Easy as E-Mail? Probing the Slow Adoption of an Online Submission System Orit Naor-Elaiza & Nitza Geri Bar-Ilan University and The Open University of Israel The Open University of Israel Chais Conference, Raanana, February 6, 2008

The Puzzle of Technology Acceptance User acceptance is a necessary condition for realizing information technology innovation potential value (Agarwal & Prasad, 1997) Determinants of acceptance have been widely researched (Davis, 1989; Delone & Mclean, 1992, 2003; Rogers, 1962, 2003) Understanding why people adopt or reject an information system remains one of the most challenging issues (Jeyaraj et al., 2006; Venkatesh et al., 2003)

Why Probing the Assignments System? An online assignment submission system is one of the most valued online activities (Levy, 2006) Apparently, a simple system, similar to e-mail Expected to be valuable especially in a distance or blended learning environment After seven years of implementation, the system handled a marginal part of the assignments

The Proposed Research Model Social Influence / Observability Compatibility H4 Perceived Usefulness H1 H3 Perceived Ease of Use Behavioral Intention H2 Trust Institutional Influence Attitude towards New Technologies Support H7 H9 H6 H8 CONTROL VARIABLES Gender Age Learning Framework Experience

The Assignments System Inaugurated in Semester 1999B – 123 assignments Semester 2006B – 34,500 assignments – 19.2% Students’ use is mainly voluntary The system was not available in all courses As of 2007, management encourages use in all courses Students still have the choice not to use the system This study focuses on students who have never used the system, as part of a comprehensive study of all parties concerned with the system

Methodology Pilot: 134 students (23 non-users; 38 former users; 73 users) Anonymous web survey (summer 2007) By e-mail to 3,000 students out of 6,700 non-users with known e-mail addresses (200 delivery failures) 236 responses (8.4%( Non-response bias (Armstrong & Overton, 1977): 151 “early respondents”; 85 “late” No significant difference

Results Gender: 50.8% men; 49.2% women Learning Framework: 53.4% institutional; 46.6% independent Age: 20-29 (49%); 30-39 (25%); 40-49 (14%); 50-59 (9%); over 60 (3%) Partial Least Square (smartPLS 2.00) (Ringle et al., 2005) Structured equation modeling method that analyzes how the items load on their constructs simultaneously with estimating all the paths in the model (Chin, 1998; Chin et al., 2003; Gefen et al., 2000; Gefen & Straub, 2005)

PLS Results for the Proposed Model Social Influence / Observability 0.27 Institutional Influence 0.263 0.517 Perceived Usefulness 0.34 0.318 Behavioral Intention 0.56 0.451 0.339 Perceived Ease of Use 0.39 0.302 0.240 Distrust 0.15 Experience Support Age - 0.322 - 0.278 - 0.226 - 0.267 Attitude towards New Technologies Compatibility 0.302 All paths are significant at least at p < .05

Why Students Do Not Use the System The survey participants did not perceive the system as very useful, easy to use or compatible, and were not keen to use new technologies They had relevant experience and trusted the providers Relatively low social and institutional influence Students may have not been exposed to the system Students may have not been encouraged to use it

Practical Implications Course coordinators and tutors willingness to use the assignments system is necessary but not enough The system and work processes should be more compatible with students’ needs in order to become valuable to them Institutional influence may enhance adoption

Thank - You! Final Observation "Innovation isn't what innovators do... it's what customers and clients adopt"   Michael Schrage Thank - You!