The Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), presented in 1989 by Davis et al., is the most widely accepted. This model has been applied and tested in a wide spectrum of ICT areas and is one of the most popular research models to predict use, a person’s behavioural intention, and acceptance of information systems and technology by individual users. (Surendran, 2013).The model has three aspects, perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use and intention to use, Figure 3 and 4 and explained in Figure 5, Queensland University Technology, (2017).
The TAM model has been applied to different technologies, under many different situations, with different control factors and different subjects, Lee et al.,2003. The model is considered to be robust and successful and continues to be used in the study of research. However, a critical review of the TAM model by Legris et al., (2003) suggests that results of research using the model are inconsistent or unclear. This suggests that significant factors are unaccounted for in the model. Factors such as human and social change processes are needed to make the model more useful and therefore would benefit from being integrated into a broader model as the model currently may be too simple.
One of the most notable criticisms of the TAM is the lack of acknowledgement of individual differences (Agarwal and Prasad, 1999). Beliefs and attitudes about technology are influenced by more than the perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness of the product. It has also been suggested in a study by Wolski and Jackson (1999) that the TAM model is not entirely appropriate for an education setting and is more suited to a business setting, as it does not capture the complexity and relevant influences specific to the educational institution. Influences such as student and teacher relationships are not considered using TAM when technology is adopted.
TAM focuses solely on beliefs of technology. It is the individual’s adoption patterns that illustrate a successful implementation. An individual’s failure to successfully adopt technology may induce a negative cycle of non-adoption. This negative cycle may affect self-confidence and trust in computer systems (de Vries et al., 2003) and in turn may also have implications on self-efficacy when using technology. Therefore, decision makers need to know the issues that influence a user’s decision to use a system or technology in order to take them into account during the development phase and in turn this would allow successful adoption of technology. Users of technology need to believe that adoption of technology is not only important but also useful. The behaviors and attitudes around adoption of technology must change to increase the use of technology.
Another limitation of this model is that it assumes people plan their behaviour. However, this is not always the case and is evident during the Covid-19 pandemic where the change to online delivery was not planned thoroughly enough for most people therefore making the adoption of technology more difficult. The model also does not give design advice on how to make technology easy to use or useful.
The TAM model does not take into account that investment in any new technology is expensive and requires a lot of time and effort. Hooper and Rieber (1998) support this statement mentioning that higher education institutions view technology as “cost effective” and “an innovative solution” to many of the problems that they face. Massy and Zemsky (1995) concluded in an analysis that unless colleges and universities embrace technological tools for teaching, they cannot become more productive or cost effective. The current situation has not allowed this to happen and the effects of this are yet to be seen in future implementation of courses which may have to be delivered online.
Technology Adoption in HE 