| Since the seminal work of Davis in 1989 produced the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), researchers have sought to extend the framework and use the resulting models to describe the predictors of technology adoption specific to various populations. Although the TAM has been used to understand the adoption of technology in higher education, most of the studies conducted have focused on traditional college degrees, and many of the past studies have been limited by using students as a sample rather than actual decision makers. In an attempt to address both of these problems, this study collected information from faculty, staff, administrators, and students of Central Georgia Technical College in middle Georgia. In the two-week period allowed for responses from the sample, 525 potential respondents took part producing 240 completed and usable data sets. An a priori analysis using G*Power 3.1.9.2 for an effect size of 0.15, a significance level (alpha) of 0.05, 8 predictor variables, and desired power of 0.95 calculated the needed number of respondents to be at least 74, by significantly exceeding this number the actual calculated power of the study was found to be 99.99%. Multiple regression analysis was used to test the first hypothesis that no significant relationships existed between the 8 predictor variables intent to use, perceived usefulness, subjective norm, perceived ease of use, self-efficacy, service quality, information quality, system quality and the variable of interest system use. At the desired significance level (p < 0.005), the results supported rejecting the hypothesis for all predictor variables. A better understanding of the factors that predict the adoption of technology will allow the stakeholders in technical education -- faculty, administration, students, and the college as a financial entity -- to realize maximum growth, competitive advantage, and profit. Paired samples t-tests were used to address the second hypothesis that there was no significant difference between the group of faculty, administrators, and staff that had volitional control and the group of students that possessed no volitional control in the decision to adopt technology. For the sample used, there was not sufficient evidence to support rejecting the proposed hypothesis. |
