was constructed to enable the researcher to determine differences among the students
acceptance of TPC based on their major area of study, their year of attendance at the
university, and their experience with computers including tablet PCs. The acceptance of
TPC was measured using the UTAUT model proposed by Venkatesh and Davis
(Venkatesh et al., 2003). Additional discussion of the appropriateness of this model is

Acceptance of Tablet PCs

11

presented in chapter two and three of this dissertation. The primary research question
guiding this research is to understanding the level and rate of technological buy-in
(adoption) at this campus in order to identify the aspects of the environment that most
contribute to the adoption process, and identify the support structures (social,
environmental, etc.) that facilitate this process.
Research Questions
The primary reason for the study is to measure if college students, at this campus,
accept the wireless mobile computing initiative. The second question examined is the
efficiency of technology adoption as determined by the UTAUT model. The third
question addressed by this study is the impact of the various UTAUT variables, and other
variables not included in the UTAUT model, on user acceptance of the TPC.
From a null hypothesis and alternative hypothesis approach, the research
questions are expressed below.
H01: University students, in the study environment, reject the Tablet PC.
H02: The Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) does
not predict the successful acceptance of the Tablet PC
H03: The constructs of the UTAUT will not demonstrate an effect on users
acceptance of the tablet PC.
H04: Computer self efficacy does not impact students acceptance of the Tablet
PC.

Acceptance of Tablet PCs

12

H05: Anxiety about computer use does not impact students acceptance of the
Tablet PC
H06: Students use pattern of the Tablet PC does not impact their acceptance of the
device.
The alternate hypotheses are listed below.
Ha1: University students, in the study environment, accept the Tablet PC.
Ha2: The Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) does
predict the successful acceptance of the Tablet PC
Ha3: The constructs of the UTAUT will demonstrate an effect on user acceptance
of the tablet PC.
Ha4: Computer self efficacy does have an impact on students acceptance of the
Tablet PC.
Ha5: Anxiety about computer use does have an impact on students acceptance of
the Tablet PC.
Ha6 Students use of the Tablet PC does not impact students acceptance of the
device.

The survey questions were mapped to constructs of the UTAUT model with some
constructs included from the TAM to measure the acceptance or rejection of the

Acceptance of Tablet PCs

13

individual hypothesis. The mapping of the questions is described in Chapter 3 of this


dissertation.
Significance of the Study
There are several studies that focus on the adoption of information technology
beginning in 1975 with the theory of planned behavior by Ajzen (Fishbein & Ajzen,
1975). The technology acceptance model was proposed by Davis in 1989 (Davis, 1989)
followed by several studies that offer support and suggested modification of the TAM
model (Mathieson, 1991) (Legris, Ingham, & Collerette, 2003). This is a significant
project because it will study a relatively new model, UTAUT, to determine the
acceptance of an information technology initiative by college students. This dissertation
will test the validity of the UTAUT model in a context that is unique to other study
settings.
Many corporate and educational institutions have the existing infrastructure to
support a ubiquitous wireless computing environment. This study will support the
migration to a more mobile computing environment by identifying the structural and
contextual factors that facilitate the adoption of wireless technology and mobile
computing devices. There are many benefits, and some disadvantages, of ubiquitous
computing in a wireless environment. Ubiquitous wireless access to electronic
classrooms and overhead projectors allow teachers to use all the things teachers can use
to enrich their presentations with multimedia (Burton, 2004, p. 55).
The study could aid academic institutions with their decisions whether or not to
implement a new information system technology. The findings of this research can

Acceptance of Tablet PCs

14

indicate areas that could improve the acceptance of technology implementations.


Although this study does not investigate the financial impact of TPC initiatives it may aid
academic institutions with the decision of adopting this new technology.
Scope of the Study
This study examines the acceptance of TPC by students newly enrolled in the fall
of 2005. The results of the study should not be applied to all university students as other
educational environments may lead to different acceptance decisions. The population size
was chosen to attempt to provide some statistical significance to the study but the best
predictive efficiency of the UTAUT model is only 70%. Technology adoption scenarios
are not correctly predicted in nearly 30% of the cases. An examination of the studies
conducted using technology adoption models reveals that many have been conducted on
undergraduate and graduate students. A fair number of research has been conducted using
IS adoption models on business services such as mobile internet (Pederson & Ling,
2002), text messaging, contact services, mobile payment (Pederson, Nysveen, &
Thorbjornsen, 2003), mobile gaming, and mobile parking services (Pederson & Nysveen,
2003).
Study Context
This study was conducted at a small Midwestern university where freshman and
sophomore students are required to lease a TPC since the fall semester of 2004. In
subsequent years new freshman, and transfer students have been required to lease a TPC.
The result of this initiative is that all freshman, sophomore, and junior students at this

Acceptance of Tablet PCs

university have TPCs in 2006. This college has a long tradition of supporting data
communication and networking innovations appearing in the top ten most wired
campuses in the year 2000 (Schmidt, 2000).

15

Acceptance of Tablet PCs

16

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW


Information systems research literature is rich with articles about organizational
and individual acceptance of IS innovations. Explaining how end user chooses to accept
technical innovations require psychology based theories. Social Cognitive Theory (SCT)
is a broad psychometric research area that studies the factors involved in individual
decision making. SCT distinguishes itself from traditional social learning theory by
incorporating mental processing (cognition) into the interpretation of observational
learning. Albert Bandura, of Stanford University, has led development of SCT since the
1960s. His research is important to technology acceptance models because he laid the
foundation allowing us to understand human behavior. Bandura postulates that human
behavior is a triadic, dynamic, and reciprocal interaction of three factors: personal
factors, behavior, and the environment (Bandura, 1977, 1986). While some social
scientists propose that behavior is a result of consequences, SCT postulates that goaldirected and self-regulation processes play a large part in how we react to different
situations. Furthermore, SCT suggests that there are both direct and indirect effects of
reinforcement t hat learners conscientiously choose. Banduras research stimulated
researchers to study techniques for promoting organizational change and measuring the
success of change.
Recently Bandura has moved his primary research to health psychology (Bandura,
2002). A new branch of research has developed that use the principles of social
cognitivism proposed by Bandura, and others, to measure the acceptance of technical
innovations. These theories can be collectively referred to as technology acceptance

Acceptance of Tablet PCs

17

models. This chapter discusses the history and progression of technology acceptance
models in depth. The unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT)
model including its underlying construction, previous applications, and its similarity to
other implementation models is also discussed.
History of Technology Acceptance Models
Technology Acceptance Models (TAM) have been developed to measure system
use, acceptance, and user satisfaction of those systems (Davis, Bagozzi, & Warshaw,
1989). The Davis model specifically focuses on information systems use and is based on
the theory of reasoned action (TRA) originally introduced by Ajzen and Fishbein in the
early 80s (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980) and further refined by Ajzen as the extended TRA in
1991 (Ajzen, 1991).
TRA is a technology acceptance model that can be used to predict behavior in a
wide variety of situations, not just the adoption of information systems technology. Ajzen
states that an individuals beliefs influence his/her attitude towards various situations.
The users attitude joins with subjective norms to shape the behavior intentions of each
individual. This theory was further refined and called the theory of planned behavior
(TPB) which is also titled the extended theory of reasoned action. The TPB is a general
behavior model which can be used to study broader acceptance situations than the TAM
but it has been applied to information systems studies (Mathieson, 1991) & (Taylor &
Todd, 2001).

Acceptance of Tablet PCs

18

Figure 1 illustrates the theory of planned behavior. The model helps to explain
how to affect the behavior of people. Ajzen proposed the model to predict deliberate
behavior, because behavior can be deliberate and planned.

Figure 1. Theory of Planned Behavior


Note. From Ajzen, I. (1991). The Theory of Planned Behavior. by Izak Ajzen, 1991,
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, p. 50, 179-211.

TPB includes many factors, or constructs, used to determine users acceptance of


innovations. The three considerations are behavioral beliefs, normative beliefs, and
control beliefs. These are the users core beliefs about the consequences of the action, the
expectations of others, and beliefs about how the user controls, or does not control, the
end result of the behavior. Table 1 further describes the model parameters.

Acceptance of Tablet PCs

19

Table 1. TPB Constructs (Ajzen, 1991)


Construct
Attitude Toward the Behavior

Description
The users evaluation of the desirability of his or her
using the system

Subjective Norm

The individuals perception of social pressure to


perform the behavior.

Perceived Behavioral Control

The individuals perception of his or her control over


performance of the behavior.

Intention

The impact of the first three constructs, attitudes, on


the strength of an individuals intent to perform the
behavior.

Behavior Belief

the subjective probability that the behavior will lead


to a particular outcome

Outcome Evaluation

A rating of the desirability of the outcome

Normative Belief

The individuals perception of a referent others


opinion about the individuals performance

Control Belief

The perception of the availability of skills, resources


and opportunities

Behavior

The outcome of the process.

The complexity of TPB model limits its use in information systems research.
TPBs include more variables than may be important in most information systems

Acceptance of Tablet PCs

20

technology implementations (Taylor & Todd, 2001). Some of the variables that have
been removed from the TPB have shown up in more modern models such as the
influence of people considered significant by the participants. These factors are important
to modern acceptance models.
The Technology Acceptance Model
The TAM model, and its derivations, gradually became the accepted model for
research in information systems adoption cases. Debate and refinement of technology
adoption models has continued in IS research literature. The advantage of a TAM is that
it is specifically designed to address the acceptance of IS technology. The TAM model
replaced the first three attitudinal constructs from the TPB with two technology
acceptance measures perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use. This was done in an
attempt to simplify the model making prediction of acceptance easier to predict.

Figure 2. The Technology Acceptance Model.


Note. From Extending the Technology Acceptance Model: The Influence of Perceived
User Resources, by Mathieson, K., Peacock, E., & Chin, W. W. (2001). The Data Base
for Advances in Information Systems, 32(2), p. 90.

Acceptance of Tablet PCs

21

The two theoretical components that are the foundation of Daviss TAM model
(Davis et al., 1989, p. 985). The first is perceived usefulness (PU) and perceived ease of
use (PEOU). Davis defines usefulness as the degree to which a person believes that
using a particular system would enhance his or her job performance. Davis goes on to
define perceived ease of use as the degree to which a person believes that using a
particular system would be free of effort (Davis et al., 1989, p. 985).
A recognized limitation of TAM is that it does not take into consideration any
barriers that would prevent an individual from adopting a particular information systems
technology (Taylor & Todd, 2001). These variables that are not included in TAM are
system design characteristics, training, support, and decision maker characteristics.
The research studying modifying factors to Daviss technology acceptance model
attempt to improve upon it by adding user resources and restrictions to the model.
Mathieson termed these factors as external control factors. These external factors include
subjective norm, voluntariness, job relevance, output quality, and result demonstrability
(Mathieson, 1991, p. 87). By adding robustness to the model the researchers hope to
improve the predictive value of the tool. Recently Venkatesh et al. published
improvement in the prediction of acceptance from 17% to 42% (Venkatesh et al., 2003, p.
439).
Venkatesh and Davis attempted to incorporate these discussions of external
factors into a TAM model when they proposed a model in 2000 extending the TAM.
Their new model incorporates additional theoretical variables that include social

Acceptance of Tablet PCs

22

influence processes and cognitive processes. Figure 3 illustrates the result of the extended
model.

Figure 3. Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model.


Note. From. A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four
Longitudinal Field Studies, by Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000) Management
Science, 46(2), p. 190.

Examination of current literature on technology acceptance does indicate that


additional factors need to be included that were not in original TAM models. Examples
of the types of variables are demographics, managerial knowledge, social factors,
environmental characteristics, and task-related characteristics (Pijpers, 2001). Some
examples of possible additional factors are the motivational factors introduced by
Vallerand (Vallerand, 1997). The perception that users will want to perform an activity
because it is perceived to be instrumental in achieving valued outcomes that are distinct
from the activity itself, such as improved job performance, pay, or promotions are

Acceptance of Tablet PCs

23

extrinsic while the perception that users will want to perform the activity for no apparent
reinforcement other that the process of performing the activity per se (Davis et al., 1992,
p. 1112).
Information Systems research has validated the TAM, and its derivations. Table 2
presents an abbreviated list of researchers and dates that have used the TAM model to
study their technology acceptance research problems.
Table 2
TAM Research (Legris, Ingham, & Collerette, 2003)
Year
Author
Model Used
________________________________________________________________________
1989

Davis

TAM

1992

Davis & Bagozzi

Extended TAM

1991

Mathieson

TAM & TPB

1995

Taylor& Todd

TAM + subjective norm

1997

Jackson

TAM + validation tools

1998

Bajaj et. al.

TAM + loop back adjust

1999

Hu et al.

TAM

2000

Venkatesh & Davis

TAM + subjective norms

2002

Hwang & M. Yi

TAM + goal orientation, CSE

This body of research validates and extends the application of TAM. But TAM is
only capable of predicting technology adoption success between 30% (Meister &
Compeau, 2002) and 40%of the cases (Venkatesh & Davis, 2000). As a result of this,
researchers have searched for better technology acceptance models that can deliver a

Acceptance of Tablet PCs

24

higher prediction of success (Legris et al., 2003) (Plouffe, Hulland, & Vandenbosch,
2001). The call for a modified model that incorporates both human and social variables
led to the development of an extended TAM and eventually the Unified Theory of
Acceptance and Use of Technology model.
The Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology Model
The result of the discussion and debate over the best technology acceptance tool
resulted in several tools being available to IS researchers. As many as eight models have
received support in recent literature. The September 2003 issue of the MIS Quarterly has
addressed this issue (Venkatesh, Morris, Davis, & Davis, 2003). This research article
examines the current state of knowledge in this area comparing similarities and
differences in the current models. The Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of
Technology (UTAUT) model resulted from this study. Dr. Venkatesh et al. attempted to
validate the tool by testing UTAUT on historical data from previous TAM researchers.

Acceptance of Tablet PCs

25

Figure 4. UTAUT Model (Venkatesh et al., 2003, p. 447)


Note. From Theories Used in IS Research Website, www.istheory.yourku.ca.

Figure four illustrates the UTAUT model that compiles all the variables found in
the eight existing models and a selected subset of additional constructs. Venkatesh et al.
then validated the model using both existing data, from the previous TAM studies, and
data obtained in two new surveys. The UTAUT model postulates that three direct
variables (performance expectancy, effect expectancy, and social influence) determine
the behavioral intent of technology use and a direct determinant of usage behavior in
facilitating conditions. The model integrates four moderating factors (gender, age,
experience, and voluntariness) having varying influence the primary constructs. In
summary, the UTAUT model has condensed the 32 variables found in eight existing
models into four main effects and four moderating factors.

Acceptance of Tablet PCs

26

Table 3. UTAUT Components


Construct
Performance Expectancy (PE)

Description
Degree to which an individual believes that using the
system will help attain gains in job performance

Effort Expectancy (EE)

The degree of ease associated with the use of the


system

Social Influence (SI)

The degree to which an individual perceives that


important others believe he or she should use the new
system

Facilitating Conditions (FC)

The degree to which an individual believes that an


organizational and technical infrastructure exists to
support use of the system.

Table 4. UTAUT Moderators


Construct
Gender

Description
Gender roles have a strong psychological basis and
are enduring.

Age

Age has an effect on attitudes.

Experience

Effort is expected to be more important in the early


stages of new behavior.

Voluntariness of Use

Is usage voluntary or mandated

Acceptance of Tablet PCs

27

The moderating factors have influence on the four model constructs. Gender and
Age influence performance expectance, effort expectance, and social influence. Age and
experience moderate the facilitating conditions. Experience moderates effort expectancy,
social influence, and facilitating conditions. Voluntariness of use moderates the effect of
social influence in UTAUT. The combinations of the constructs and moderating factors
have increased the predictive efficiency to 70%, a major improvement over previous
TAM model rates (Venkatesh et al., 2003).
UTAUT Supporting Research
Research is currently being conducted to test the UTAUT model. Dr. John
Anderson and Dr. Paul Schwager, of East Carolina University are examining an
application of the UTAUT model that is being presented at AMCIS conference this
coming summer in Acapulco, Mexico (Anderson & Schwager, 2006). Dr. Christer
Calrsson et al (Carlsson, Carlsson, Hyvnen, Puhakainen, & Walden, 2006) have studied
the adoption of wireless mobile communication in Europe with UTAUT. Dr. Monica
Garfield used the UTAUT tool to analyze the acceptance of table PCs at Bentley College
(Garfield, 2005).

Acceptance of Tablet PCs

28

CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH DESIGN


The objective of this study was to measure the acceptance of TPCs by college
students at a small Midwestern University. The expectations are that the survey will
provide evidence of the acceptance of the devices by students at this research site. The
research questions guiding this study are:
H01: University students, in the study environment, reject the Tablet PC.
H02: The Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) does
not predict the successful acceptance of the Tablet PC
H03: The constructs of the UTAUT will not demonstrate an effect on users
acceptance of the tablet PC.
H04: Computer self efficacy does not impact students acceptance of the Tablet
PC.
H05: Anxiety does not impact students acceptance of the Tablet PC
H06: Students use pattern of the Tablet PC does not impact their acceptance of the
device
The alternate hypotheses are listed below.
HA1: University students, in the study environment, accept the Tablet PC.

Acceptance of Tablet PCs

29

HA2: The Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) does
predict the successful acceptance of the Tablet PC
HA3: The constructs of the UTAUT will demonstrate an effect on user acceptance
of the tablet PC.
HA4: Computer self efficacy does have an impact on students acceptance of the
Tablet PC.
HA5: Anxiety does impact students acceptance of the Tablet PC
HA6: Students use of the Tablet PC does not impact students acceptance of the
device.
The participants of this study were college students who had been using the
device since the fall of 2005. The sample of student participants is over three hundred
students. The population of students who enrolled at the university for the fall semester of
2005 was 356. The number of subjects available to be surveyed was lower due to
dropouts and transfers to other educational institutions and the timing of the sampling
which was at the beginning of the summer semester. The researcher approached the
instructors of the various courses that would be a normal progression for this student
population and obtained their permission to conduct the survey during a scheduled class
period.
The instrument used to gather adoption data was a web survey based on the
variables defined in this study. The survey tool presented questions based on the Unified

Acceptance of Tablet PCs

30

Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) Model, and since this is a
relatively new model, the survey included questions addressing constructs that were
present in the original Davis Technology Acceptance model (TAM) dealing with
computer self efficacy, anxiety, and usage. These questions were added as suggested by a
group of technology acceptance
researchers.

Figure 5: Dissertation Research Model (Moran, 2006)


Note. Figure created with PLS-Graph from the hypothesized research model.

The UTAUT model theorizes that four constructs have a significant determination
on user acceptance of IT innovations (Venkatesh et al., 2003). These variables are

Acceptance of Tablet PCs

31

performance expectancy, effort expectancy, social influence, and facilitating conditions.


These constructs are moderated, in varying degrees, by gender, age, experience, and
voluntariness of use. Figure 5 graphically displays the relationship between interacting
variables used for this study.
Performance Expectancy
Performance expectancy is defined as the degree to which the student believes
that using the TPC will help him or her to accomplish the various academic assignment at
a typical university. Venkatesh (Venkatesh et al., 2003) postulates that performance
expectancy is the strongest of the four constructs in his model. This theory is support by
other researchers publishing papers on acceptance models (Agarwal & Prasad, 1998,
Compeau & Higgins, 1995; Taylor & Todd, 2001) [APA style references indicate that
multiple references given at the end of a sentence be enclosed within the same
parentheses]. Performance expectancy will be measured using ten questions that focus on
task accomplishment. These questions are only slightly modified versions of questions
used consistently in most prominent research publications dealing with TAM. Recent
studies have determined that this construct may have a gender bias (Lynott &
McCandless, 2000, Venkatesh et al., 2003) determined that the effect performance
expectancy was moderated by age and age such that it was more important to younger
male workers in particular.

Acceptance of Tablet PCs

32

Effort Expectancy
Effort expectancy is defined as the degree of ease associated with the use of the
TPC. This construct will be measure by asking eight questions based on the common
current literature set. Some researchers suggest that there are gender differences related to
roles in life (Lynott et al. 2000). Researchers in technology acceptance have addressed
these criteria (Venkatesh & Morris, 2000) thus a gender effect is expected in this study
and will be measured by determining the gender of the survey participants.

Social Influence
Social influence is the degree to which an individual perceives that important
others believe he/she should use the new systems. This construct deals with the notion
that the individuals behavior is influenced by the way in which they believe others will
view them as a result of using the technology. The importance of social factors becomes
more significant in mandated environments is postulated by Venkatesh and Davis in their
2000 publication (Venkatesh & Davis, 2000). In mandatory adoption settings social
influence appears to be significant only in the early stages with its effect eroding over
time.
Facilitating Conditions
Facilitating conditions are defined as the degree to which an individual believes
that an organizational and technical infrastructure exists to support use of the TPC. Five
common TAM research questions will be used to measure this construct. Venkatesh et al.

Acceptance of Tablet PCs

33

published in 2003 that this variable was not significant as a determinant of intention.
However this variable was retained because of discussion pertaining to its importance in
other publications (Taylor & Todd, 1995).
Supplementary Variables
The TAM model is a simpler model than the UTAUT but includes constructs that
address other personal and situational variables that may be pertinent in this study. The
additional variables added to the study from TAM are; attitude toward using technology
(ATUT), self-efficacy (SE), and Anxiety (ANX). These variables will be measured by
asking five to six questions dealing with each area that have been modified to address
tablet PC use. In addition, the researcher is interested in the usage of the TPC as a pen
based mobile computing platform so questions are asked to determine the usage of the
device. These questions were constructed with the help of a group of researchers
interested in tablet PCs in an educational environment.
Pilot Study
A pilot study was conducted to test the survey instrument with a small group of
upper class students enrolled in a one credit FrontPage application class. The survey used
in the pilot study contained approximately sixty statements pertaining to the various
constructs included in the dissertation model. The researcher asked the participants to
complete the sample survey during normal class meeting time. Following the group
survey completion, which was approximately fifteen minutes, the group of participants
and the researcher discussed the survey instrument for areas that could be improved.

Acceptance of Tablet PCs

34

Areas of discussion included; confusion about what the survey was; confusion about the
wording of some statements, and the length of the survey.
Following the first test of the survey the researcher made the recommended
changes to the instrument. The preliminary material, before participants entered the
survey, was reworded to clarify the reasons for the research and the confidentiality of the
participants. Six survey statements that were thought to be confusing or redundant were
removed and many statements were reworded to clarify the statements. Another result of
the test was reorganization of the questions into construct groups allowing a full set of
statements to be answered on one screen. The final addition was the elimination of all the
submit buttons and replacing them with a submit command button at the end of the
survey.
The modified survey tool was re-evaluated by the pilot group in a subsequent
class session with discussion following the second trial run. The pilot group was pleased
with the changes and suggested a desire that participants may wish to know the final
result. This resulted in a research link being established on the researchers website that
students can visit to view the survey results and publications based on data obtained by
the survey. Survey modifications were based on information found at web survey design
hosted by San Diego State University (Hoffman, 2006). Specifically the layout of the
final survey design is based on information found in an excellent book by Don Dillman
of Washington State University (Dillman, 1999).

Acceptance of Tablet PCs

35

The Survey
After the survey instrument and the scope of the research had been approved by
the university Human Subjects Committee, then all subsequent survey participants were
given identical survey forms. Participants were assured response anonymity by not being
required to provide identifying information on the survey. The survey instrument was
made available to the participants via the World Wide Web. An increasing number of
research studies are being conducted in this fashion (Gall, Gall, & Borg, 2003). There is a
tremendous benefit of using a web survey over paper survey because the responses are
transferred automatically to a database eliminating clerical errors. The researcher
prepared both the survey instrument and the response database in preparation for survey
administration.
The survey instrument was constructed using Hypertext Markup Language
(HTML) and Active Server Pages (ASP), and the database utilized Access, from the
Microsoft Office Suite, to capture and store the data. The survey tool was demonstrated
to faculty and staff both at research university and another tablet university, where it was
critiqued resulting in a more streamlined tool. Initially the survey was deemed to be too
long and several questions were removed in an attempt to eliminate fatigue from
adversely affecting survey results.
Based on the expert committee input, the survey layout was changed to include
multiple related questions into a single screen and the length of the survey was limited to
five screens. The survey instrument was beta-tested by administration to sixteen students
who were enrolled in an intermediate Microsoft Access course. These upperclassmen also

Acceptance of Tablet PCs

36

considered the design and format of the survey and made suggestions that resulted in
limiting the surveys length to five screens.
The questions or statements used in survey instrument can be examined in
appendix B. Figure 6 illustrates the webpage link utilized in the study.

Figure 6. Research Page Link (http://www.homepages.dsu.edu/moranm/Research/research_page.htm)

Survey participants accessed the tool by clicking on the TabletPC Survey link
on the lower left hand corner of the figure. When this link was selected the screen
displayed in Figure 7 appeared explaining the purpose of the survey. When the
participants clicked that link they are indicating informed consent. Participants were
allowed to exit the process or enter the actual survey instrument. Survey participants were

Acceptance of Tablet PCs

37

in a class setting and were guided to the instrument by the survey coordinator who is the
primary researcher.

Figure 7. Web survey link

Acceptance of Tablet PCs

The screen below (Figure 8) was displayed to provide survey participants with
links to responsible individuals, and Capella University, if the participants had any
questions, or concerns, about the survey or the process. If participants clicked on a link
they were directed to the appropriate email address for the responsible person or a
mailing address and phone number were displayed.

Figure 8. Questions & Concern Information

38

Acceptance of Tablet PCs

39

When survey participants clicked the TabletPC Survey button they were taken
to the Website containing the survey instrument. Figure 8 shows the first screen the
participants saw containing the first set of questions.

Figure 9. Web Survey Instrument

After survey completion the participants submitted their selections to the survey
database by selecting a command button. The instrument and database are stored on a
secure web server administered by computing services staff at the participant university.
The survey questions were broken down by construct, survey layout, and human
subjects committee approval documentation are available from the researcher.

Acceptance of Tablet PCs

40

Sample Size
One method of determining the necessary sample size for a survey is based on the
error the researcher is willing to accept. It is common in the social sciences to try to
achieve a statistical power of at least 95% confidence or an alpha of 0.05. Using the
method and a table provided by Cohen (Cohen, 1988, p. 52) it was determined that a
sample of at least 175 participants would be needed to achieve 95% confidence. One of
the benefits of using PLS-Graph is that it can resample the initial data set enlarging it thus
reducing overall sample requirements. Guidelines provided with PLS-Graph recommend
a sample size equal to the larger of two possibilities: (1) ten times the number of
indicators on the most formative construct, in this study ten times the ten indicators of
performance expectancy or one hundred participants, or (2) ten time the largest number
of antecedent constructs used to determine a dependent variable, in this study ten times
six, the number of constructs used to determine behavior intent. In all cases the 263
survey participants is greater than the calculated sample size.

Survey Sample Population


This survey tool was administered to 361 students at the research site, refer to
appendix A for the exact number of students in each class. The participant pool were
students enrolled in the following courses
Introduction to computers (CSC 105) about one hundred eighty students
Introduction to visual basic (CIS 130) about one hundred fifty students
Computer hardware and networks (CIS 351) about ninety students

Acceptance of Tablet PCs

41

Computer science 2 (CSC 150) about forty students


Management of Information Systems (CIS 325) about thirty students
These classes were selected for the survey because they contained students who
had been using the TPC since August 2005; it was postulated that most of these students
were introduced to the device during the fall semester of 2005. Students who are enrolled
in more than one of the classes surveyed were instructed to not complete the survey by
the survey administrator. The survey was administered during normal class meeting times
by the researcher who verified that no participant completed the instrument more than
once. The survey was conducted during normal class sessions during the last ten minutes
of class using each students TPC. The time required to complete the survey was five to
seven minutes.
Human Subjects Protection

The human subjects research committee (HSC) at the subject university


determined that this research is exempt from the rules governing the protection of human
subjects because of the method used to obtain and record the information. This exemption
is based on information published in the Code of Federal Regulations Title 34
Department of Education PART 97 - Protection of Human Subjects (Code of Federal
Regulations Title 34 Department of Education PART 97 - Protection of Human Subjects,
2004). The rules of exemption state that

(2) Research involving the use of educational tests (cognitive, diagnostic,


aptitude, achievement), survey procedures, interview procedures or
observation of public behavior, unless:

Acceptance of Tablet PCs

42

(i) Information obtained is recorded in such a manner that human subjects


can be identified, directly or through identifiers linked to the subjects; and
(ii) Any disclosure of the human subjects' responses outside the research
could reasonably place the subjects at risk of criminal or civil liability or
be damaging to the subjects' financial standing, employability, or
reputation. (PART 97.101, paragraph b2)
The exemption was granted because survey is a common educational tool
for this university and no information will be recorded that could be used to
identify the subjects. The survey information will be maintained and protected by
the primary investigator for the duration of its use and retained for five years.

The two class sections taught by the researcher have enrollments of thirty
six of the approximately three hundred survey target audience. These participants
will be compared to the results from the rest of the survey to determine if they can
be included in the statistical calculations based on the similarity of survey
responses. The difference will be evaluated in chapter four by comparing the
mean, standard deviation, and variance, using a t-test, of the two groups. Since
these sections are under the instruction of the primary investigator there may be
an influence from the instructor.

Survey Questions
Venkatesh et al. (2003) in the September issue of the MIS Quarterly used a survey
comprised of thirty one questions to support the UTAUT model. The questions were
derived from the eight models analyzed in the paper. The Venkatesh team used the
survey instrument in two studies to validate the new model. They studied a financial

Acceptance of Tablet PCs

43

service company that was primarily involved in research and a retail electronics company
whose primary functional area was customer service.
The survey instrument contained four questions addressing each of the technology
acceptance areas. The eight variables are performance expectancy, effort expectancy,
attitude toward using technology, social influence, facilitating conditions, self-efficacy,
anxiety, and behavior intention to use the system. The validation process used in the
Venkatesh publication eliminated three of these variables which were found to not be
significant determinants of use. The Venkatesh eliminated variables are attitude toward
using technology, self-efficacy, and anxiety.
The survey used at the research site utilizes a model similar to that used in the
Venkatesh publication in that it contains questions pertaining to the constructs of the
UTAUT. This dissertation survey includes questions pertaining to constructs that the
researcher believes are important in this environment. There are also questions measuring
the four moderating UTAUT items, questions pertaining to the TAM model, and question
that address the participants age and computer experience including computer experience
prior to their enrollment in college. Survey participants were asked to indicate their
response to each statement using a seven item likert scale with one representing a strong
disagreement and seven being a strong agreement with the statement.

Acceptance of Tablet PCs

Table 5 lists the questions that are being used to measure performance
expectancy.
Table 5. Performance Expectancy Questions
Question Item
Using the Tablet PC in my classes would enable me to accomplish tasks more quickly [font size not
consistent with the other table]
Using the Tablet PC in my classes would hamper my performance (reverse scored)
Using the Tablet PC in my classes would increase my productivity
Using the Tablet PC in my classes would hamper my effectiveness in class (reverse scored)
Using the Tablet PC in my classes would make it easier to do my homework
Using the Tablet PC in my classes would hamper the quality of the work I do (reverse scored)
Using the Tablet PC in my classes would cause my classmates perceive me as competent
Using the Tablet PC in my classes would increase the instructors respect for me
Using the Tablet PC in my classes would decrease my chances of getting a good grade (reverse scored)
Using the Tablet PC in my classes would be useful in my classes

44

Acceptance of Tablet PCs

45

Table 6 lists the statements that are being used to measure effort expectancy with
appropriate responses on a seven item Likert scale.
Table 6. Effort Expectancy Questions
Question Item
Learning to operate the Tablet PC is easy for me.
I find it easy to get the Tablet PC to do what I want it to do
My interaction with the Tablet PC would be clear and understandable
I find the Tablet PC to be flexible to interact with
It is easy for me to become skillful at using the Tablet PC
I find the Tablet PC easy to use
Using the Tablet PC takes too much time from my normal duties.
Working with the Tablet PC is so complicated, and difficult to understand

Table 7 lists the statements that are being used to measure attitude toward using
technology with appropriate responses on a seven item Likert scale.
Table 7. Attitude toward using technology Questions
Question Item
Using the Tablet PC is a good idea
I dislike the idea of using the Tablet PC (reverse scored)
Using the Tablet PC is pleasant
The Tablet PC makes schoolwork more interesting
Using the Tablet PC is fun
I like working with the Tablet PC

Acceptance of Tablet PCs

46

Table 8 lists the statements that are being used to measure social influence with
appropriate responses on a seven item Likert scale.
Table 8. Social Influence Questions
Question Item
People who influence my behavior think that I should use the Tablet PC.
People who are important to me think that I should use the Tablet PC.
Professors in this university have been helpful in the use of the Table PCs
My advisor is very supportive of the use of the Tablet PC for my class.
In general, the university has supported the use of the Tablet PC.
Having the Tablet PC is a status symbol in my university.

Table 9 lists the statements that are being used to measure facilitating conditions
with appropriate responses on a seven item Likert scale.
Table 9. Facilitating Conditions Questions
Question Item
I have the resources necessary to use the Tablet PC.
I have the knowledge necessary to use the Tablet PC.
The Tablet PC is not compatible with other computer systems I use.
The help desk is available for assistance with the Tablet PC difficulties.
Using the Tablet PC fits into my work style.

Acceptance of Tablet PCs

47

Table 10 lists the statements that are being used to measure behavioral intention
with appropriate responses on a seven item Likert scale.
Table 10. Behavioral Intention Questions
Question Item
Whenever possible, I intend to use the Tablet PC in my studies
I perceive using the Tablet PC as Involuntary
I plan to use the Tablet PC in the next three months.
To the extent possible, I would use Tablet PC to do different things (school or not school)
related
To the extent possible, I would use Tablet PC in my studies frequently.

In addition to the statements regarding constructs included in the UTAUT model


this research added statements that address additional variables included in many
technology acceptance models which are self efficacy, anxiety, and usage. The researcher
postulates that including these construct will both strengthen the study and improve the
support for the UTAUT.

Acceptance of Tablet PCs

48

Table 11 list the statements used to measure self efficacy, responses are in a seven
item likert scale with one representing a strong disagreement and seven being a strong
agreement with the statement..
Table 11. Self Efficacy
Question Item
I could complete a task using the Tablet PC if there was no one around to tell me what to
do as I go.
I could complete a task using the Tablet PC if I had seen someone else demonstrate how
it could be used
I could complete a task using the Tablet PC if I could call someone to help if I got stuck
I could complete a task using the Tablet PC if I had a lot of time to complete the job.
I could complete a task using the Tablet PC if J had just the built in help facility for
assistance

Table 12 list the statements used to measure anxiety with appropriate responses
on a seven item Likert scale.
Table 12. Anxiety Questions
Question Item
I feel apprehensive about using the Tablet PC.
It scares me to think that I could lose a lot of information by using the Tablet PC and
pressing the wrong key.
I hesitate using the Tablet PC for fear of making mistakes I cannot correct
The Tablet PC is somewhat intimidating to me.

Acceptance of Tablet PCs

49

Table 13 list the statements and questions used to measure usage and other
information with appropriate responses on a seven item Likert scale. The use questions
were developed from input provided by the faculty experts who helped validate the
survey and are referred to in the next discussion.
Table 13. Usage and Other Information Questions
Question Item
I use my TPC in Slate mode.
I use my TPC stylus for navigation.
I use my TPC primarily as a notebook computer.
I use Windows Journal
I am a male/female
I am currently at DSU.
A
Freshman

B
Sophomore

C
Junior

D
Senior

E
Grad Student

My major is represented by the ____________ college at Dakota State University.


A
Arts & Sciences

B
Business& Info Sys

Education.

Graduate.

Other

I began using computers regularly in _______________ school.


A
Elementary

B
Middle

High.

College

E
Do not use

Approximately how many months have you been using the Tablet PC?
A

One

Three

C
Six

D
Twelve

E
More than Twelve

My age at the time of this survey is __________.


A
Seventeen

Eighteen

Nineteen

twenty

twentyone

Acceptance of Tablet PCs

50

The questions are similar to those used by the researchers cited as leading
authorities in technology acceptance research. The wording has been modified to address
the Tablet PC device. Some questions are constructed to check the validity of the
participants submissions by requiring an opposite response in the separate question. The
survey instrument was constructed with the help of Dr. Omar El-Gayar, vita available
from the primary investigator. Other researchers were contacted but did not participate in
the process.
Data Analysis Methodology
This is a modification of the UTAUT model which identifies interactions between
technology acceptance constructs. The most common method used for information
systems research for moderator analysis is regression analysis. Partial least squares is
used frequently in the research literature concerning psychometric evaluations. The
dissertation model consists of nine latent variables, or constructs. The latent variables
performance expectancy, effect expectancy, social influence, self efficacy, attitude
toward using technology, and anxiety, which are used to determine behavioral intent.
Behavioral intent and facilitating conditions are the two determinants of use behavior.
Venkatesh et al., the developers of the underlying UTAUT model, also include four
moderating factors (gender, age, experience, and voluntariness) that have varying
influence on the constructs. In addition to the constructs associated with the UTAUT
model this study will add attitude toward the use of technology, self efficacy, and
anxiety.

Acceptance of Tablet PCs

51

The statistical analysis method used for this dissertation was partial least squares
(PLS), a powerful second generation statistical technique of covariance based structural
equation modeling. PLS has been used by many researchers in the technology acceptance
field (Compeau & Higgins 1995, Venkatesh et al. 2003, & others). The tool used for the
analysis was PLS Graph (PLS Graph, Version 2.91.03.04) obtained from Wynne W. Chin
of the University of Houston. The software was used to determine the validity of the
various measurements or questions. The questions contained in the survey instrument
2

were evaluated for variance (R ) and retained if the variable had a variance greater than
0.7. This is consistent in current literature outlining technology adoption research. PLS
was used to study the assessment of latent variables and can also weight the relationship
between the questions used to determine unobservable model constructs.
The dissertation model was evaluated to measure the inclusion of the various
statement response variables used to contribute to the model constructs. PLS is preferred
in applications where the constructs are measured primarily by formative indicators such
as those used in this study. PLS is supported in a recent publication by Jarvis et al.
(Jarvis, MacKenzie, & Podsakoff, 2003) and Chin (Chin, Marcolin, & Newsted, 2003).
A complete analysis of the model required an examination of both the goodness
of fit criteria and the factor loading indicators. The goodness of fit indices measured how
well the variable parameter estimates were able to reproduce the sample covariance
matrix. The technique did this by taking the presented model as true and modifies the
parameter estimates until the covariance difference between the parameter estimates and
the sample is minimized.

Acceptance of Tablet PCs

52

Measures
Survey participants responded to questions regarding the TPC by recording their
agreement to the statement with a seven-point likert scale where a one represents strongly
disagree and a seven represents a strong agreement response. Internal consistencies of the
variables were determined using Cronbachs alpha after the negative scored items were
converted to the correct scale. Table 14 contains the measures of scale reliabilities for the
various construct variable groups. Generally reliability numbers greater than 0.6 are
considered acceptable in technology acceptance literature (Zhang, Li, & Sun, 2006).
Table 14. Scale Reliabilities
Construct
Performance Expectancy

Number of Questions
10

Reliability of group
0.84

Effort Expectancy

0.89

Attitude Toward Using Technology

0.89

Social Influence

0.76

Facilitating Conditions

0.70

Behavioral Intention

0.80

Self Efficacy

0.84

Anxiety

0.84

Usage

0.67

The data was collected and the reliability of the individual constructs were
evaluated using partial least squares. Figure 5 illustrates the dissertation model and the

Acceptance of Tablet PCs

53

nine constructs contained in the model. These constructs are modified, in a varying
degree, by moderating variables which are gender, age, experience, and voluntariness of
use. In context of this study it is hypothesized that six factors; performance expectancy
(PE), effort expectancy (EE), social influence (SI), attitude towards using technology
(ATUT), self efficacy (SE) and anxiety (ANX) together determine behavioral intent (BI).
Behavioral intent with facilitating conditions (FC) determines use behavior (B). Stated in
a formula the relationship can be expressed as displayed in figure 10.
B = w1BI + w2FC
BI= w3PE + w4EE + w5SI + w6ATUT +w7SE +w8ANX

Figure 10. Research Relationship Equations


At the same time the moderating factors, to a varying degree, have an effect on
each of the constructs stated in the two equations above. There are unobservable factors
that have an effect on the model and are measured in the determination of the variables
and are included to arrive at a good estimation of acceptance. Partial least squares has
been documented to be able to account for these factors and calculate the correct weights
allowing researchers to study the strength and direction of the relationships between
model variables and the relationships between moderating variables simultaneously
(Fornell & Bookstein, 1982, Lohmoller, 1989, Igbaria, 1994, & Chin, 2003).

Acceptance of Tablet PCs

54

CHAPTER 4: DATA ANALYSIS


Data Sample
The participants for this study were students enrolled at a Midwestern university
that adopted a tablet PC initiative requiring all students to lease a tablet personal
computer (TPC) device when they enrolled at the institution. A result of the initiative is
that all students who participated in this study had already pre-selected tablet PC use as
criteria of enrollment at this university. Because of this situation the results are skewed
toward TPC use and do not follow a normal population distribution.
The participants of the survey who were enrolled in the two sections taught by the
researcher (20 participants) were compared to the individuals in all the other sections
(243 participants) to determine if there were any statistically significant differences.
Analysis with SAS 9.0 did not find any statistically significant difference at the 95%
confidence level. The variance of the smaller group was greater than the larger group
which should be expected due to the low numbers involved and the lowest p-value was
0.076. The 95% confidence threshold used to prove that the groups are significantly
different is 0.05.
Data was collected from students in all the sections of courses thought to be most
likely enrolled in by students in their first year of table PC use. The available participant
pool was about 360 individuals enrolled in the selected courses (see Appendix A for
complete detail of sections). The database recorded responses from 268 participants
resulting in a response rate of 74%. Five survey submissions were disqualified due to

Acceptance of Tablet PCs

55

incomplete submissions, meaning that less than 75 %of the survey was completed
(Moore & Benbasat, 1991). A total of 263 responses were included in data analysis and
model construction.
The general demographics of the survey participants for gender showed that 119
survey participants were female (45%) and 142 identified themselves as male (54%),
three participants did not indicate a gender. The mean age of the participants was twenty
two with ninety four percent (94%) being younger than twenty four. One hundred and
twenty seven (48%) reported themselves as freshman students, sixty-six (25%) reported
themselves as sophomore students, forty-nine (18%) reported themselves as junior
students, sixteen (6%) reported themselves as senior students, and five did not indicate
any student classification (see Figure 11).

Class Status
None
2%
Senior
6%
Junior
19%

Sophomore
25%

Figure 11. Survey Participants Class Status.

Freshman
48%

Acceptance of Tablet PCs

56

Figure 12 illustrates survey respondents by college affiliation. Sixty one students


(23%) indicated their major to be affiliated with the College of Arts & Sciences, one
hundred and twenty two students (46%) indicated their major to be affiliated with the
College of Business & Information Systems, sixty two students (24%) indicated their
major to be affiliated with the College of Education, and eighteen students (7%) indicated
that they had not selected a college major yet.

College Affiliation

Other
7%

Arts&Sc
23%

Education
24%

BIS
46%

Figure 12: Survey Participants College Affiliation (N=263)

Acceptance of Tablet PCs

57

Figure 13 summarizes the participants response to the question of when their first
computer use occurred indicated that ninety six participants (36%) started using
computers in elementary grades, ninety seven participants (37%) started using computers
in during the middle school grades, thirty seven participants (14%) started using
computers in during their high school years, and thirty three participants (13%) began
using computers when they entered college. This data suggests few novice computer
users in the sample.

First Computer Use

College
13%
Elementary
36%

High School
14%

Middle
37%

Figure 13. Survey Participants First Computer Use (N=263).

Acceptance of Tablet PCs

58

Thirty four (13%) survey participants indicated that their first use of a tablet
personal computer (TPC) occurred in the past three month period, one hundred
participants (38%) had been using the TPC for six months, forty seven participants (18%)
had been using TPC for nine months, eight participants (3%) reported using a TPC for
one year, and seventy four participants (28%) reported TPC use of more that one year.
Figure 14 graphically summarizes this information.
Length of Tablet PC Use

> 12 mo
28%

12 mo
3%

Three mo
13%

Six mo
38%

Nine mo
18%

Figure 14. Survey Participants Length of Use of Table PC (N=263).

The fact that over a quarter of the participants reported tablet PC use of over a
year was not expected by the researcher but will allow discussion of the differences
between new TPC users and this more experienced group. The individuals in this group,
who indicated use of the TPC for more than one year, voluntarily joined the TPC
initiative by obtaining their own devices. When the university started the TPC initiative
only first and second year students were required to participate.

Acceptance of Tablet PCs

59

Data Validation
The data was examined with SAS 9.0 by David Zolnowsky, vita available from
the primary researcher, for basic statistics. The determination of skewness, and kurtosis
was included because previous literature in psychometric studies is often identified as
non-normal (Hair, Tatham, Anderson, & Black, 1998). Table 15 contains the variable
names for all the construct indicators, and the mean, standard deviation, skewness, and
kurtosis of the survey responses. PLS-Graph documentation refers to the construct
variables as indicators so throughout this dissertation variables and indicators indicate the
same information. Skewness is a measure of the symmetry of a distribution. A skewness
value of zero indicates that a distribution looks the same on the right and left of the center
point. A negative skewness value indicates that the left histogram tail is long compared to
the right histogram tail. A positive value indicates that the right tail is longer than the left
tail (Newbold, Carlson, & Thorene, 2007). Kurtosis measures the relative peak of the
mean in a distribution. Data distributions with high kurtosis have a high peak near the
mean with a heavy tail in one direction. Low kurtosis would be a flat top near the mean.
The tablet PC survey data is significantly peaked compared to a normal distribution
which would have a value of three. This type of a peaked distribution is called a Weibull
distribution. Unpaired T tests are valid for evaluating Weibull populations (Johnson,
Kotz, & Balakrishnan, 1994).

Acceptance of Tablet PCs

60

Table 15a. Statistical Analysis of the Variables.


Variables

Mean

Standard
Deviation

Skewness

Kurtosis

Performance Expectancy 1
Performance Expectancy 2
Performance Expectancy 3
Performance Expectancy 4
Performance Expectancy 5
Performance Expectancy 6
Performance Expectancy 7
Performance Expectancy 8
Performance Expectancy 9
Performance Expectancy 10

5.84
4.75
5.39
4.38
5.92
5.23
4.24
4.06
4.97
5.82

1.09
1.55
1.21
1.64
1.07
1.47
1.32
1.27
1.52
1.04

-1.96
-0.50
-1.05
-0.21
-1.78
-0.94
-0.36
-0.22
-0.63
-1.51

5.84
4.75
5.39
4.38
5.92
5.23
4.24
4.06
4.97
5.82

Effort Expectancy 1
Effort Expectancy 2
Effort Expectancy 3
Effort Expectancy 4
Effort Expectancy 5
Effort Expectancy 6
Effort Expectancy 7
Effort Expectancy 8

5.96
5.77
5.82
5.79
5.93
5.99
5.08
5.79

1.13
1.07
1.03
1.01
0.98
1.00
1.66
1.54

-1.80
-1.26
-1.12
-1.30
-1.24
-1.64
-1.00
-1.69

5.96
5.77
5.82
5.79
5.93
5.99
5.08
5.79

Attitude Toward Using Technology 1


Attitude Toward Using Technology 2
Attitude Toward Using Technology 3
Attitude Toward Using Technology 4
Attitude Toward Using Technology 5
Attitude Toward Using Technology 6

5.80
5.67
5.69
5.39
5.78
5.87

1.05
1.23
0.94
1.24
1.14
1.10

-1.67
-1.60
-1.26
-1.05
-1.65
-1.85

5.80
5.67
5.69
5.39
5.78
5.87

Social Influence 1
Social Influence 2
Social Influence 3
Social Influence 4
Social Influence 5
Social Influence 6

4.75
4.76
5.61
5.20
6.20
4.91

1.25
1.27
1.07
1.19
0.83
1.82

-0.11
-0.17
-1.22
-0.79
-1.44
-0.65

4.75
4.76
5.61
5.20
6.20
4.91

Facilitating Conditions 1
Facilitating Conditions 2
Facilitating Conditions 3
Facilitating Conditions 4
Facilitating Conditions 5

5.98
6.04
4.87
5.66
5.71

0.92
0.80
1.64
1.18
1.18

-1.91
-1.17
-0.78
-1.47
-1.69

5.98
6.04
4.87
5.66
5.71

Self Efficacy 1
Self Efficacy 2
Self Efficacy 3
Self Efficacy 4
Self Efficacy 5

5.45
5.51
5.44
5.23
4.97

1.31
1.29
1.16
1.35
1.40

-1.09
-1.25
-1.06
-0.84
-0.89

5.45
5.51
5.44
5.23
4.97

Acceptance of Tablet PCs

61

Table 15b. Statistical Analysis (continued).

Variables

Mean

Standard
Deviation

Skewness

Kurtosis

Anxiety 1
Anxiety 2
Anxiety 3
Anxiety 4

3.14
3.50
2.52
2.43

1.69
1.89
1.41
1.45

0.63
0.32
1.28
1.24

3.14
3.50
2.52
2.43

Behavioral Intent 1
Behavioral Intent 2
Behavioral Intent 3
Behavioral Intent 4
Behavioral Intent 5

5.68
4.62
6.08
5.94
5.87

1.16
1.59
1.04
1.07
1.13

-1.53
-0.32
-2.17
-1.82
-1.60

5.68
4.62
6.08
5.94
5.87

Use 1
Use 2
Use 3
Use 4

4.95
4.92
5.31
5.11

1.57
1.61
1.53
1.57

-0.94
-0.96
-0.89
-1.04

4.95
4.92
5.31
5.11

Based on this information and tests of univariate normality (Anderson-Darling


test) none of the variables in this study were normally distributed. This phenomenon is
similar to other studies of technology acceptance (Compeau et al., 1999) (Chin et al.,
2003) (Heijden, 2004). The use of the partial least squares (PLS) for data analysis is
appropriate for this study because of its ability to model latent constructs under nonnormal conditions (Haenlein & Kaplan, 2004). A Histogram plot of the first performance
expectancy variable will be used to illustrate the typical variable distributions for this
study. PE1 has been selected to illustrate the distribution characteristics of the data for
this study. The type of data distribution shown in PE1 is consistent with that seen in the
overall data used for this dissertation.

Acceptance of Tablet PCs

62

Histogram of PE1
140
120

Frequency

100
80
60
40
20
0

PE1

Figure 15. Histogram of PE1, N=263, mean=5.8, StDev=1.09


Note. Histogram prepared from experimental data with MiniTab and presented here to
illustrate data distribution trends.
Figure 15 illustrates the skewness and kurtosis of the data set for PE1 in graphical
form. This plot has a skewness of -1.96 and kurtosis of 5.84. Examination of Table 15
indicates considerable variation from normal distributions for all variables used to
determine the constructs in this study. In studies where the data distribution follows a
non-normal curve an Anderson-Darling (AD) test is better indicator of distribution than a
Chi-Square evaluation (Heiat, 2005). AD values less than 1.5 generally indicate that the
data fits a normal distribution, the AD value for performance expectancy variable 1 is
18.2 which is indicates non-normal data. Examination of the subgroups should be done to
determine if any of the different participant groups are causing the non-normality of the
distribution. Evaluation of cross tab reports for performance expectancy variable 1 will

Acceptance of Tablet PCs

63

illustrate the various population subgroups. The population subgroups are based on the
moderating variables contained in the model. Those variables are; gender, class status,
college major, period of computer use, and tablet PC use. Tables 16 through 26 illustrate
the various cross tabulated reports for the variable PE1.
Table 16, Cross tab report for PE1 by Tablet PC Use.
The FREQ Procedure
Table of gender by PE1
gender(Gender)

PE1(PE1-Accomplish Tasks More Quickly)

Frequency
Percent
Row Pct
Col Pct
1
2
3
4
5
6
7 Total

2
1
1
1
33
72
32
142
Male

0.77
0.38
0.38
0.38 12.64 27.59 12.26 54.41

1.41
0.70
0.70
0.70 23.24 50.70 22.54
50.00 33.33 33.33 20.00 57.89 58.06 49.23

2
2
2
4
24
52
33
119
Female

0.77
0.77
0.77
1.53
9.20 19.92 12.64 45.59

1.68
1.68
1.68
3.36 20.17 43.70 27.73
50.00 66.67 66.67 80.00 42.11 41.94 50.77

Total
4
3
3
5
57
124
65
261
1.53
1.15
1.15
1.92
21.84
47.51
24.90
100.00
Frequency Missing = 2

N = 261, two participants did not indicate gender.


Note. All crosstab reports were prepared using SAS 9.0 and are presented in SAS format
using the SAS monospace font.
The basic statistics for the gender subgroups indicate the male mean is 5.86 (N =
142) and the female mean is 5.82 (N = 119). The male group standard deviation is 1.00,
the skewness is -2.08, and the kurtosis is 5.86. The female group standard deviation is
1.19, the skewness is -1.86, and the kurtosis is 5.82. The t-test result from this paired
comparison is 0.69 with a p-value of 0.41 which is higher than the 95% confidence level

Acceptance of Tablet PCs

(0.05). The T test indicates that there is no significant difference between the male and
females in this study.
Table 17, Cross tab report for PE1 by Class Status.
The FREQ Procedure
Table of grade by PE1
grade(Class Status)

PE1(PE1-Accomplish Tasks More Quickly)

Frequency
Percent
Row Pct
Col Pct
1
2
3
4
5
6
7 Total

2
1
0
1
18
67
38
127
Freshman
0.77
0.39
0.00
0.39
6.95 25.87 14.67 49.03

1.57
0.79
0.00
0.79 14.17 52.76 29.92
50.00 33.33
0.00 25.00 32.14 54.47 57.58

1
2
1
1
17
29
15
66
Sophomore
0.39
0.77
0.39
0.39
6.56 11.20
5.79 25.48

1.52
3.03
1.52
1.52 25.76 43.94 22.73
25.00 66.67 33.33 25.00 30.36 23.58 22.73

1
0
2
1
12
23
10
49
Junior

0.39
0.00
0.77
0.39
4.63
8.88
3.86 18.92

2.04
0.00
4.08
2.04 24.49 46.94 20.41
25.00
0.00 66.67 25.00 21.43 18.70 15.15

0
0
0
1
8
4
3
16
Senior

0.00
0.00
0.00
0.39
3.09
1.54
1.16
6.18

0.00
0.00
0.00
6.25 50.00 25.00 18.75

0.00
0.00
0.00 25.00 14.29
3.25
4.55

0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
Graduate
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.39
0.00
0.00
0.39

0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00 100.00
0.00
0.00

0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.79
0.00
0.00

Total
4
3
3
4
56
123
66
259
1.54
1.16
1.16
1.54
21.62
47.49
25.48
100.00
Frequency Missing = 4

N = 259, four did not indicate class placement.

64

Acceptance of Tablet PCs

65

The basic statistics for the study grouped by grade classification are the freshman
mean is 6.03 for a group of 127 participants; the sophomore mean is 5.70 for a group of
66 participants; the junior mean is 5.70 for a group of 49 participants; and the senior
mean is 5.56 for a group of 16 participants. The corresponding standard deviation,
skewness, and kurtosis for each group is as follows; freshman 1.00, -2.54, 10.41;
sophomore 1.22, -1.78, 4.36; junior 1.16, -1.80, 5.78; and senior 0.89, 0.43, -0.061. The ttest results for each paired comparison indicate that there is a difference in the groups
between freshman level students and the junior and senior groups. This is important as it
points to the moderating effect of experience in this study.
Table 18 summarizes the results of the t-test analysis. The hypothesis of the
paired groups is that the distributions are the same. The hypothesis is not true if the pvalue is less than 0.05 (95% confidence). There are statistically significant differences
between freshman students and non-freshman students in this study indicating very
significant differences between lower and upper classman opinions to the moderating
effects of facilitating conditions and social influences on this study.

Acceptance of Tablet PCs

Table 18. T test and p values for Participant Groups and PE1
Comparison Groups
Freshman vs. sophomore

T stat
1.67

p value
0.04

Freshman vs. junior

1.45

0.07

Freshman vs. senior

1.59

0.06

Sophomore vs. junior

-0.10

0.46

Sophomore vs. senior

0.39

0.35

Junior vs. senior

0.45

0.33

66

Acceptance of Tablet PCs

Table 19. Cross tab report for PE1 by College Major.


The FREQ Procedure
Table of major by PE1
major(College)

PE1(PE1-Accomplish Tasks More Quickly)

Frequency
Percent
Row Pct
Col Pct
1
2
3
4
5
6
7 Total

1
1
0
0
14
27
18
61
Arts&Sc
0.38
0.38
0.00
0.00
5.32 10.27
6.84 23.19

1.64
1.64
0.00
0.00 22.95 44.26 29.51
25.00 33.33
0.00
0.00 24.14 21.77 27.27

3
1
2
3
22
57
34
122
BIS

1.14
0.38
0.76
1.14
8.37 21.67 12.93 46.39

2.46
0.82
1.64
2.46 18.03 46.72 27.87
75.00 33.33 66.67 60.00 37.93 45.97 51.52

0
0
1
1
20
30
10
62
Education
0.00
0.00
0.38
0.38
7.60 11.41
3.80 23.57

0.00
0.00
1.61
1.61 32.26 48.39 16.13

0.00
0.00 33.33 20.00 34.48 24.19 15.15

0
1
0
1
2
10
4
18
Not

0.00
0.38
0.00
0.38
0.76
3.80
1.52
6.84
Indicated
0.00
5.56
0.00
5.56 11.11 55.56 22.22

0.00 33.33
0.00 20.00
3.45
8.06
6.06

Total
4
3
3
5
58
124
66
263
1.52
1.14
1.14
1.90
22.05
47.15
25.10
100.00

N = 263

67

Acceptance of Tablet PCs

68

Table 20 summarizes the basic statistics for the various college affiliations
indicated by the survey participants for your examination.

Table 20. Mean, Standard Deviation, Skewness, and Kurtosis for College and PE1
College Groups

Mean

Stdev

Skewness

Kurtosis

Arts & Sciences

61

5.92

1.01

-2.17

7.60

Business Info Systems

122

5.84

1.20

-2.06

5.77

Education

62

5.76

0.80

-0.51

1.10

No College Selected

16

5.78

1.21

-1.96

4.97

N = 263

The T test results for each paired group indicate that there is no difference in the
groups between any college designated groups.

Acceptance of Tablet PCs

Table 21. Cross tab report for PE1 by First Computer Use.
The FREQ Procedure
Table of compuse by PE1
compuse(First Computer Use)

PE1(PE1-Accomplish Tasks More Quickly)

Frequency
Percent
Row Pct
Col Pct
1
2
3
4
5
6
7 Total

1
2
1
2
19
36
34
95
Elementary
0.38
0.76
0.38
0.76
7.22 13.69 12.93 36.12

1.05
2.11
1.05
2.11 20.00 37.89 35.79
25.00 66.67 33.33 40.00 32.76 29.03 51.52

1
0
1
1
17
55
22
97
Middle

0.38
0.00
0.38
0.38
6.46 20.91
8.37 36.88
School

1.03
0.00
1.03
1.03 17.53 56.70 22.68
25.00
0.00 33.33 20.00 29.31 44.35 33.33

0
0
0
2
11
20
4
37
High

0.00
0.00
0.00
0.76
4.18
7.60
1.52 14.07
School

0.00
0.00
0.00
5.41 29.73 54.05 10.81

0.00
0.00
0.00 40.00 18.97 16.13
6.06

2
1
1
0
10
13
6
33
College
0.76
0.38
0.38
0.00
3.80
4.94
2.28 12.55

6.06
3.03
3.03
0.00 30.30 39.39 18.18
50.00 33.33 33.33
0.00 17.24 10.48
9.09

0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
Dont

0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.38
0.00
0.00
0.38
Use

0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00 100.00
0.00
0.00

0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.72
0.00
0.00

Total
4
3
3
5
58
124
66
263
1.52
1.14
1.14
1.90
22.05
47.15
25.10
100.00
N = 263

69

Acceptance of Tablet PCs

70

Table 22 summarizes the basic statistics for first computer use and PE1. This is an
indication of experience, a moderating variable for the model.
Table 22. Basic statistics for Computer Experience and PE1
College Groups
Elementary

N
95

Mean
5.95

Stdev
1.16

Skewness
-1.81

Kurtosis
4.67

Middle School

97

5.95

0.89

-2.13

9.58

High School

37

5.70

0.74

-0.32

0.12

College

33

5.35

1.54

-1.65

2.74

The T test results for each paired group summarized in Table 23 indicates that
there is a differences in the between first computer use in middle school and college with
a p value of 0.04.
Table 23. T test and p values for Participant Groups and PE1
Comparison Groups
Elementary vs. middle school

T stat
-0.08

p value
0.50

Elementary vs. high school

1.24

0.11

Elementary vs. college

1.79

0.05

Middle School vs. high school

1.47

0.07

Middle School vs. college

1.84

0.04

High School vs. college

0.89

0.19

The group difference between first computer use in elementary and middle school
versus first computer use in college is significant at the 95%confidence. This result again
reinforces that there are statistically significant differences in this population for the

Acceptance of Tablet PCs

moderating variable of experience. This populations computer experience, when


comparing first computer use in elementary and middle school versus college is
significant at the 95% confidence level.
Table 24. Cross tab report for PE1 by First Tablet PC Use.
The FREQ Procedure
Table of TPC_use by PE1
TPC_use(Months Experience with Tablet)

PE1(PE1-Accomplish Tasks More Quickly)

Frequency
Percent
Row Pct
Col Pct
1
2
3
4
5
6
7 Total

>twelve
1
0
1
2
22
32
16
74

0.38
0.00
0.38
0.76
8.37 12.17
6.08 28.14

1.35
0.00
1.35
2.70 29.73 43.24 21.62
25.00
0.00 33.33 40.00 37.93 25.81 24.24

nine

0
1
0
1
6
27
12
47

0.00
0.38
0.00
0.38
2.28 10.27
4.56 17.87

0.00
2.13
0.00
2.13 12.77 57.45 25.53

0.00 33.33
0.00 20.00 10.34 21.77 18.18

six

2
2
1
1
20
45
29
100

0.76
0.76
0.38
0.38
7.60 17.11 11.03 38.02

2.00
2.00
1.00
1.00 20.00 45.00 29.00
50.00 66.67 33.33 20.00 34.48 36.29 43.94

three

0
0
1
1
8
18
6
34

0.00
0.00
0.38
0.38
3.04
6.84
2.28 12.93

0.00
0.00
2.94
2.94 23.53 52.94 17.65

0.00
0.00 33.33 20.00 13.79 14.52
9.09

twelve

1
0
0
0
2
2
3
8

0.38
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.76
0.76
1.14
3.04
12.50
0.00
0.00
0.00 25.00 25.00 37.50
25.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.45
1.61
4.55

Total
4
3
3
5
58
124
66
263
1.52
1.14
1.14
1.90
22.05
47.15
25.10
100.00

N = 263.

71

Acceptance of Tablet PCs

72

Table 25 summarizes the basic statistics for tablet personal computer use and
PE1. This is also an indication of experience, a moderating variable for the model.
Table 25. Basic Statistics for Tablet PC Use and PE1
College Groups
Three months

N
34

Mean
5.79

Stdev
0.88

Skewness
-0.99

Kurtosis
1.99

Six months

100

5.86

1.20

-2.06

5.76

Nine months

47

6.00

0.91

-2.00

7.32

Twelve months

5.50

2.00

-1.93

4.22

More than 12 mo.

74

5.76

1.02

-1.57

5.66

The T test results for each paired group indicate that there is no statistically
significant difference between the groups for tablet PC usages as illustrated in Table 26.
Table 26. T test and p values for Tablet PC Use and PE1
Comparison Groups
Three months vs. six months

T stat
0.31

p value
0.38

Three months vs. nine months

0.05

0.48

Three months vs. 12 months

-0.11

0.46

Three months vs. > 12 months

0.04

0.49

Six month vs. nine months

-0.84

0.20

Six month vs. 12 months

-0.03

0.49

Six month vs. > 12 months

0.40

0.34

Nine months vs. 12 months

0.16

0.44

Nine months vs. > 12 months

1.22

0.11

12 months vs. > 12 months

0.12

0.45

Acceptance of Tablet PCs

73

These analyses of the moderating effects of the various groups on variable PE1
reinforce the variance of the participant population. Other findings of significant
variations of the groups will be discussed in chapter 5. The finalized tablet PC adoption
model used in this dissertation ended up with 36 variables used in its construction. There
are five different participant groups which result in 180 different cross tabulated reports.
The remainder of the crosstab reports are available from the researcher.
Model Validity
The dissertation model used for this research measures the interaction effects
between the constructs of the model. The most common methods used for information
systems research for moderator analysis is regression analysis. The Tablet PC acceptance
dissertation model under study is comprised of nine latent variables, or constructs which
cannot be directly measured. These latent variables are performance expectancy, effect
expectancy, social influence, attitude toward using technology, self efficacy, anxiety, self
efficacy, and attitude toward using technology which are formative variables that, in
combination, determine behavioral intent and two direct determinants of usage behavior
(behavioral intent and facilitating conditions). Venkatesh et al., the developers of
UTAUT, include four moderating factors (gender, age, experience, and voluntariness)
that have varying influence the primary constructs.
PLS-Graph was be used to determine the validity of the various measurements or
questions used in this study. The statements contained in the survey instrument were
evaluated for internal consistency (IC) and retained if the question had an IC greater than
0.7. This is consistent with current articles outlining technology adoption research. PLS

Acceptance of Tablet PCs

74

weighed the relationship between the questions used to determine unobservable model
constructs.
A complete analysis of the dissertation model requires an examination of both the
goodness of fit criteria and the factor loadings. The goodness of fit indices measures how
well the model parameter estimates were able to reproduce the sample covariance matrix.
The technique does this by evaluating the dissertation model as true and modifies the
parameter estimates until the covariance difference between the parameter estimates and
the sample is minimized.
Reliability
Reliability in technology acceptance models refers to the degree which the
variables, or indicators, are stable and consistent with what they are suppose to be
measuring (Singleton & Straits, 2004). Cronbach alpha is commonly used by researchers
in this area and is recommended by Straub (Straub, 1989) and many others including
Venkatesh & Davis who originated the UTAUT model. Table 27a & b, and 28 list the
reliability scores for all the variables. Variables with an alpha value greater that 0.70 are
within a common threshold for psychometric research and will be used to evaluate the
constructs in this model (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994; Straub, Boudreau, & Gefen,
2004).

Acceptance of Tablet PCs

Table 27a. Reliability of Performance Expectancy Construct Variables

Variable
PE1

Raw to total
Correlation
0.59

Raw
Alpha
0.82

Standard
Correlation
0.60

Standard
Alpha
0.82

PE2

0.63

0.81

0.60

0.82

PE3

0.55

0.82

0.57

0.82

PE4

0.59

0.81

0.56

0.82

PE5

0.54

0.82

0.57

0.82

PE6

0.61

0.81

0.58

0.82

PE7

0.27

0.84

0.30

0.85

PE8

0.37

0.83

0.38

0.84

PE9

0.53

0.82

0.52

0.83

0.84 (raw)

PE10

0.67

0.81

0.68

0.81

0.84 (std)

Table 27 is continued on the next page.

All PE
Alpha

75

Acceptance of Tablet PCs

76

Table 27b. Reliability of *EE, ATUT, SI, FC, & SE Construct Variables (Continued)

Variable
EE1
EE2
EE3
EE4
EE5
EE6
EE7
EE8

Raw to total
Correlation
0.69
0.75
0.75
0.70
0.73
0.70
0.41
0.40

Raw
Alpha
0.83
0.83
0.83
0.83
0.83
0.83
0.88
0.87

Standard
Correlation
0.73
0.80
0.80
0.74
0.77
0.73
0.37
0.35

Standard
Alpha
0.86
0.86
0.86
0.86
0.86
0.86
0.90
0.90

Group
Alpha Raw/Std

ATUT1
ATUT2
ATUT3
ATUT4
ATUT5
ATUT6

0.71
0.51
0.75
0.65
0.82
0.83

0.88
0.90
0.86
0.88
0.84
0.84

0.71
0.52
0.75
0.65
0.82
0.84

0.87
0.90
0.87
0.88
0.86
0.85

0.89
0.89

SI1
SI2
SI3
SI4
SI5

0.60
0.66
0.59
0.45
0.37

0.65
0.63
0.66
0.69
0.72

0.60
0.67
0.63
0.47
0.40

0.70
0.68
0.69
0.73
0.75

0.73
0.76

FC1
FC2
FC3
FC4
FC5

0.61
0.52
0.22
0.37
0.45

0.50
0.56
0.72
0.59
0.56

0.65
0.55
0.23
0.40
0.48

0.57
0.61
0.74
0.68
0.64

0.64
0.70

SE1
SE2
SE3
SE4
SE5
SE6

0.50
0.70
0.70
0.67
0.61
0.27

0.83
0.78
0.78
0.79
0.81
0.79

0.51
0.71
0.71
0.67
0.60
0.26

0.84
0.78
0.78
0.80
0.81
0.79

0.86
0.89

0.83
0.84

* Effort Expectancy, Attitude Toward Using Technology, Social Influence, Facilitating


Conditions, and Self Efficacy.

Acceptance of Tablet PCs

77

All the variables used to determine the various constructs except facilitating
conditions met this level of reliability. The items used to measure facilitating conditions
were left in the model with alpha values (raw and standard) of 0.64 and 0.70 because of
the importance of facilitating conditions to the dissertation model. The inclusion of
facilitating conditions in this model is supported by the variables internal consistencies
which are displayed latter in this dissertation in table 31.

Table 28. Reliability of *ANX, BI, & USE Construct Variables

Variable
ANX1
ANX2
ANX3
ANX4

Raw to total
Correlation
0.53
0.62
0.75
0.74

Raw
Alpha
0.83
0.80
0.74
0.74

Standard
Correlation
0.53
0.63
0.76
0.75

Standard
Alpha
0.85
0.80
0.75
0.75

Group
Alpha Raw/Std

BI1
BI2
BI3
BI4
BI5

0.65
0.12
0.67
0.69
0.72

0.66
0.89
0.67
0.66
0.64

0.68
0.12
0.69
0.74
0.77

0.73
0.89
0.73
0.71
0.70

0.75
0.80

USE1
USE2
USE3
USE4

0.56
0.61
0.16
0.53

0.53
0.50
0.78
0.55

0.55
0.60
0.16
0.53

0.53
0.49
0.78
0.55

0.67
0.67

0.82
0.84

*Anxiety, Behavioral Intent, and Usage


Construct Validity
Construct validity refers to the degree which a variable measures what it was
intended to measure (Cronbach, 1951; Straub et al, 2004). To prove construct validity

Acceptance of Tablet PCs

78

both convergent and discriminate validity must be proven. Convergent validity is degree
which similar constructs are related; while discriminate validity is the degree that
different constructs are different from each other. The survey instrument was evaluated
by performing principal component factor analysis as described by Straub in 1989 and
2004 (Straub et al, 1989; 2004). To determine convergent validity the survey items were
reviewed by professionals in the field of IS research and the instrument was reviewed by
a prominent researcher, Dr Omar El-Gayar, who publishes in this area. In addition, the
instrument was pre-tested as recommended by Straub (Straub et al., 2004). The
statements included in the instrument were based on statements contained in seminal
works of technology acceptance (Davis, 1992) (Venkatesh et al., 2003) (Compeau et al.,
1995). PLS-Graph v. 3.0 (Chin, 1998), was used to determine convergent validity. PLS
does this by examining the loading factors and the standard error estimate (Segars, 1997).
The original fifty three variables initially included in the survey instrument were
analyzed using principle component analysis in PLS-Graph, resulting in the removal of
seventeen items. Table 25 presents the initial component analysis. In PLS-Graph the
variables, or indicators, for each construct are evaluated for their internal consistency (IC)
within the model, if any ICs are less than 0.7 they are removed from the model and the
ICs are recalculated. If any indicator in the model has an IC value that is less than 0.7
then the variable with the lowest internal consistency (IC) factor is removed and the
model is recalculated again. The next lowest variable IC, if it is lower than 0.7, is
removed and the recalculation process is repeated. This process is continued until no IC
factor for any one construct is less than 0.7 (Gefen & Straub, 2005). The iterative process

Acceptance of Tablet PCs

79

is displayed for the performance expectancy construct to provide a thorough illustration


of the process in Table 29; this detail will not be provided for the other constructs.

Table 29. Internal Consistency Factor Analysis for PE1 PE10 Indicators*
Scale Initial
Items Calc

Item
Xed

2nd
Calc

Third
Calc

Forth
Calc

Fifth
Calc

Sixth
Calc

7th
Calc

0.73

0.74

0.77

0.78

0.80

0.81

0.63

0.65

0.64

0.61

0.57

Gone6

0.67

0.68

0.70

0.71

0.73

0.73

0.62

0.64

0.623

Gone4

Gone4

Gone4

0.69

0.68

0.70

0.73

0.73

0.76

PE1

0.73

PE2

0.61

PE3

0.68

PE4

0.60

PE5

0.68

PE6

0.61

5th

0.62

0.65

0.625

0.60

Gone5

Gone5

PE7

0.41

1st

Gone1

Gone1

Gone1

Gone1

Gone1

Gone1

PE8

0.53

2nd

0.51

Gone2

Gone2

Gone2

Gone2

Gone2

PE9

0.59

3rd

0.60

0.62

Gone3

Gone3

Gone3

Gone3

0.79

0.79

0.79

0.81

0.82

0.82

PE10 0.78

6th

4th

*The subscript of the Gonex indicates the order in which the variables were removed.
Examination of Table 29 illustrates that the internal consistencies of some items
improve when other items are removed. Other items loading coefficients get lower
indicating the convergence and divergence of the different variables used to measure the
latent constructs. It is interesting to note that the raw correlation coefficients of the ten

Acceptance of Tablet PCs

80

performance expectancy variables calculated with SAS indicates pe1, pe3, pe5, and pe10
have the highest inter relational coefficients of variation as illustrated in table 26 below.
Table 30. Correlation Coefficients for Performance Expectancy Indicators.

Variable

PE1 PE10
Correlation with all PEs

Selected by PLS-Graph

PE1

0.48

YES

PE2

0.37

NO

PE3

0.55

YES

PE4

0.33

NO

PE5

0.49

YES

PE6

0.31

NO

PE7

0.29

NO

PE8

0.47

NO

PE9

0.36

NO

PE10

0.60

YES

The final weight applied to the variables by PLS-Graph are; PE1 (0.32), PE3
(0.33), PE5 (0.28), and PE10 (0.36).
Table 31 indicates the variables retained for each of the remaining constructs with
their final internal consistencies and loading factors. These include the independent
constructs effort expectancy, attitude toward the use of technology (ATUT), social
influence (SI), facilitating conditions (FC), self efficacy (SE), anxiety (ANX), and the
dependent constructs of behavioral intent (BI), and usage (USE).

Acceptance of Tablet PCs

Table 31. Internal Consistency Factor Loading Analysis for the Other Indicators.
Variable
EE1
EE2
EE3
EE4
EE5
EE6

model IC factor
0.84
0.93
0.92
0.90
0.90
0.88

Weight
0.15
0.20
0.17
0.22
0.17
0.20

ATUT1
ATUT3
ATUT4
ATUT5

0.83
0.85
0.75
0.83

0.35
0.35
0.21
0.31

SI1
SI2
SI3
SI5

0.81
0.86
0.83
0.72

0.27
0.31
0.36
0.30

FC1
FC2
FC4
FC5

0.82
0.77
0.71
0.83

0.32
0.29
0.25
0.41

SE2
SE3
SE4
SE5

0.85
0.79
0.85
0.76

0.37
0.26
0.33
0.26

ANX2
ANX3
ANX4

0.80
0.92
0.89

0.28
0.47
0.38

BI1
BI3
BI4
BI5

0.85
0.74
0.85
0.91

0.35
0.21
0.30
0.07

USE1
USE2
USE4

0.82
0.85
0.78

0.36
0.42
0.44

81

Acceptance of Tablet PCs

82

The high IC values for the facilitating condition variable supports the retention of these
variables in the model even though their initial reliabilities were lower than 0.7.
Partial Least Squares
PLS-Graph 3.0 was used to analyze the dissertation model to examine the
hypothesized relationships for the acceptance of tablet PCs. The model represents the
relationship between the indicator items and the constructs they are intended to measure.
Its primary purpose is to evaluate the reliability and validity of the instrument. PLS uses
confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to assess the measurement model, which requires the
researcher to designate the structure of variable relationships. CFA is used to validate the
dimensions and validity of the measures as well as provide a means to analyze
measurement issues (Garrison, 2005).
Model Analysis
PLS-Graph generates weights and loading factors for each item in relation to the
construct it was intended to measure. The loadings in the model were used to assess
individual item reliability (IIR) (Chin, 1998). Variables with IIR loadings greater than
0.70 are considered acceptable and explain the variance in a particular measure and
ensures the item measures the correct construct (Gerfen & Straub, 2005). The weights
calculated by PLS are used to calculate latent variable scores for the constructs, which
reflect the contribution of each variable to its construct. In addition, PLS generates an
internal consistency score for each indicator and construct indicating the correlation
between each variable and the composite score for the construct (Chin, 1996). Internal

Acceptance of Tablet PCs

83

consistency values of 0.7 and higher indicate a positive relationship between the indicator
and the construct. ICs lower than those imply that there is little relationship to the parent
construct. Overall the indicators and constructs had high IC scores which indicate that all
the measures met the reliability requirements suggested by Chin (Chin, 1998) (See Table
32).

Acceptance of Tablet PCs

Table 32. Individual Loadings, Weights, and Internal Consistencies (IC).


Indicator
Construct
Construct
Item
Weight
IC
IC factor
Performance
PE1
0.30
0.81
0.86
Expectancy
PE3
0.32
0.73
PE5
0.30
0.76
PE10
0.34
0.82
Effort
Expectancy

EE1
EE2
EE3
EE4
EE5
EE6

0.15
0.20
0.17
0.22
0.17
0.20

0.84
0.93
0.92
0.90
0.90
0.88

0.96

Attitude Toward
Using Technology

ATUT1
ATUT3
ATUT4
ATUT5

0.35
0.35
0.21
0.31

0.83
0.85
0.75
0.83

0.89

Social
Influence

SI1
SI2
SI3
SI5

0.27
0.31
0.36
0.30

0.81
0.86
0.83
0.73

0.88

Facilitating
Conditions

FC1
FC2
FC4
FC5

0.32
.029
0.25
0.41

0.82
0.77
0.71
0.83

0.86

Self Efficacy

SE2
SE3
SE4
SE5

0.38
0.26
0.33
0.26

0.85
0.79
0.85
0.83

0.89

Anxiety

ANX2
ANX3
ANX4

0.28
0.47
0.38

0.80
0.93
0.89

0.91

Behavioral
Intention

BI1
BI3
BI4
BI5

0.35
0.21
0.30
0.32

0.85
0.74
0.85
0.91

0.91

Usage

USE1
USE2
USE4

0.36
0.42
0.44

0.82
0.85
0.78

0.86

84

Acceptance of Tablet PCs

85

PLS-Graph was used to measure the discriminate validity of the model.


Discriminate validity is the degree to which any single construct is different from the
other constructs in the model. The criteria for measuring discriminate validity is to
measure the average variance extracted (AVE), which indicates the average variance
shared by a construct and its indicators (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). Discriminate validity
is adequate when constructs have an AVE loading greater than 0.5 meaning that at least
50% of measurement variance was captured by the construct (Chin, 1998). In addition,
discriminate validity is confirmed if the diagonal elements are significantly higher that
the off-diagonal values in the corresponding rows and columns. The diagonal elements
are the square root of the AVE score for each construct. Table 33 contains the AVE
scores and a correlation matrix for the constructs. All constructs have AVE scores greater
than 0.5 indicating successful validation. The instrument has achieved acceptable levels
of validity and reliability. The instrument demonstrates adequate discriminate validity
because the diagonal, in bold, values are greater than the corresponding correlation
values in the adjoining columns and rows (Chin, 1998).

Acceptance of Tablet PCs

86

Table 33. AVE Scores and Correlation of Latent Variables.


AVE
PE 0.61

PE
0.78

EE

SI

FC

SE

ANX

EE 0.80

0.30

0.89

SI 0.65

0.31

0.22

0.81

BI 0.71

0.51

0.43

0.45

0.84

USE 0.67

0.27

0.27

0.24

0.30

0.82

FC

0.67

0.43

0.49

0.43

0.60

0.30

SE

0.66

0.09

0.25

0.14

0.27

0.09

0.16

BI

USE

0.82
0.81

ANX 0.76 (0.06) (0.30)

(0.11) (0.20)

(0.02)

(0.25)

(0.01)

0.87

ATUT 0.67 0.57

0.59

0.27

0.56

0.18

(0.14)

0.42

0.69

ATUT

0.82

Structural Model Analysis


The dissertation model was evaluated with PLS-Graph to determine the
correctness of the model proposed in Chapter 3 (See Figure 5). Because PLS does not
require a normally distributed data it is evaluated with R-squared calculation for
dependent latent variables (Cohen, 1988) and the average variance extracted (Fornell &
Larchner, 1981). The first item that PLS-Graph provides to determine how well the
model fits the hypothesized relationship is the squared multiple correlation (R2) for each
dependent construct in the model. The R2 measures a constructs percent variation that is
explained by the model (Wixom & Watson, 2001). The R2 values for each dependent
variable are Behavioral Intent (0.55) and Use Behavior (0.11). The interpretation of these
factors indicate that the model explains 55% of the variance of the dependent variable BI

Acceptance of Tablet PCs

87

toward adoption of the tablet PC and that the dependent variable Use Behavior explains
11% of the variance of the device usage. R2 values were also calculated for the freshman
and upper classman models.
Bootstrap method was used in PLS-Graph to determine the strength of the
relationships between two dependent constructs in the model (Wixom & Watson, 2001).
The dependent constructs in the dissertation model are behavioral intent and use
behavior. The structural path diagram shown in figure 16 provides evidence that supports
many of the six hypotheses.

Figure 16. Tablet PC Structural Model


The positive coefficient values for all constructs, except anxiety, indicate that the
participants in this particular study had a positive inclination toward tablet PC use which
supports hypothesis one. The same information supports hypothesis two. Hypothesis four
states Computer self efficacy does have an impact students acceptance of the Tablet PC

Acceptance of Tablet PCs

88

and it is supported by the positive path coefficient of 0.124 of the self efficacy construct.
The anxiety constructs negative coefficient of (-0.073) does not support hypothesis five.
The final hypothesis that states Students use of the Tablet PC does impact students
acceptance of the device is partially supported by the low R2 of 0.11 and the path
coefficient of 0.10.
Freshman vs. Upper Classmen
Examination of the survey population earlier in this dissertation uncovered a
statistically significant difference between freshman and upper class survey participants.
Differential Analysis of the two population groups is necessary to understand what this
means in the context of technology acceptance in this environment. Data extracted from
the survey representing just freshman students (N=127) with PLS-Graph is depicted
graphically in Figure 17. A graphical representation using PLS-Graph of the upper
classmen, just juniors and seniors (N=65), is displayed in Figure 18. The comparison of
the results for the two analyses is summarized in Table 34 and 35.

Acceptance of Tablet PCs

89

Figure 17. Freshman PLS-Graph (N=127).

Examination of the PLS-Graph for the freshman analysis is the result of the
contributions of the various independent construct to the dependent constructs of
behavioral intent and use behavior. The strength of the contributions of performance
expectancy, effort expectancy, social influence, self efficacy, and anxiety are very similar
to the whole group but of a higher magnitude in attitude toward technology use and
anxiety. Also the explanation of the variance of behavioral intent and use behavior are
markedly higher at 64% and 22% respectively. That is in contrast to 55% and 11% in the
model using all students surveyed.

Acceptance of Tablet PCs

90

Figure 18. Upper Classman PLS-Graph Model (N=65).

The junior and senior survey participants were more comparable with the total
survey results with a predictive efficiency of 49% and 7% for the dependent construct of
behavioral intent and use behavior. In this group both self efficacy and anxiety were
found to have negative correlation with behavioral intent. The researcher believes that
this is a direct result of actions taken to provide training in TPC use after the TPC
initiative. After the university required students to lease a TPC the introduction to
computers course, which every new student at this university is required to enroll in, was
re-engineered to comprehensively include TPC use. New freshman students and transfers
from other universities would be required to enroll in this class. The new class was
completely restructured to indoctrinate students into the use and function of a mobile pen
based computing device. The upper level students, juniors and seniors, would have

Acceptance of Tablet PCs

91

already completed this course before the major changes were made. This resulted in the
upper level students low self efficacy score, low facilitating conditions ratings, and
negative attitude toward using technology scores. The upper classmen were not given
sufficient support or education in the use of the TPC. The upper classmen have
significantly higher scores for social influence because they voluntarily joined the
initiative in compliance with the initiatives key stakeholders.

Table 34. Comparison of Freshman and Upper Classman Model Contributions

Construct
Performance Expectancy

Freshman
Contribution
0.144

Upper Classman
Contribution
0.197

Effort Expectancy

0.159

0.218

Social Influence

0.039

0.322

Attitude Towards Using Technology

0.513

0.194

Self Efficacy

0.101

-0.021

Anxiety

-0.123

-0.122

Behavioral Intent

0.021

0.106

Facilitation Conditions

0.457

0.206

Freshman N = 127 & Upper classmen N = 65

Acceptance of Tablet PCs

92

Table 35. Comparison of All, Freshman, and Upper Class Models.

Model

Behavioral
Intent

Use
Behavior

Total

All Participant Model

55%

11%

66%

Freshman Model

63%

22%

85%

Upper Class Model

49%

7%

56%

All Participant N = 263, Freshman N = 127, Upper Classmen N = 65


The difference between the freshman and upper classman scores was completely
unexpected. This valuable finding is a bonus derived from the research.

Acceptance of Tablet PCs

93

CHAPTER 5: SUMMARY & CONCLUSIONS


The research conducted for this dissertation represents a significant contribution
toward understanding the acceptance of tablet PCs (TPC) in a higher education academic
environment. The study measured college students acceptance of tablet PCs at a small
mid western university. TPC acceptance was measured using a modification of a
technology acceptance model recently published in 2003. This model is derived from
Viswanath Venkateshs dissertation which was completed in 1998 under the direction of
his advisor, Fred Davis, the originator of the technology acceptance model. Participants
in this study were undergraduate students enrolled during the summer 2006 semester.
This study confirms the ability of the unified theory of acceptance and use of
technology (UTAUT) model to determine users acceptance of a technology tool. The
UTAUT model was modified in this study by including the constructs of attitude toward
using technology, self efficacy, and anxiety because of their significance in other
technology acceptance models.
The survey tool used to measure technology acceptance contained 53 statements
pertaining to the various constructs used in popular technology acceptance models. The
participants indicated the strength of their agreement with each statement by responding
to the statements with a seven item likert scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to
strongly agree (7). The data was then analyzed to determine statistical validity with PLSGraph to determine the participants perceptions and behavioral intent toward use of
tablet PCs. The data produced by the statistical analysis provides a basis for responding
to the individual research hypotheses.

Acceptance of Tablet PCs

94

University students, in this environment, accept the tablet PC.


The results of this study support this hypothesis by indicating behavioral intent
(55%) among students to use the TPC. While the overall group exhibited a low predictive
value for use behavior of 11%, there was a significant difference between the freshman
students and upper class students on this construct. By extracting the different
populations from the combined data pool and examination of the results derived from
PLS-Graph, the data showed that the freshman group, who received focused training on
the use of the tablet PC, had a much higher behavioral intent (63%). Freshman students
also had a much higher use behavior (22%). These results suggest that the appropriate
training and expectations for TCP use enhances the adoption and use of technology. The
model containing only responses from the upper classmen (N = 65) had behavioral intent
values of 49% and use behavior of only 7%. The key difference between the two groups
is the amount of educational opportunity available to each group to learn about the
correct use of the pen based computing device (TPC). The freshman students received
focused, continued instruction on how to use, maintain, and apply the device in CSC105
(Introduction to Computers). All freshman students must enroll in that course. While the
upper classmen did not receive any focused training on the device or the available
facilitating condition for device use. The university did provide opportunities fro the
upper classmen to get specific tablet PC training through elective courses but none of the
offered courses received the necessary enrollment of ten students. Academic
organizations adopting tablet PC will have a much higher probability of success if they

Acceptance of Tablet PCs

95

require specific training for the proper use of the device. This training must be mandatory
and focus on the advantages of pen based computing.

The Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) does predict the
successful acceptance of the Tablet PC.
This hypothesis is supported by positive correlations between most of the model
constructs toward behavioral intent and use behavior. Anxiety does show as a negative
factor in this analysis (-7%), which would indicate a negative correlation with TPC
adoption, but anxiety was not a component of the original Venkatesh UTAUT model.
The model, as it is constructed in this study, supports 55% of the intention to use the
tablet PC and 11% of the use of the tablet PC. The freshman students, who had the most
complete support of tablet PC use, had much higher percentages for behavioral intent
(63%) and use behavior (22%). The researcher believes this is a result of the tablet PC
infrastructure innovations such as the CSC 105 course enhancements and guidance to
university support services.

The constructs of the UTAUT will demonstrate an effect on user acceptance of the Tablet
PC.
This hypothesis is supported by examination of the PLS-Graph results which
indicate that the original UTAUT constructs all support the dependent constructs of
behavioral intent and use behavior with the following predictive percentages.
Performance expectancy, effort expectancy, and social influence, all original UTAUT

Acceptance of Tablet PCs

96

constructs, contributed 19, 12, and 6 %respectively toward behavioral intent. While the
dissertation model added constructs of self efficacy, attitude toward using technology and
anxiety contributed 12, 47, and a negative 7% towards behavioral intent. It is interesting
to see that attitude toward using technology has a higher contribution to behavioral intent
than all of the constructs from the original model at 47% versus 46% for performance
expectancy, effort expectancy, and social influence. The freshman students, who received
the most complete training and support in this initiative, had UTAUT construct values of
14%, 16%, and 4% for performance expectancy, effort expectancy, and social influence.
Their very high values for facilitating conditions of 46% the researcher believes are a
direct result of the training and support they received versus the lower value of 21%
exhibited by the upper classmen who did not receive that type of support and training.

Computer self efficacy does have an impact students acceptance of the Tablet PC.
This hypothesis is supported by the 12%contribution to behavioral intention by
the self efficacy construct. This self efficacy value is as influential on the model as the
original model construct of effort expectancy at 12% significantly larger than the social
influence value at 6% in this study. The influence of self efficacy on behavioral intention
suggests a reconsideration of the decision to remove this construct from the unified
model (Venkatesh et al. 2003). Comparison between freshman students and upper
classman students for self efficacy give reason to question the components of self
efficacy. The result for freshman students of self efficacy was very close to the whole
group with a 10% contribution compared to 12% for the population as a whole. The

Acceptance of Tablet PCs

97

upper classmen had a negative contribution of self efficacy to behavioral intent of a


minus 2%. Self efficacy will be further studied in a pilot study of K-12 students and
teachers in the next academic year.
Anxiety about computer use does have an impact on students acceptance of the Tablet
PC.
The negative contribution of the anxiety construct to the dependent variable
behavioral intent in this study indicates that anxiety has an negative effect on the
behavior intent to use the tablet PC in this environment. This finding is slightly in
disagreement with the Venkatesh models contention that anxiety is a non-factor such
technological contexts (Venkatesh et al. 2003, p. 461). Both freshman and upper
classmen populations have a negative correlation of anxiety to behavior intent. The
results of the two groups are very consistent at a negative 12%for both the freshman and
upper classmen groups.

Students use of the Tablet PC does impact students acceptance of the device.
This hypothesis not supported by analysis with PLS-Graph. The dissertation
model measured a 10% contribution of behavioral intent to use behavior. When PLSGraph is used to reverse the link between the two dependent constructs and the factor
analysis is regenerated use behavior contributes a very low percentage to behavioral
intent. The statements used in the survey to determine this construct all are linked to use
of the stylus pen and digital screen for course work and general PC operating system
navigation. The lack of a contribution from use on behavior is puzzling. This is in stark

Acceptance of Tablet PCs

98

contrast to findings from this path reversal for the freshman and upper classmen with a
7% and 16% contribution from use behavior to behavioral intent respectively. This leads
the researcher to question the device use behavior construct in the context of this study.
This discovery is will result in the addition of some more questions into the K-12 survey
tool pertaining to use behavior.

Discussion
The researcher is interested in the acceptance of table PC adoption in educational
institutions. Presently there are a small number of universities who have implemented
Tablet personal computing in their campus classrooms. A relatively large number,
perhaps seventy, of institutes of higher education are planning policies to mandate
student purchase of a laptop or tablet PC. The primary reason this researcher instigated
this study was to learn more about the subtleties of tablet PC adoption in the higher
education domain. This study has helped educate the researcher as to the key components
of technology acceptance. The two dependent constructs used in this model are
behavioral intent and use behavior. In the environment of this study the variables of
performance expectancy, effort expectancy, attitude toward using technology, self
efficacy are key components of behavioral intent. Social influence and anxiety do not
appear to have much contribution to behavioral intent. However, these factors are shown
to have a different impact on different social groups and there fore should be included in
an acceptance study.

Acceptance of Tablet PCs

99

Social influence, sometimes referred to as social norms, was only significant to


the upper classmen in this study but it was fairly significant for that group with a 32%
explanation of the variance of behavioral intent. What is the contribution our beliefs of
what people expect from us in technology acceptance? Do our peers and superiors affect
our perceptions of technical innovations? These are questions that need time to formulate
a plan of study.
The success of any technical innovation requires planning. Adequate planning
should include three components that will improve the success of the initiative. First there
should be an opportunity for all key stakeholders to meet and discuss the initiative.
Second is adequate provision of educational opportunities to provide the skills necessary
to correctly use the device. And third, adequate support of the device including a help
desk and repair center. This three pronged plan encompasses the constructs contained in
the model. The meetings and training will benefit the constructs of effort and
performance expectancy, and the participants attitude towards using technology. All
which are contributors to behavioral intent. The availability of support and training will
increase the use behavior and increase the benefit of using the technology. The end result
is significantly higher probability of success which is the desired end result of any project
implementation.
A second reason for conducting this research is to study differences in technology
acceptance between students who are mandated to use the devices and those who use
them at their own discretion. The university environment used in this study is a
mandatory use environment. But since only first and second year students were required

Acceptance of Tablet PCs

100

to lease, or otherwise acquire, tablet PCs the upper class students used the device at their
own discretion. Many upper classmen did voluntarily join the initiative and appears that
in this study context those participants had a positive disposition toward tablet PC use as
indicated by their positive response level to attitude towards technology and moderate
response toward the influence of performance expectancy and facilitating conditions The
very high score for the upper classmen for social influence indicates that they based their
decision to obtain a tablet PC on the influence, or their perceptions of the influence of
key stakeholders of the initiative.

Moderating Conditions
This model includes moderating variables that impact the independent variables
that, in turn, influence the dependent variables of behavioral intention and use behavior.
Those are gender, age, experience, and voluntary use. In the context of this study gender
was found to not have any effect. Other studies have found effort expectancy to be more
important in women (Morris et al., 2000), but examination of a gender bias for the effort
expectancy variables did not find a significant difference between males and females.
The range of ages for traditional college students did not provide enough population
segments to study differences caused by the age of the participants, but in a study being
planned to survey K12 teachers this moderating variable be investigated in the near
future. Experience with computers was shown to have a significant impact on the
acceptance of technology indicated by the significance found between freshman and
upper classmen in the study. In fact, interpretation of the model with the data extracted

Acceptance of Tablet PCs

101

for the freshman students has a much higher determination of acceptance than the
population as a whole. This is due to good planning and support of this population
segment.
Voluntariness is measured with the variables used to build the behavioral intent
construct. Variables 1, 3, 4, and 5 had a very direct influence on behavioral intent. The
voluntariness indicators are very positive for the freshman students with internal
consistencies of 0.86, 0.84, 0.92, and 0.89 respectively. The upper classmen had internal
consistencies (IC) of 0.66, 0.74 and 0.90 for BI 1, 4, and 5 respectively. The upper
classmen had a very low IC value for BI3 of 0.43 resulting in it removal per PLS-Graph
normal operating procedures. It does not appear that voluntariness is statistically different
for the two populations.
One significant moderating variable was found to be computer experience,
particularly if the computer use began in elementary and middle school for the
participants. This moderating factor should be further evaluated to determine if it is a
factor in other populations. This moderating factor will be measured in the K-12 study
planned for this next year to measure the impact of first computer use on both the
teachers and the students in the 30 pilot organizations.
Limitations
The instrument records self reported results. To get an accurate picture of
participants ideas of TPC use several questions addressed each construct of interest. Yet,
no matter how much vigor the investigator applies to the instrument design and analysis
the final result is only a proxy measure of participants self perceptions, and a threat to the

Acceptance of Tablet PCs

102

internal validity of the study exists (Campbell, 1969), (Campbell & Stanley, 1963). Self
reported use is a relative indicator of usage intention. Precise determination would have
required data mining of computer use logs which brings up the issue of privacy and
ethics.
The findings of this study should only be applied to this unique environment. The
conclusions must be carefully evaluated before any attempt is made to project these
findings on another university setting. Student populations in other university
environments may very well have very different model analysis and distributions then
this studies participant pool. In the Venkatesh article the predictive efficiency of the
model was proclaimed to explain as much as 70% of the variance in intention but this is
still a subjective measure of intent to use a technology that can only be used as an
indicator of personal choice.
In mandatory use situations a more direct determination of use may be
informative. The same institution, in which this study was conducted, maintains a
detailed log of everything the particular TPC user is doing with the device. The
researcher has considered the implications of examining this log to determine computer
use on this campus. The line of research will be re-evaluated and submitted for a future
research study during the fall 2006 and spring 2007 academic year.
Future research
As mentioned earlier in this discussion the, state of South Dakota has started a
pilot project for laptop/table computing involving 20 high schools around the state titled
Classroom Connections the program will put a notebook, or tablet PC, in the hands of

Acceptance of Tablet PCs

103

each high school student. The state incentive to districts is to match one dollar for every
three dollars spent on the hardware required to transition to the wireless computing
environment. This initiative is an optimal setting to apply the dissertation adoption
model. The opportunity to query the participants prior to their participation in ubiquitous,
wireless computing provides an opportunity to determine how attitudes, efficacy and use
evolve over time. The same participants, through an anonymous identifier, will fill out
the same survey one year after implementation of the initiative at their school district. In
addition the initial survey will be used to identify critical areas for success of the
initiative. Once cross tabbed reports are prepared and delivered to the South Dakota
Department of Education the necessary steps can be implemented to remedy any
weaknesses indicated by the report. This research is already started with a meeting
between the respective parties on June 22, 2006.
Other research which should be conducted is to use a similar tool to that used in
this study to survey faculties at the universities considering, or in various stages of
implementing, adoption of tablet PC technology. The research team could help support
the academic centers adopting the technology. Just last year Brown University was the
recipient of a $1.5 million grant from the Microsoft Corporation. The new Microsoft
Center for Research on Pen-Centric Computing was announced on Thursday, March 20,
2006 (Lawton, 2006). The three-year alliance will create innovative software for penbased computers like the TPC. This type of research could easily lead to commercial
applications or grant opportunities. This calendar year Microsoft is not funding any tablet
PC research grants but with the recent announcement of Warren Buffets contribution to

Acceptance of Tablet PCs

104

the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation should increase the possible funding for research in
pen based computing devices. The focus of the Gates foundation is on technology and
education in the United States and focuses on public library proposals.

Acceptance of Tablet PCs

105

REFERENCES
Abbott, K. (2004). 2003-2004 Notre Dame Tablet PC Initiative. Retrieved January 26,
2006, from http://learning.nd.edu/tabletpc/
Agarwal, R., & Prasad, J. (1998). A Conceptual and Operational Definition of Personal
Innovativeness in the Domain of Information Technology. Information Systems
Research, 9(2), 204-215.
Anderson, J. E., & Schwager, P. H. (2006). The Tablet PC: Applying the UTAUT Model,
Paper presented at the American Conference on Information Systems, Acapulco,
Mexico.
Apple Newton. (2006). Retrieved February 9, 2006, from http://en/wikipedia.org/wiki/
Apple Newton
Ajzen, I. (1991). The Theory of Planned Behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 50, 179-211.
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social
Behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bandura A. (1977) Social Learning Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bandura A. (1986) Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive
Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. (2002). Social Cognitive Theory in Cultural Context: An International
Review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 51, 269-290.
Barkhuus, L. (2005). Bring Your Own Laptop Unless You Want to Follow the Lecture:
Alternative Communications in the Classroom. Paper presented at the Proceeding
of the 2005 International ACM SIGGROUP Conference on Supporting Group
Work, Sanibel Island, Fl.
Brown, R. (2000). Notebook Universities. Retrieved July 26, 2005, from
http://itc.vcsu.edu/notebookinitiative/notebook_univ_listing.htm
Burton, J. (2004). Higher Ed Goes Mobile, Lightweight. University Business, 7(12), 5255.
Campbell, D.T. (1969). Reforms as Experiments. American Psychologist, 24, 409-429.

Acceptance of Tablet PCs

106

Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1963). Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs


for Research. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Carlsson, C., Carlsson, J., Hyvnen, K., Puhakainen, J., & Walden, P. (2006). Adoption
of Mobile Devices/Services Searching for Answers with the UTAUT. Paper
presented at the 39th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System
Sciences (HICSS'06).
Chin, W. W., Marcolin, B. L., & Newsted, P. R. (2003). A Partial Least Squares Latent
Variable Modeling Approach for Measuring Interaction Effects: Results from a
Monte Carlo Simulation Study and an Electronic-Mail Emotion/Adoption Study.
Information Systems Research, 14(2), 189 - 217.
Chin, W. (1996). The Partial Least Squares Approach to Structural Equation Modeling.
In Advanced Structural Equation Modeling: Issues and Techniques (pp. 296-335):
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Ciampa, M. (2001). Designing and Implementing Wireless LANs. Boston, MA: Course
Technology.
Code of Federal Regulations Title 34 Department of Education PART 97 - Protection of
Human Subjects. (2004). Retrieved April 14, 2006, from
http://www.ed.gov/policy/fund/reg/humansub/part97-2.html#97.103
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Compeau, D. R., & Higgins, C. A. (1995). Computer Self-Efficacy: Development of a
Measure and Initial Test. MIS Quarterly, 19, 189-211.
Cronbach, L. (1951). Coefficient Alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika,
16, 297-334.
Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User Acceptance of Computer
Technology: a Comparison of Two Theoretical Models. Management Science,
35(8), 982-1003.
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of
information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319-340.
Decusatis, C. (2002). Fiber Optic Data Communication: Technology Advances and
Futures. Cambridge, MA: Elsevier.
Dillon, P. (1998). The Next Small Thing. Fast Company (15), 97.

Acceptance of Tablet PCs

107

Dillman, D. (1999). Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method (2nd ed.).
New York: John Wiley.
El-Gayar, O., & Moran, M. (2006, November 18-21). Students Acceptance of Tablet
PCs; an Modification of the UTAUT Model. Paper to be presented at the Decision
Sciences Institute Annual Meeting, San Antonio, TX.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior: An
Introduction to Theory and Research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Fischer, A., & Lee, K. (1999). User Interface. Retrieved February 8, 2006, from
http://cne.gmu.edu/itcore/userinterface/GUIHistory3.html
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. (1981). Evaluating Structural Equation Models with
Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error. Journal of Marketing Research,
18, 39-50.
Fornell, C., and Bookstein, F. L. Two Structural Equation Models: LISREL and PLS
Applied to Consumer Exit-Voice Theory. Journal of Marketing Research,
Volume 19, 1982, pp. 440-452.
Francik, E., Rudman, S. E., Cooper, D., & Levine, S. (1991). Putting Innovation to Work:
Adoption Strategies for Multimedia Communication Systems. Communications of
the ACM archive, 34(12), 52-63.
Fujitsu claims top tablet spot in EMEA. (2006). Retrieved March 18, 2006, from
http://www.cbronline.com/article_news.asp?guid=971B7B9D-ED45-4729-8C1770CB97653BFC
Gall, M. D., Gall, J. P., & Borg, W. R. (2003). Educational research: An introduction
(7th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.
Garfield, M. J. (2005). Acceptance of Ubiquitous Computing. Information Systems
Management, 22(4), 24-31.
Garrison, G. (2005). A Model of Factors Impacting an Organizations Propensity to be an
Early Adopter of Disruptive Technology. Doctoral Dissertation, University of
Mississippi. (UMI No. 3190561).
Gates, B. (2000). Tablet PC. Retrieved February 12, 2006, from
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/features/2000/nov00/11-13comdex.mspx

Acceptance of Tablet PCs

108

Green, D. (2004). The 2004 Campus Computing Survey. Retrieved August 8, 2005, from
http://www.campuscomputing.net/introduction
Gefen, D., & Straub, D. (2005). A Practical Guide to Factorial Validity Using PLSGraph: Tutorial and Annotated Example. Communications of the Association for
Information Systems, 16, 91-109.
Groves, M. M., & Zemel, P. C. (2000). Instructional Technology Adoption in Higher
Education: An Action Research Case Study. International Journal of
Instructional Media, 27(1), 57-65.
Haenlein, M., & Kaplan, A. (2004). A Beginners Guide to Partial Least Squares Analysis.
Understanding Statistics, 3(4), 283-297.
Hair, J. F., Tatham, R. L., Anderson, R. E., & Black, W. (1998). Multivariate Data
Analysis (5th. ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Henderson, T., Kotz, D., & Abyzov, I. (2004). The Changing Usage of a Mature
Campus-wide Wireless Network. Paper presented at the ACM MobiCom 2004,
Philadelphia, PA.
Hoffman, B. (2006). Web Survey Design. Retrieved May 23, 2006, from
http://coe.sdsu.edu/eet/articles/websurvey/
Hu, P. J., Chau, P. Y., Sheng, O. R. L., & Tam, K. Y. (1999). Examining the Technology
Acceptance Model using Physician Acceptance of Telemedicine Technology.
Journal of Management Information Systems, 16(2), 91-112.
Hwang, Y., & Yi, M. Y. (2002). Predicting the use of Web-Based Information Systems;
Intrinsic Motivation and Self Efficacy Paper presented at the AMCIS 2002.
Igbaria, M. (1994) An Examination of the Factors Contributing to Technology
Acceptance, Accounting, Management and Information Technologies, 4(4), 205224
Jarvis, C. B., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, P. M. (2003). A Critical Review of
Construct Indicators and Measurement Model Misspecification in Marketing and
Consumer Research. Journal of Consumer Research, 30, 199-218.
Johnson, N., Kotz, S., & Balakrishnan, N. (1994). Continuous Univariate Distributions
(Vol. 2). New York, NY: Wiley & Sons
Jones, B. (2002). Introducing the Tablet PC, Retrieved February 8, 2006, from
www.developer.com/ws/other/article.php/1500121

Acceptance of Tablet PCs

109

Knowlton, D. (2004). DSU Announces the Wireless Mobile Computing Initiative for
2004. Retrieved August 28, 2005, from
http://www.dsu.edu/WMCI/presidentmessage.htm
Lawton, W. (2006). Retrieved June 29, 2006, from
http://www.brown.edu/Administration/News_Bureau/2005-06/05-095.html
Legris, P., Ingham, J., & Collerette, P. (2003). Why do People Use Information
Technology? A Critical Review of the Technology Acceptance Model.
Information and Management, 40, 191-204.
Lowe, P. (2004). Bentley College Students Evaluate Tablet PCs. Retrieved January 14,
2006, from www.hp.com/hpinfor/newsroom
Lohmller, J.-B. Latent Variable Path Modeling with Partial Least Squares. Heidelberg:
Physica-Verlag, 1989.
Lynott, P., & McCandless, N. J. (2000). The Impact of Age vs. Life Experiences on the
Gender Role Attitudes of Women in Different Cohorts. Journal of Women and
Aging, 12(2), 5-21.
Maconachy, V., Schou, C. D., Ragsdale, D., & Welch, D. (2001). A Model for
Information Assurance: An Integrated Approach. Paper presented at the 2001
IEEE Workshop on Information Assurance and Security, United States Military
Academy, West Point, NY.
Mathieson, K. (1991). Predicting User Intentions: Comparing the Technology
Acceptance Model with the Theory of Planned Behavior. Information Systems
Research, 2, 173-191.
Mathieson, K., Peacock, E., & Chin, W. W. (2001). Extending the Technology
Acceptance Model: The Influence of Perceived User Resources. The Data Base
for Advances in Information Systems, 32(2), 86-112.
Meister, D. B., & Compeau, D. R. (2002). Infusion of Innovation Adoption: An Individual
Perspective. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the ASAC.
Microsoft. (2002). New Ways to Interact with your PC. Retrieved December 19, 2005,
from htttp:www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/tabletpc/evaluation/overviews/
Mock, K. (2004). Teaching with Tablet PC's. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges,
20(2), 17-27.
Nunnally, J., & Bernstein, I. (1994). Psychometric Theory (3rd. ed.): McGraw Hill.

Acceptance of Tablet PCs

110

Pijpers, G. (2001). Executives' Use of Information Technology: An Examination of


Factors Influencing Managerial Beliefs, Attitude and Use of Information
Technology. Information and Software Technology, 43(15), 959-971.
Pederson, P., & Ling, R. (2002). Modifying adoption research for mobile Internet service
adoption: Cross Disciplinary Interactions. Paper presented at the Proceedings of
the 36th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS03).
Pederson, P., & Nysveen, H. (2003). Usefulness and Self-expressiveness: Extending TAM
to Explain the Adoption of a Mobile Parking Services. Paper presented at the 16th
Beld eCommerce Conference, Bled, Slovenia.
Pederson, P., Nysveen, H., & Thorbjrnsen, H. (2003). Adoption of Mobile Services.
Model Development and Cross-Service Study. Retrieved June 23, 2006, from
http://ikt.hia.no/perep/cross_service_jams.pdf
Plouffe, C. R., Hulland, J. S., & Vandenbosch, M. (2001). Research Report: Richness
Versus Parsimony in Modeling Technology Adoption Decisions -- Understanding
Merchant Adoption of a Smart Card-Based Payment Systems. Information
Systems Research, 12(2), 208-222.
Ray, J. (2002). SAGE Cold-War Forerunner to the Information Age. Retrieved February
11, 2006, from http://www.eskimo.com/~wow-ray/sage28.html
Rawstorne, P., Jayasuriya, R., & Caputi, P. (2000). An Integrative Model of Information
Systems use in Mandatory Environments. Paper presented at the Proceedings of
the twenty first international conference on Information systems.
Schmidt, J. (2000). DSU Ranks Again, Third Year In A Row. Retrieved March 19, 2006,
from http://www.departments.dsu.edu/news/spotlight/00/dsu_ranks_again.htm
Second phase of DSU wireless network begins. (2002). Retrieved February 12, 2006,
from http://www.departments.dsu.edu/news/spotlight/02/wireless_phase2.htm
Segars, A. (1997). Assessing the Unidimensionality of Measurement: A Paradigm and
Illustration within the Context of Information Systems Research. Omega, 25(1),
107-121.
Shandish, W., Cook, T., & Campbell, D. (2002). Experimental and Quasi-Experimental
Design for Generalized Causal Inference. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

Acceptance of Tablet PCs

111

Singleton, R. A., & Straits, B. C. (2004). Approaches to Social Research (Fourth ed.).
Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Straub, D. (1989). Validating Instruments in MIS Research. MIS Quarterly, 13(2), 146169.
Straub, D., Boudreau, M.-C., & Gefen, D. (2004). Validation Guidelines for IS Positivist
Research. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 13, 380247.
Singletary, L., Akbulut, A., & Houston, A. (2002, August 9-11). Innovative Software Use
After Mandatory Adoption. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Americas
Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS), Dallas Texas.
Steel, N. (2003). The Interactive Lecture. Paper presented at the CSCL.
Surry, D., & Land, S. M. (2000). Strategies for motivating higher education faculty to use
technology. Innovations in Education and Training International, 1(37), 1-9.
Tablet PC 2004 Quick Comparison. (2004). Retrieved December 22, 2005, from
http://www.tabletpctalk.com/faqs/comparison/2004.php
Taylor, S., & Todd, P. (1995). Assessing It Usage: The Role of Prior Experience. MIS
Quarterly, 19(2), 561-570.
Taylor, S., & Todd, P. (2001). Understanding Information Technology Usage: A Test of
Competing Models. Information Research, 6(2), 144-176.
Vallerand, R. J. (1997). Toward a Hierarchical Model of Intrinsic and Extrinsic
Motivation. New York: Academic Press.
Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A Theoretical Extension of the Technology
Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies. Management Science, 46(2),
186-204.
Venkatesh, V., & Morris, M. (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(2), 115-139.
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M., Davis, G., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User Acceptance of
Information Technology: Toward a Unified View. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425-478.
Wachsmuth, B. (2003). Seton Hall University Tablet PC Project. Retrieved January 24,
2006, from http:www.sc.shu.edu/tabletpc/

Acceptance of Tablet PCs

112

Westland, J. C., & Clark, T. H. K. (2000). Global Electronic Commerce: Theory and
Case Studies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Willis, C., & Miertschin, S. (2004). Tablet PC's as Instructional Tools or the Pen is
Mightier than the Board. Paper presented at the 5th. Conference on Information
Technology Education, Salt Lake UT.
West, J. V. (2005). Tablet PC vs. Laptop: How Do You Choose? Retrieved February 12,
2006, from
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/using/tabletpc/expert/vanwest_05feb11tab
vlap.mspx
Zhang, P., Li, N., & Sun, H. (2006, January). Affective Quality and Cognitive Absorption:
Extending Technology Acceptance Research. Paper presented at the Hawaii
International Conference on System Sciences, Kauai, Hawaii.
Zolonowski, D. (2006). Personal Communication. Chief Information Officer. Madison.

APPENDIX A: SELECTION OF COURSES TO SURVEY

Course sections were selected based on the likelihood that students would have
between three months and one year experience using the tablet personal computer (TPC)
device. Every student, including new freshman student and transfer student of any status,
must register for CSC 105 (Intro to computers). The curriculum of this course is infused
with practical TPC use advice and knowledge. When students have completed the course
they are ready to efficiently use their leased TPC devices to continue the college
education. All students regardless of their major are required to enroll in this course. The
semester following this course, or concurrently for advanced students, the individuals
typically enroll in one of two programming language courses, either visual basic (CIS
130) or computer science I (CSC 150). Other courses that the enrollment services office
indicated these students register for are; computer hardware and networks (CIS 350), and
management of information systems (CIS 325).
Students enrolled in these courses during the summer of 2006 were given the
opportunity to complete the survey instrument that is used in this dissertation to measure
the students acceptance of tablet personal computing devices at this campus. Table A-1
indicates the courses surveyed, when they were surveyed (date & time), and the instructor
who granted permission to conduct the survey during normal class period times. It was
decided to conduct the survey in this manner to increase the participation of students in
the process.

Acceptance of Tablet PCs

114

Table A-1. Courses on Which Survey Tool was Administered


Course Name
Hardware & Networks
CIS 350
Hardware & Networks
CIS 350
Intro to Computers
CSC 105
Intro to Computers
CSC206
CSC 206 Advanced
Access
Computer Science I
CSC 150
Computer Science I
CSC 150

Time
MWF 8am

Date
6/5/06

Instructor
Mark Moran

MWF 9am

6/5/06

Mark Moran

MWF 9am

6/5/06

Pam Rowland

MWF 10am

6/5/06

Pam Rowland

MWF 10:40

6/6/06

Mark Moran

MWF 9am

6/08/06

Nick Youngworth

MWF 2pm

6/06/06

Nick Youngworth

Visual Basic
CIS 130
Visual Basic
CIS 130
Visual Basic
CIS 130

MWF 10am

6/09/06

Connie Daniel

MWF 11:05

6/09/06

Connie Daniel

MWF 11:40

6/09/06

Jill Schneider

Visual Basic
CIS 130
Visual Basic
CIS 130
Visual Basic
CIS 130

TR 8:00 am

6/13/06

Connie Daniel

TR 9:05

6/13/06

Jill Schneider

TR 2:35

6/13/06

Jill Schneider

Hardware & Networks


CIS 350

TR 10:30

6/13/06

Tom Farrell

The participants were allowed to not participate in the survey if they did not wish
to do so. The survey administrator (researcher) spent less than a minute guiding the
participants to the link that would take the students into the survey instrument. The
reason for the survey was explained, to learn how students at DSU feel about use of the

Acceptance of Tablet PCs

115

Tablet PC, and then asked to please contribute to the knowledge of technology
acceptance at DSU. The survey, in its entirety, can be viewed at
www.homepages.dsu.edu/moranm/research . Table A-2 indicates the course enrollment,
participation, and percent of the possible participants that completed the task.
Table A-2. Individual Course Section Participation
Course Name
Hardware & Networks
CIS 350
Hardware & Networks
CIS 350
Intro to Computers
CSC 105
Intro to Computers
CSC206
CSC 206 Advanced
Access
Computer Science I
CSC 150
Computer Science I
CSC 150
Management of Info Sys
CIS 325
Visual Basic
CIS 130
Visual Basic
CIS 130
Visual Basic
CIS 130
Visual Basic
CIS 130
Visual Basic
CIS 130
Visual Basic
CIS 130
Totals

Enrollment
14

Participation
9

Percent
64%

24

12

50%

15

15

100%

25

21

88%

18

16

89%

15

47%

29

21

72%

27

23

85%

15

14

93%

34

25

74%

34

26

76%

27
24

23
22

85%
92%

24

13

50%

36

21

58%

361

268

74%

APPENDIX B: SURVEY QUESTIONS


These are the statements included in the survey instrument. The survey
participants responses were expressed using a seven point likert scale where one
represented strong disagreement and seven corresponded to strong agreement to the
statement.
Performance expectancy (PE) Questions.
Using the Tablet PC in my classes would:
1.

enable me to accomplish tasks more quickly.

2.

hamper my performance.

3.

would increase my productivity.

4.

hamper my effectiveness in class.

5.

make it easier to do my homework.

6.

hamper the quality of the work I do.

7.

because my classmates perceive me as competent.

8.

increase the instructors respect for me.

9.

decrease my chances of getting a good grade.

10.

be useful in my classes.

Effort expectancy (EE) Questions.


1. Learning to operate the Tablet PC is easy for me.
2. I find it easy to get the Tablet PC to do what I want it to do.
3. My interaction with the Tablet PC is clear and understandable.

Acceptance of Tablet PCs

4. I find the Tablet PC to be flexible to interact with.


5. It is easy for me to become skillful at using the Tablet PC.
6. I find the Tablet PC easy to use.
7. Using the Tablet PC takes too much time from my normal duties.
8. Working with the Tablet PC is so complicated and difficult to understand.

Attitude Towards using Technology (ATUT) Questions.


1. Using the Tablet PC is a good idea.
2. I dislike the idea of using the Tablet PC.
3. Using the Tablet PC is pleasant.
4. The Tablet PC makes schoolwork more interesting.
5. Using the Tablet PC is fun.
6. I like working with the Tablet PC.

Social Influence (SI) Questions


1. People who influence my behavior think that I should use the
Tablet PC.
2. People who are important to me think that I should use the
Tablet PC.
3. Professors at this university have been helpful in the use of the
Table PCs.
4. My advisor is very supportive of the use of the Tablet PC for my
class.
5. In general, the university has supported the use of the Tablet PC.
6. Having the Tablet PC is a status symbol in my university.

117

Acceptance of Tablet PCs

Facilitating Conditions (FC) Questions


1. I have the resources necessary to use the Tablet PC.
2. I have the knowledge necessary to use the Tablet PC.
3. The Tablet PC is not compatible with other computer systems I
use.
4. The help desk is available for help with the Tablet PC difficulties.
5. Using the Tablet PC fits into my work style.

Self Efficacy (SE) Questions


I could complete a task using the Tablet PC
1. If there was no one around to tell me what to do as I go.
2. If I had seen someone else demonstrate how it could be used.
3. If I could call someone to help if I got stuck
4. If I had a lot of time to complete the job.
5. If I had just the built in help facility for assistance

Anxiety (ANX) Questions


1. I feel apprehensive about using the Tablet PC.
2. It scares me to think that I could lose a lot of information by using
the Tablet PC and hitting the wrong key.
3. I hesitate using the Tablet PC for fear of making mistakes cannot
correct.
4. the Tablet PC is somewhat intimidating to me.

118

Acceptance of Tablet PCs

119

Behavioral Intention (BI) Questions


1. Whenever possible, I intend to use the Tablet PC in my studies.
2. I perceive using the Tablet PC as involuntary.
3. I plan to use the Tablet PC in the next three months.
4. To the extent possible, I would use Tablet PC to do different
things (school or not school) related.
5. To the extent possible, I would use Tablet PC in my studies
frequently.
Usage Questions
1. I use my Tablet PC in Slate mode.
2. I use my Tablet PC stylus for navigation.
3. I use my Tablet PC primarily as a notebook computer.
I use Windows Journal with my Tablet PC.
Other Information Questions
1. I am a male

female

2. I am currently a at DSU.
A. Freshman B. Sophomore

C. Junior

D. Senior

E. Grad Student

3. My major is represented by the college at Dakota State University.


A. Arts & Sciences B. Business& Info Sys C. Education. D. Graduate.
4. I began using computers regularly in school.
A. Elementary
B. Middle C. High

D. College

E. Other

E. Do not use

5. Approximately how many months have you been using the Tablet PC?
One Two Three Six Nine Twelve More than twelve months

Acceptance of Tablet PCs

120

APPENDIX C: CROSS TAB REPORTS


Cross tab reports were generated for all the different survey populations for each
survey variable. There were 53 statements in the final survey and five different survey
groups. The groups include gender, class status, college affiliation, first computer use,
and first tablet PC use. The cross tab reports for the variable PE1 and the five
subpopulations are included in the body of this dissertation under the titles of Table 16,
17, 19, 21 and 24. Contact the researcher if the other cross reports are desired for
examination.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen