1. 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

2. 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)

3. 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
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

4. 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

5. 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

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

7. Results Gender: 50.8% men; 49.2% women
Learning Framework: 53.4% institutional; 46.6% independent
Age:
20-29 (49%); (25%); (14%); (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)

8. 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
Attitude towards New Technologies
Compatibility
0.302
All paths are significant at least at p < .05

9. 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

10. 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

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