數位學習系統不僅是個能提供使用者多元化選擇的教育學習平台，也同時是一個以網路為主的資訊系統。惟使用者要從數位學習系統中獲益，除了組織要能提供良好的學習環境外，其本身亦必須具備高度的自我導向學習（SDL）意願。也就是說使用者的自我導向學習意願及對數位學習系統接受度的高低將決定系統的成敗。
本研究以科技接受模式（TAM）與整合性科技接受與使用理論（UTAUT）應用於大學教育之例，來解釋具有自我導向學習能力的混合式學習者對於數位學習系統的接受度，及從大學鼓勵成人學生學習及學生間相互影響的觀點，來分析資訊系統的使用意願。
從分析433位混合式數位學習系統的成人使用者之使用行為，本研究所提出的「自我導向學習式科技接受模式」與「自我導向學習式整合性科技接受與使用理論」，除了有良好的模式適契度及變異解釋力外，也可以用來分析會促進自我導向學習者使用數位學習系統的驅動因素。研究發現「科技接受模式」在預測具有高度自我導向學習意願者的行為及解釋變異上，比「整合性科技接受與使用理論」來得好；而「整合性科技接受與使用理論」對較不具有自我導向學習意願的使用者，具有較佳的預測能力。研究成果及理論模式不僅對科技接受研究有所貢獻，也可對正在與即將推行數位學習系統的組織帶來正面的啟示。

The e-learning system is one of many educational methods that allow flexible learner-centered education. It is also an information system based on the Internet. Hence, the increasing use of the e-learning has provided an inter-disciplinary research opportunity to information systems and educational engineering fields. But the benefits of an e-learning are subjected to the organization’s learning environments, readiness and the acceptance of self-directed users. In other words, self-directed learning (SDL) is a prerequisite to e-learning success. It is important to evaluate the readiness of self-directed users and their acceptance of e-learning system.
This paper focuses on examining the applicability of both the technology acceptance model (TAM) and the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) in explaining adult self-directed users’ acceptance of e-learning system in a blended learning context. The combination of user groups (adult learners), the technology (e-learning system), and the context (blended learning in a higher education institution) is new to IT acceptance researches. The purpose of this research is to shed light on more effective ways to motivate part-time adult learners to use e-learning system in a higher education institution. This study extends both the TAM and UTAUT models with self-directed learning (SDL) concepts. A questionnaire was developed based on previous works in the areas of technology acceptance and SDL.
Based on responses from 433 adult blended learners, both SDL-based TAM and UTAUT models were evaluated in terms of overall fit, explanatory power, and their causal links. Overall, findings suggest that TAM may be more appropriate than UTAUT for examining high SDLRS score user group’s e-learning acceptance behaviour; UTAUT may provide e-learning designers and management teams some crucial suggestions to enhance low SDLRS score users’ system utilization. This study also asserts that the successful transition to an e-learning environment requires that the self-directed learners be actively encouraged and supported by their organizations. Results of this study provide reliable and valid SDL-based TAM and UTAUT instruments for organizations to determine whether their learners had the necessary skills for SDL-based blended learning before investing huge budget and time in a large-scale e-learning project. As more organizations experiment with e-learning systems, the SDL-based TAM and UTAUT models could be used to (a) assess the degree of users’ self-directed readiness before e-learning implementation; and (b) evaluate the factors affecting users’ acceptance of new e-learning system and provide useful remedies for improving system utilization rate after e-learning implementation.

Table of Contents

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS --------------------------------------------------- IV
ABSTRACT --------------------------------------------------------------- V
LIST OF FIGURES -------------------------------------------------------- XI
LIST OF TABLES ---------------------------------------------------------- XII
CHAPTER 1 PURPOSE AND ORGANIZATION ------------------------------- 1
1.1 Research Background and Motivation ---------------------------------- 1
1.2 Research Objectives ------------------------------------------------- 3
1.3 Theoretical Foundation ------------------------------------------------ 4
1.3.1 Apply TAM in E-learning Settings ------------------------------------ 4
1.3.2 Apply UTAUT and SDL in E-learning Settings -------------------------- 5
1.3.3 Tentative SDL-based TAM Framework and Hypotheses ------------------ 6
1.3.4 Tentative SDL-based UTAUT Framework and Hypotheses --------------- 7
1.4 Research Flow ------------------------------------------------------ 11
1.5 Research Scope and Limitations -------------------------------------- 12
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ---------------------------------------- 16
2.1 Distance Learning and E-learning ------------------------------------- 16
2.1.1 Distance Learning ------------------------------------------------ 16
2.1.2 E-learning ------------------------------------------------------- 16
2.1.3 Characteristics and Limits of E-learning ------------------------------ 17
2.1.4 Benefits of Effective E-learning ------------------------------------- 18
2.2 Learning Environments and Blended Learning ---------------------------- 20
2.2.1 Classroom Learning Environment ----------------------------------- 20
2.2.2 Technological Learning Environment -------------------------------- 21
2.2.3 Blended Learning Environments ------------------------------------ 22
2.3 Technology Acceptance Theories --------------------------------------- 24
2.3.1 The Evolution of Technology Acceptance Theories --------------------- 24
2.3.2 Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) -------------------------------- 27
2.3.3 The Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) ------ 28
2.4 Andragogy and Self-Directed Learning ---------------------------------- 29
2.4.1 Pedagogy and Andragogy ------------------------------------------- 29
2.4.2 Adult Learning Theory and Self-Efficacy ------------------------------ 30
2.4.3 Self-Directed Learning (SDL) ---------------------------------------- 32
CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY---------------------------------- 35
3.1 Target System (UCLN) and Sample ------------------------------------ 35
3.2 Instruments and Research Procedures ---------------------------------- 36
3.3 SDLRS and Analytic Procedures -----------------------------------------37
CHAPTER 4 EMPIRICAL DATA ANALYSIS ---------------------------------- 40
4.1 Characteristics of Respondents --------------------------------------- 40
4.2 Reliability and Validity of Instrument ----------------------------------- 40
4.3 Evaluation of Model Fits ---------------------------------------------- 42
4.3.1 Evaluations of UTAUT Model Fit ------------------------------------- 43
4.3.2 Evaluations of TAM Model Fit -------------------------------------- 44
4.4 Path coefficients Tests ----------------------------------------------- 45
4.4.1 TAM’s low SDLRS Group ------------------------------------------- 45
4.4.2 TAM’s high SDLRS Group ------------------------------------------- 45
4.4.3 UTAUT’s low SDLRS Group ------------------------------------------46
4.4.4 UTAUT’s high SDLRS Group --------------------------------------- 47
CHAPTER 5 IMPLICATION AND DISCUSSION ------------------------------- 49
5.1 Research Implications ----------------------------------------------- 49
5.2 Discussion -------------------------------------------------------- 51
CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION ----------------------------- 54
6.1 Conclusion --------------------------------------------------------- 54
6.2 Suggestion -------------------------------------------------------- 58
REFERENCES ----------------------------------------------------------- 59
APPENDIX --------------------------------------------------------------- 68

List of Figures

AbuShanab, E. and Pearson, J. M. (2007). Internet banking in Jordan: The unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT) perspective, Journal of Systems and Information Technology, 9(1): 78-97.
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2): 179-211.
Al-Gahtani, S. S. and King, M. (1999). Attitudes, satisfaction and usage: Factors contributing to each in the acceptance of information system, Behaviour & Information Technology, 18(4): 277-297.
Alshare, K., Dwairi, M. A., and Akour, I. (2003). Student-instructor perception of computer technologies in developing countries: The case of Jordan, The Journal of Computer Information Systems, 43(4): 115-123.
Armstrong, J. S. (2000). The biggest, baddest learning portals, Training, 37(6): 61-63.
Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanisms in human behavior, American Psychologist, 37: 122-147.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thoughts and actions. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Beer, V. (2000). The web-learning field handbook: Using the world wide web to build workplace learning environments. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Pfeiffer.
Belanger, F. and Jordan, D. H. (2000). Evaluation and implementation of distance learning: Technologies, tools, and techniques. Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing.
Bigelow, J. D. (1999). The web as an organizational behavior learning medium, Journal of Management Education, 23(6): 635-650.
Boehle, S. (2006). Putting the learning back in e-learning, Training, 43(1): 29-35.
Brown, K. G. (2005). A field study of employee e-learning activity and outcomes, Human Resource Development Quarterly, 16(4): 465-480.
Brown, K. G. and Ford, J. K. (2002). Using computer technology in training: Building an infrastructure for active learning (pp. 192-233). In Kraiger, K. (eds.). Creating, implementing, and managing effective training and development, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Pfeiffer.
Bryman, A. and Cramer, D. (2007). Quantitative data analysis with SPSS 12 and 13: A guide for social scientists, London: Taylor & Francis.
Carmines, E. G. and McIver, J. P. (1981). Analyzing models with unobserved variables, In Bohrnstedt, G. W. and Borgatta, E. F. (eds.). Social Measurement: Current Issues, Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.
Chang, M., Wang, C. Y., and Chen, G. D. (2007). Quantitative and qualitative results of the national program for e-learning in Taiwan, WSEAS Transactions on Computers, 3(6): 546-551.
Chapnick, S. and Meloy, J. (2005). Renaissance e-learning: Creating dramatic and unconventional learning experiences. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.
Chau, P. Y. K. and Hu, P. J. H. (2002). Investigating healthcare professionals’ decisions to accept telemedicine technology: An empirical test of competing theories, Information & Management, 39(4): 297-311.
Chen, W. S. (2003). New opportunities of e-learning: After the impacts of SARS, Communication Magazines, July: 50-55. (In Chinese)
Christensen, R. (2002). Effects of technology integration education on the attitudes of teachers and students, Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 34(4): 411-434.
Compeau, D. R. and Higgins, C. A. (1995). Application of social cognitive theory to training for computer skills, Information System Research, 6(2): 118-143.
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology, MIS Quarterly, 13(3): 319-339.
Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P. and Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models, Management Science, 35(8): 982-1002.
Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P. and Warshaw, P. R. (1992). Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation to use computers in the workplace, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22(14): 1111-1132.
Degener, S. C. (2001). Making sense of critical pedagogy in adult literacy education. In Comings, J., Garner, B., & Smith, C. (Eds.). Annual Review of Adult learning and Literacy, Volume 2. The Jossey-Bass Higher and Adult Education Series. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
DGBAS, 2007. Central government general budget proposal: Fiscal year 2007. Taipei: Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics.
Dolezalek, H. (2005). The 2005 industry report, Training, 42(12): 14-28.
Downes, S., 2007. Learning Networks in Practice. In Ley, D. (Eds.) Emerging technologies for learning (Vol. 2), Coventry: British Educational Communications and Technology Agency (Becta).
Dringus, L. P. (2000). Towards active online learning: A dramatic shift in perspective for learners, The Internet and Higher Education, 2(4): 189-195.
Ellinger, A. D. (2004). The concept of self-directed learning and Its implications for human resource development, Advances in Developing Human Resource, 6(2): 158-177.
ELNP. (2002). The blueprint of the National Science & Technology Program for e-Learning in Taiwan, Taipei: National Science & Technology Program for e-Learning.
Fishbein, M. and Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Galagan, P. (2000). The e-learning revolution, Training and Development, 54(12): 24-30.
Gale, S. F. (2003). Making e-learning more than ‘pixie dust’, Workforce, March: 58-62.
Gates, W. (1999), Business at the Speed of Thought: Using a Digital Nervous System, New York: Penguin Readers.
Gefen, D., Straub, D. W., and Boudreau, M.-C. (2000). Structural equation modeling and regression: Guidelines for research practice, Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 4(7): 1-77.
Gist, M. E., Schwoerer, C., and Rosen, B. (1989). Effects of alternative training methods on self-efficacy and performance in computer software training, Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(6): 884-891.
Gold, M. (2003). Enterprise e-learning, Training and Development, 57(4): 28-33.
Gong, M., Xu, Y., and Yu, Y. (2004). An enhanced technology acceptance model for web-based learning, Journal of Information System Education, 15(4): 365-274.
Guglielmino, L. M. (1977). Development of self-directed learning readiness scale, Doctoral dissertation, University of Georgia.
Guglielmino, L. M. and Guglielmino, P. J. (2003). Identifying learners who are ready for e-learning and supporting their success, In Piskurich, G. M. (eds.). Preparing Learners for e-Learning, San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Guglielmino, P. J. and Murdick, R. G. (1997). Self-directed learning: The quiet revolution in corporate training and development, SAM Advanced Management Journal, summer: 10-18.
Harris, M. M. and Schaubroeck, J. (1990). Confirmatory modeling in organizational behavior/human resource management: Issues and applications, Journal of Management, 16(2): 337-360.
Hatcher, T. G. (1997). The ins and outs of self-directed learning, Training and Development, 51(2): 34-39.
Hayduk, L. A. (1996). LISREL Issues, Debates and Strategies, Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Hequet, M. (2003). The state of the e-learning market, Training, 40(8): 24-29.
Hirumi, A. (2002). The design and sequencing of e-learning interactions: A grounded approach. International Journal on E-Learning, 1(1): 19-27.
Holmes, B. and Gardner, J. R. (2006). E-learning: Concepts and practice. London: Sage Publications.
Holton, E. F., Bates, R. A., and Ruona, W. E. A. (2000). Development of a generalized learning transfer system inventory, Human Resource Development Quarterly, 11(4): 333-360.
Hong, S. J., Thong, J. Y. L., and Tam, K. Y. (2006). Understanding continued information technology usage behaviour: A comparison of three models in the context of mobile internet, Decision Support Systems, 42(3): 1819-1834.
Hu, L. and Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indices in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives, Structural Equation Modelling, 6: 1-55.
Hu, J. P., Clark, T. H. K., and Ma, W. W. (2003). Examining technology acceptance by school teachers: A longitudinal study, Information and Management, 41(2): 227-241.
Igbaria, M., Guimaraes, T., and Davis, G. B. (1995). Testing the determinants of microcomputer usage via a structural equation model, Journal of Management Information Systems, 11(4): 87-114.
Jöreskog, K. G. and D. Sörbom (1996), LISREL 8: User’s Reference Guide, 2nd edition, Chicago: Scientific Software International.
Kear, K., Williams, J., Seaton, R., and Einon, G. (2004). Using information and communication technology in a modular distance learning course, European Journal of Engineering Education, 29(1): 17-25.
Keil, M., Beranek, P. M., and Konsynski, B. (1995). Usefulness and ease of use: Field study evidence regarding task considerations, Decision Support Systems, 13(1): 75-91.
Kettinger, W. J., and Lee, C. C. (1994). Perceived service quality and user satisfaction with the information services function, Decision Sciences, 25(5/6): 737-766.
Klein, H. J. Noe, R. A., and Wang, C. (2006). Motivation to learn and course outcomes: The impact of delivery mode, learning goal orientation, and perceived barriers and enablers, Personnel Psychology, 59(3): 665-702.
Knowles, M. S. (1970). The modern practice of adult education: Andragogy versus pedagogy. New York: Association Press.
Knowles, M. S. (1980). The modern practice of adult education: From pedagogy to andragogy (2nd ed). Cambridge: The Adult Education Co.
Knowles, M. S. (1990). The adult learner, (4th ed.), Houston: Gulf Publishing.
Knowles, M. S., Holton, E. F. III, & Swanson, R. A. (2005), The Adult Learner: The definitive classic in adult education and human resource development,(6th ed.). Burlington, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Kuo, T., Lu, C. H., Tsai, H. T., Tseng, Y. Y. (2008). User acceptance of e-learning system: A self-directed learning perspective. Journal of E-Business, (forthcoming).
Lee, J.-K. and Lee, W.-K. (2008). The relationship of e-learner’s self-regulatory efficacy and perception of e-learning environmental quality, Computers in Human Behavior, 24(1): 32-47.
Liaw, S. and Huang, H. (2002). How web technology can facilitate learning, Information Systems Management, 19(1): 56-61.
Lin, A. (2006). The acceptance and use of a business-to-business information system, International Journal of Information Management, 26: 386-400.
Long, H. B. (2003). Preparing e-learners for self-directed learning”, In Piskurich, G. M. (eds.). Preparing Learners for e-Learning, San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Louho, R., Kallioja, M., and Oittinen, P. (2006). Factors affects the use of hybrid media applications. Graphic Arts in Finland, 35(3): 11-21.
Lu, J., Yu, C., and Liu, C. (2005). Facilitating conditions, wireless trust and adoption intention, Journal of Computer Information Systems, 46(1): 17-24.
Lundy, J., Harris, K., Igou, B., and Zastrocky, M. (2002). Gartner’s e-Learning glossary, Gartner Research, January: M-14-9025.
Ma, W. W., Andersson, R., and Streith, K. (2005). Examining user acceptance of computer technology: An empirical study of student teachers, Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21(6): 387-395.
Mantyla,K. (2001). Blended e-learning: The power is in the mix. Alexandria VA. American Society for Training and Development.
Marquez, J. (2005). Faced with high turnover, retailers boot up e-learning programs for quick training, Workforce Management, 84(8): 74-75.
Martins, L. L., and Kellermanns, F. W. (2004). A model of business school students’ acceptance of a web-based course management system, Academy of Management Learning and Education, 3(1): 7-26.
Martocchio, J. (1994). Effects of conceptions of ability on anxiety, self-efficacy, and learning in training, Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(6): 819-825.
Marzano, R. J. (1992). A different kind of classroom: Teaching with dimensions of learning, Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
McCune, S. K., Guglielmino, L. M., and Garcia, G. (1990). Adult self- direction in learning: A preliminary meta-analytic investigation of research using the Self-Directed Learning Readiness Scale. In Long, H. B. & Associates, Advances in self-directed learning research. Norman, OK: Oklahoma Research Center for Continuing Professional and Higher Education.
McDonald, R. P. and Ho, M. R. (2002). Principles and practice in reporting structural equation analysis, Psychological Methods, 7: 64-82.
Moore, G. C. and Benbasat, I. (1991). Development of an instrument to measure the perceptions of adopting an information technology innovation, Information Systems Research, 2(3): 192-222.
Muirhead, B. and Juwah, C. (2004). Interactivity in computer-mediated college and university education: A recent review of the literature, Educational Technology & Society, 7(1): 12-20.
Mulaik, S. A., James, L. R., Van Alstine, J., Bennett, N., Lind, S., and Stilwell, C. D. (1989). Evaluation of goodness-of-fit indices for structural equation models. Psychological Bulletin, 105: 430-455.
Noe, R. A. (2008). Employee training and development, (4th ed.). Singapore: McGraw-Hill.
Nunnally, J. C. and Bernstein, I. H. (1994), Psychometric theory, (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
O’Neill, G., and McMahon, T., (2005), Student-centred learning: What does it mean for students and lecturers? In O’Neill, G., Moore, S., McMullin, B. (Eds.) Emerging Issues in the Practice of University Learning and Teaching, Durblin: AISHE.
Ong, C.-S. and Lai, J.-Y., (2006). Gender differences in perceptions and relationships among dominants of e-Learning acceptance, Computers in Human Behavior, 22(5): 816-829.
Ong, C.-S., Lai, J.-Y. and Wang, Y.-S. (2004). Factors affects engineers’ acceptance of asynchronous e-learning systems in high-tech companies, Information & Management, 41(6): 795-804.
Pahl, C. (2003). Managing evolution and change in web-based teaching and learning environments, Computers & Education, 40(2): 99-114.
Peters, J. and Gray, A. (2005). A solitary act one cannot do alone: The self-directed, collaborative learner, International Journal of Self-Directed Learning, 2(2): 12-23.
Piccoli, G., Ahmad, R. and Ives, B. (2001). Web-based virtual learning environments: A research framework and a preliminary assessment of effectiveness on basic IT skills training, MIS Quarterly, 25(4): 401-426.
Piskurich, G. M. (1993). Self-directed learning: A practical guide to design, development, and implementation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Piskurich, G. M. (1994). Developing self-directed learning, Training and Development, 31(3): 31-36.
Piskurich, G. M. and Piskurich, J. F. (2003). Utilizing a classroom approach to prepare learners for e-learning, In Piskurich, G. M. (eds.). Preparing Learners for e-Learning, San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Pituch, K. A. and Y.-K. Lee (2006). The influence of system characteristics on e-learning use, Computers & Education, 47(2): 222-244.
Ponton, M., Derrick, G., Confessore, G., and Rhea, N., (2005). The role of self-efficacy in autonomous learning, International Journal of Self-Directed Learning, 2(2): 81-90..
Ponton, M., Derrick, G., Hall, J. M., Rhea, N., and Carr, P. (2005). The relationship between self-efficacy and autonomous learning: The development of new instrumentation, International Journal of Self-Directed Learning, 2(1): 50-61.
Porter, M. E., Sala-i-Martin, X., and Schwab, K. (2007). The Global Competitiveness Report 2007-2008, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
Riffell, S. and Sibley, D. (2005). Using web-based instruction to improve large undergraduate biology courses: an evaluation of a hybrid course format, Computers & Education, 44(3): 217-235.
Roberson, D. N. and Merriam, S. B. (2005). The self-directed learning process of older, rural adults, Adult Education Quarterly, 55(4): 269-287.
Rosenberg, M. J. (2006). Beyond E-Learning: Approaches and Technologies to Enhance Organizational Knowledge, Learning, and Performance, San Francisco: Pfeiffer.
Segars, A. H. and Grover, V. (1993). Re-examining perceived ease of use and usefulness: A confirmatory factor analysis”, MIS Quarterly, 17(4): 517-525.
Shin, N., and Chan, J. K. Y. (2004). Direct and indirect effects of online learning on distance education, British Journal of Educational Technology, 35(3): 275-288.
Siemens, G. and Yurkiw, S. (2003). The roles of the learner and the instructor in e-learning, In Preparing Learners for e-Learning, edited by G. M. Piskurich, San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Sitzmann, T., Kraiger, K., Stewart, D., and Wisher, R. (2006). The comparative effectiveness of web-based and classroom instruction: A meta-analysis, Personnel Psychology, 59(3): 623-664.
Szajna, B. (1996). Empirical Evaluation of the Revised Technology Acceptance Model, Management Science, 42(1): 85-92.
Taylor, S. and Todd, P. A. (1995). Assessing IT usage: the role of prior experience, MIS Quarterly, 19(4): 561-570.
Thompson, R. L., Higgins, C. A., and Howell, J. M. (1991). Personal computing: Toward a conceptual model of utilization, MIS Quarterly, 15(1): 124-143.
Turban, E., King, D., Viehland, D. and Lee, J. (2006). Electronic commerce: A managerial perspective, (4th ed.). New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Urdan, T. A. and Weggen, C. C. (2002). Corporate E-learning: Exploring a new frontier. San Francisco: WR Hambrecht & Co.
Van Buren, M. E. and Woodwell, Jr., W. H. (2000). The 2000 ASTD trends report: Staying ahead of the winds of change. Alexandria VA: American Society for Training and Development.
Venkatesh, V. (2000). Determinants of perceived ease of use: Integrating control, intrinsic motivation, and emotion into the technology acceptance model, Information Systems Research, 11(4): 342-365.
Venkatesh, V. and 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. G., Davis, G. B., and Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view, MIS Quarterly, 27(3): 425-478.
Weaver, P. (2002). Preventing e-learning failure, Training and Development, 56(8): 45-50.
Weinstein, M. (2005). Got class, Training, 42(2): 29-32.
Welsh, E. T., Wanberg, C. R., Brown, K. G., and Simmering, M. J. (2003). E-learning merging uses, empirical results, and future directions, International Journal of Training and Development, 7(4): 245-258.
Yang, H.-D., Yoo, Y. (2004). It's all about attitude: Revisiting the technology acceptance model, Decision Support Systems, 38(1): 19-31.