Level of Acceptance and Factors Influencing

Students Intention to Use UCSI Universitys E-mail

System

Mohamed Yamin
1
, Yvonne Lee
2

Faculty of Management and Information Technology
UCSI University
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
E-mail:
1
yammai@gmail.com,
2
leele@ucsi.edu.my


AbstractThe study explores the level of acceptance and factors
influencing the acceptance of the newly implemented student e-
mail system at UCSI University, Malaysia. The Unified Theory of
Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) model was modified
and used to determine the factors that influence students
intention to use the e-mail system. 357 students participated in
the study from three faculties of the University. The study found
out that the level of acceptance of the student e-mail system was
low amongst the students of UCSI University. The results
indicate that Performance Expectancy, Effort Expectancy,
Attitude, Social Influence, Facilitating Conditions, and Self
Efficacy have a significant relationship with Behavioral
Intention. However, results of the regression analysis indicate
that only Performance Expectancy, Effort Expectancy, and
Attitude are significant in influencing Behavioral Intention.
Recommendations were given to increase the acceptance of the
student e-mail system among students based on the findings.
Keywords-Level of acceptance; UCSI Universitys student e-
mail system; web-based e-mail; UTAUT
I. INTRODUCTION
With the advent of the internet, web-based e-mail became
one of the most popular activities for internet users. The
benefits and importance of e-mail were recognized by all types
of organizations including educational institutions. Many
universities and colleges in Malaysia use web-based student e-
mail systems. Web-based e-mail systems allow users to login
to their e-mail accounts using a web browser via internet.
Popular e-mail systems used in educational institutions in
Malaysia include Zimbra, SquirrelMail, and IceWarp.
However, most of these webmail systems do have its
drawbacks. Limited inbox capacity, virus vulnerability, and in
most cases, the price of acquiring and maintaining these
systems are costly [1]. To overcome the drawbacks, UCSI
University migrated from its old SquirrelMail system to
Google Apps Education Edition a free web-based e-mail
system hosted by Google on the internet. Since the rollout of
the new student e-mail system in May 2009, no research has
been conducted to see how well the system has been accepted
by students. According to Venkatesh et al., [2] successful
implementation of an information system is very much
dependent on the acceptance level of the system by its users.
The main objective of this study is to explore the level of
acceptance of the newly implemented student e-mail system at
UCSI University. The study also seeks to discover
relationships between influencing factors and students
intention to use the e-mail system.
A. Microsoft Live@edu vs. Google Apps Education
Edition
Microsoft was the first to tap in to solve the limitations of
the student e-mail systems when it launched Microsoft
Live@edu providing a free web-based e-mail system for
educational institutions in 2005. Google followed shortly in
2006, offering Googles version of the e-mail system known as
Google Apps Education Edition [3].Microsoft provides free
e-mail accounts, a suite of online tools such as shared
calendars, documents, and workspaces [4]. Educational
institutions enrolling for Microsoft Live@edu are provided
with free hosted, co-branded communication and collaboration
services for students, alumni and staff [5]. The web-based e-
mail application of Microsoft; Windows Live Hotmail is
bundled with the package including 10 gigabytes (GB) of e-
mail storage.
Likewise, Googles package includes its popular Gmail
format e-mail, Google Calendar (shared calendaring) and
Google Docs (online document creation & sharing) [6]. The e-
mail system includes 7 gigabytes (GB) of storage, built-in chat,
innovative search, and IMAP. Like Microsoft, Google Apps
Education Edition is a free suite of hosted communication and
collaboration applications designed for educational institutions.
At virtually no cost, the services offered by Microsoft or
Google yields financials benefits for educational institutions.
The services help IT/ICT Departments to reduce maintenance
costs and spend less time maintaining e-mail systems and more
time on strategic initiatives [5]. Other benefits for students
include having a common, familiar tool for them to
communicate and collaborate with peers and faculty anywhere
anytime. However, the service providers have the right to
include advertisements which may not be favorable for users.
37
2010 International Conference on User Science and Engineering
CFP1087L-ART/ 978-1-4244-9049-3/ 2010 IEEE
II. LITERATURE REVIEW
Researchers have studied various theories that could be
used to explain the adoption of information technology
innovations. Prominent theories include the Technology
Acceptance Model (TAM) developed by Davis et al. [7]; the
Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) developed by Fishbein and
Ajzen [8]; the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) developed
by Ajzen [9]. Among these models, the Technology
Acceptance Model (TAM) is considered to be the most robust,
parsimonious, and influential model in explaining acceptance
of information technology by its users [7, 10, 11]. However,
Mathieson et al. [12] criticized the TAM stating that TAM was
limited to the fact that the model assumes usage is volitional,
that is, there are no barriers that would prevent an individual
from using an information system if he or she chose to do so.
Nevertheless, there might be situations where users are
confronted with lack of time, money, etc which may prevent
them from using the system [13].
To address the shortcomings of TAM, several researchers
including Agarwal and Prasad [14], Mathieson et al. [12], Shih
[15], Musa [16], and Tung et al. [17] have attempted to
improve the TAM model. These studies focused to modify the
original TAM by overcoming TAMs limitations. However, it
resulted in more fragmentation of the TAM. Furthermore,
researchers adopting any of these models had to make a choice
from a large number of models and found that they must pick
and choose constructs across the modified models, or choose a
favored model and largely ignore the contributions from
alternative models [13]. To address this issue Venkatesh et al.
[2] proposed a new model called the Unified Theory of
Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) that overcomes
the above mentioned limitations.
A. Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA)
Fishbein and Ajzen [8] proposed the Theory of Reasoned
Action (TRA), which was drawn from the field of social
psychology. The study began as the theory of attitude, which
led to the study of attitude and behavior. According to Hale et
al. [18], the theory was, born largely out of frustration with
traditional attitude-behavior research, much of which found
weak correlations between attitude measures and performance
of volitional behaviors. The theory focused on predicting
Behavioral Intention, spanning predictions of attitude and
predictions of behavior.
TRA consists of the constructs Behavioral Intention (BI),
Attitude (A), and Subjective Norms (SN). The theory suggests
that a person's Behavioral Intention is dependent on the
person's Attitude about the behavior and Subjective Norms (BI
= A + SN). It is argued that if a person intends to do a
behavior, then the person will probably do it. The intention of a
person is directed by attitude towards the behavior and the
subjective norm. Behavioral intention measures a persons
relative strength of intention to perform a behavior. Attitude
comprises of beliefs about the consequences of engaging in a
behavior, where as subjective norm is the combination of
perceived expectations from relevant individuals or groups
along with intentions to comply with these expectations [8].
Even though TRA is believed to be one of the most
fundamental and influential theories of human behavior [2],
Sheppard et al. [19] disagreed with the theory claiming that
more than half of the research they reviewed investigated
activities for which the model was not designed. Sheppard et
al. [19] argue that there are three limiting conditions on the use
of attitudes and subjective norms to predict intentions and the
use of intentions to predict the performance of behavior. They
include goals versus behaviors; the choice among alternatives;
and intention versus estimates. Work by Hale et al. [18] point
out the theory excludes a wide range of behaviors such as those
that are spontaneous, impulsive, habitual, the result of cravings,
or simply scripted or mindless. Despite the criticisms, Davis et
al. [10] applied TRA to individual acceptance of technology
and found that the variance explained was largely consistent
with other studies that had used TRA in the context of other
behaviors.
B. Technology Acceptance Model (TAM)
Extending the TRA developed by Fishbein and Ajzen [8],
Davis [10] designed the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM)
to predict information technology acceptance and usage on the
job. Unlike TRA, TAM focused on information systems
context and excluded the Attitude construct in order to better
explain intention parsimoniously. Davis [10] suggested that
users motivation can be explained by perceived ease of use,
perceived usefulness, and attitude toward using the system. He
hypothesized that the attitude of a user toward a system was a
major factor in determining whether the user will actually use
or reject the system. The attitude of the user was considered to
be influenced by perceived usefulness and perceived ease of
use where perceived ease of use had a direct influence on
perceived usefulness.
While many researchers have confirmed the robustness of
TAM, several other researchers have also highlighted
important limitations of the model [20]. To measure system
use, TAM advocated on using self-reported usage data instead
of real actual usage data. However, some researchers believe
that self reported usage data is a subjective measure and hence
is unreliable in measuring actual use of a system [21, 22].
Apart from this, the theoretical foundation of the TAM has also
been criticized. According to Bagozzi [23], TAM showed a
poor theoretical relationship among different constructs. He
remarked that TAM was a deterministic model, and hence, an
individuals act was assumed to be totally determined by his or
her intention to act. However, Bagozzi [23] asserts that a
persons intention could be subjected to evaluation and
reflection, which might direct the person to reformulate his or
her intention, and even to take a different course of action.
Hence, he concluded that TAM was not appropriate for
explaining and predicting use of a system.
To address shortcomings, Venkatesh and Davis [24]
extended the TAM to explain perceived usefulness and usage
intentions in terms of Social Influence and cognitive
instrumental processes. Consequently, a new model TAM2 was
established and was tested in both voluntary and mandatory
settings. Using the TAM 2, Venkatesh and Davis [24] were
able to explain in more detail the reasons for a particular
system to be useful for its users.
38
C. Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB)
Azjen [9] proposed the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB)
extending the TRA. The additional construct included in TPB
apart from the constructs of TRA is the construct of perceived
behavioral control. In TPB, perceived behavioral control is
hypothesized to be an additional determinant of intention of
behavior. Perceived behavioral control is also influenced by
control beliefs and perceived facilitation. Control beliefs
include perceived availability of skills, resources, and
opportunities. Perceived facilitation belief is defined as an
individuals assessment of available resources to the
achievement of a given set of outcomes.
Mathieson [25] conducted an experiment to compare TPB
with TAM and found out that both models performed well in
predicting intention to use an information system. However, his
findings also revealed that while TPB provides more specific
information that can better guide development, TAM had a
slight empirical advantage. The advantage was that TAM was
easier to apply. He believed that due to simplicity and ease of
implementation TAM was favored instead of TPB or TRA.
D. Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology
(UTAUT)
The UTAUT model proposed by Venkatesh et al. [2] (see
Fig. 1) integrates the fragmented technology acceptance
models. The UTAUT model is a unified theoretical model that
captures the essential elements of eight previously established
models (i.e., the TAM, TRA, the motivational model, the TPB,
a model combining the TAM and the TPB, the model of
personal computer utilization, the innovation diffusion theory,
and the social cognitive theory). The UTAUT aims to explain
user intentions to use an information system and subsequent
usage behavior.
Performance
Expectancy
Effort
Expectancy
Social
Influence
Facilitating
Conditions
Gender Age Experience
Voluntariness
of use
Behavioral
Intention
Use
Behavior

Figure 1. UTAUT Model
According to the UTAUT model, four constructs are
deemed to be direct determinants of user acceptance and usage
behavior: (1) Performance Expectancy, (2) Effort Expectancy,
(3) Social Influence, and (4) Facilitating Conditions.
Perceived usefulness and ease of use which was originally
used in the TAM study were incorporated as Performance
Expectancy and Effort Expectancy in the UTAUT model.
According to the UATUT model, Effort Expectancy is more
salient in the early stages of using a new technology. In
contrast to previous technology acceptance models which were
able to predict user acceptance of an innovation with about 40
percent accuracy [7, 26], UTAUT was found 70 percent
accurate in predicting user acceptance of information
technology innovations [2]. UTAUT was validated in a
longitudinal study.
UTAUT Model has been widely used by many researchers
in different settings to explain the adoption of technologies. In
recent years, the model has gained popularity in education
settings as well. El-Gayar and Moran [27] applied a modified
UTAUT Model to evaluate students acceptance of Tablet PCs
as a means to forecast, explain, and improve usage pattern of
Tablet PC in education. Study by Marchewka et al. [28] to find
out student perceptions (in terms of applying the UTAUT
Model) on the use of Blackboard (Course Management
Software) found mixed support for the models reliability of
the scale items representing the UTAUT constructs and the
hypothesized relationships. Jong and Wang [29] used a
modified UTAUT model to determine technology acceptance
of a web-based learning system of Taiwan technical university
students. A study conducted in UCSI University to evaluate
students acceptance of blogging also found strong support for
the UTAUT model [30].
E. Conceptual Model
The conceptual model (see Fig. 2) formulated for this study
will focus on identifying the relationship between Performance
Expectancy, Effort Expectancy, Social Influence, Attitude,
Facilitating Conditions, Self Efficacy, Anxiety, Voluntariness
of Use and students intention to use UCSI University student
e-mail system.

Figure 2. Conceptual Model
III. METHOD
A. Research Instrument
The survey questionnaire was mainly based on the
constructs of the UTAUT model developed by Venkatesh et al.
[2]. The questionnaire consisted of two sections. Part A
comprised of the questions adopted from the UTAUT model.
Part B consisted of demographic questions. The UTAUT
questions in Part A were sub divided into nine sub categories.
They were, Performance Expectancy, Effort Expectancy,
Social Influence, Facilitating Conditions, Anxiety, and
Voluntariness of Use, each covering four questions. Attitude
covered five questions while Self Efficacy and Behavioral
Intention covered three questions. A five point Likert scale was
used to administer the UTAUT questions.
39
B. Target Population and Sampling
The target population for this study was the total number of
active user accounts created in the UCSI University student e-
mail system. According to the Computer Services Department
of UCSI University, a total of 5,000 user accounts were created
for students as at May 2010.
The total student population of UCSI University comprised
of ten faculties. Cluster sampling was used to select faculties
where each faculty was considered as a cluster. However, due
to the geographic disparity, three faculties in Sarawak and
Terengganu campus were not included. Systematic sampling
was used to select the faculties for this study from the seven
faculties in Kuala Lumpur campus. After arranging the seven
faculties in alphabetical order, every second faculty was
selected.
The selected faculties were the Faculty of Applied Sciences
(FoAS), Faculty of Management and Information Technology
(FoMIT), and Faculty of Music, Social Sciences, and Design
(FoMSSD).
A total of 357 students participated in the study. The
students were selected based on the relative population size of
the faculties studied. Hence, 89 students were selected from the
FoAS, 207 students were from FoMIT and 61 students were
selected from FoMSSD.
IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
A. Demographic Data
Majority of the respondents were females totaling to 248
respondents (69.47%) while male respondents were 109
(30.53%). The respondents age varied from 17 years to 27
years. The mean age of all students was 21.37 years. There
were a total of 262 local students (73.39%) and 95 international
students (26.61%). Among the respondents, most respondents
were studying for their Bachelors Degree which was 343
students (96.08%). 7 students (1.96%) were studying in
Foundation while 5 students (1.40%) were from the Diploma
programs. 2 students (0.56%) were studying for their Masters
Degree.
B. Level of Acceptance
To explore the acceptance level of the student e-mail
system, mean ratings were calculated. It was observed that the
overall acceptance of the student e-mail system was low (see
Table 1).
TABLE I. LEVEL OF ACCEPTANCE OF THE STUDENT E-MAIL SYSTEM
Construct
Mean
Rating
a

Level
Performance Expectancy 2.54 Low
Effort Expectancy 3.08 Moderate
Attitude 2.98 Low
Social Influence 2.82 Low
Facilitating Conditions 3.08 Moderate
Construct
Mean
Rating
a

Level
Self Efficacy 2.97 Low
Anxiety 2.31 Low
Voluntariness of Use 3.30 Moderate
Behavioral Intention 2.79 Low
a. Rated on a scale of 1 (very low) to 5 (very high)

Low scores for constructs such as Performance Expectancy,
Attitude, and Behavioral Intention indicates that students have
not realized the benefits of the system and their attitude is not
positive. Hence, students did not have a high intention of using
the e-mail system. The cause of the low acceptance to use the
system by students may probably be because of the lack of
awareness and the fact that the students do not believe there is
a requirement to use the system.
C. Correlation and Regression Analysis
Pearson Product-Moment Correlation was used to
investigate the relationship between the independent variables
and the dependent variable. According to the correlation
analysis, Performance Expectancy, Effort Expectancy,
Attitude, Social Influence, Facilitating Conditions, and Self
Efficacy was positively correlated with Behavioral Intention
where correlation coefficient was equal to 0.414, 0.426, 0.453,
0.371, 0.309, 0.269 respectively. All of the mentioned
correlations were significant at the 0.01 level. However,
Anxiety and Voluntariness of Use were observed to have an
insignificant correlation with Behavioral Intention where the
correlation coefficient was 0.033 and 0.008 respectively.
Regression analysis was carried out to determine the
relationship with the independent variables (Performance
Expectancy, Effort Expectancy, Attitude, Social Influence,
Facilitating Conditions, Self Efficacy, Anxiety, and
Voluntariness of Use) and the dependent variable (Behavioral
Intention).
The Standardized Beta Coefficient indicates the measure of
contribution of each variable to the model. The results show
that Attitude has the largest value (B=0.206) indicating that
Attitude had the highest impact (among all the independent
variables) in determining behavioral intention to use UCSI
student e-mail. Effort Expectancy had the second highest value
(B=0.183) followed by Performance Expectancy (B=0.133).
The t-value for Attitude, Effort Expectancy, and Performance
Expectancy was 3.130, 2.763, and 2.024 respectively. Attitude
had a significant p-value of 0.002 while Effort Expectancy and
Performance Expectancy yielded a p-value of 0.006 and 0.044
respectively.
D. Conclusion and Recommendations
The study explored the level of acceptance of the student e-
mail system at UCSI University and established factors that
influence the acceptance by using a modified UTAUT model
by Venkatesh et al. [2]. Being the first study to explore the
acceptance of the newly implemented student e-mail system at
UCSI University, this study has shed light on the current
40
situation. The study found out that the level of acceptance of
the student e-mail system was low. However, strong support
was found to the independent variables Attitude, Effort
Expectancy, and Performance Expectancy to predict the
Behavioral Intention to use the student e-mail system. In light
of the findings the following recommendations have been put
forward.
Students should be instilled with a sense of importance
of using the student e-mail system. Students should be
made aware that important notices or messages from
the University such as messages from the Finance
Office, Records Office, Student Affairs Office,
Corporate Affairs Office, Library, and Co-Operative
Education and Career Services (CECS) will be sent to
the UCSI University student e-mails.
Lecturers and staff of UCSI University can play a vital
role in advocating the student e-mail system. For
example, lecturers can encourage students to use the
student e-mail system when sending e-mails to
lecturers and staff. This will allow authentication of the
identity of the student. Lecturers can also organize
learning activities utilizing the web site feature where
all students could participate.
In order to create more awareness, it is proposed that
more promotional activities be carried out. For
example, a demonstration on how to use the features of
the student e-mail system could be provided during the
University Orientation Days at the beginning of each
semester (for new students). Promotional messages can
be put on the electronic bulletin boards located
throughout the University. Tutorial videos on how to
use different features of the student e-mail system can
also be uploaded to UCSI Universitys YouTube
channel. In addition, step by step guides or manuals
can be distributed to students to increase usability.
Students may not be aware of the new features
enhancing ease of use. For example, the student e-mail
system holds a comprehensive address book where all
active UCSI University students are listed. The auto
complete feature in the compose message screen
suggests e-mail addresses when the name of any
student is keyed in. Hence, an e-mail can be sent to a
student even if the sender does not know the
recipients e-mail address, but by typing the recipients
name. Hence, the new features that help ease of use of
the system should be explained to students.
Another new feature in the student e-mail system is the
tasks, and collaborative functions. It would be easier
for students to organize their tasks with their peers and
collaborate online by using features such as calendar,
documents. Hence, it is proposed that the ease of use of
these features should be emphasized when explaining
or promoting the system to students.
It is recommended that the benefits of the new student
e-mail system should be promoted to the students for
them to accept the system. There are a lot of new
features in the new student e-mail system apart from
the conventional sending and receiving of e-mail
messages. For example, the built in chat function,
shared online calendars, online document
collaboration, and the feature to create web sites, will
facilitate students to communicate and manage their
group assignments more efficiently, and plan and
manage activities of their University clubs and
associations.
Students should be convinced of the value of using the
student e-mail system. The student e-mail system
allows students to add multiple e-mail accounts so that
other e-mail addresses owned by students can be
integrated into the student e-mail system which helps
to manage all e-mails addresses in one platform [31].
Having one platform for all e-mails saves time because
there is no need to log in to multiple e-mail service
providers web sites.
Future research can expand this research by including the
moderating variables, gender, age, and experience proposed in
the UTAUT model which was not included in this study. It
would also be imperative to conduct a follow up study on the
acceptance of student e-mail system, after the recommended
actions have been taken to measure the effectiveness of the
recommendations.
REFERENCES
[1] K. Conn, The internet and the law: What educators need to know.
Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development,
2002.
[2] V. Venkatesh, M. G. Morris, G. B. Davis, and F. D. Davis, "User
acceptance of Information Technology: Toward a unified view," MIS
Quarterly, vol. 27, pp. 425-478, 2003.
[3] K. Joly, E-mail, Gmail, Hotmail, and beyond, University Business
Magazine, [Online], August 2008, Accessed May 10, 2010,
http://www.universitybusiness.com/viewarticle.aspx?articleid=1111.
[4] Microsoft Corporation, School email and more online tools for your
students less work, lower cost for you, [Online] Last modified April
27, 2010, http://www.microsoft.com/liveatedu/free-email-
accounts.aspx?locale=en-US&country=US.
[5] Microsoft Corporation, Microsoft Live@Edu, [Online], Last modified
May 10, 2010,
http://www.microsoft.com/education/solutions/liveedu.aspx.
[6] Google Inc, Google Apps for education - free hosted email (Gmail) for
EDU, [Online], Last modified April 27, 2010,
http://www.google.com/a/help/intl/en/edu/index.html.
[7] F. D. Davis, R. P. Bagozzi, and P. R. Warshaw, "User acceptance of
computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models,"
Management Science, vol. 35, pp. 982-1003, 1989.
[8] M. Fishbein and I. Ajzen, Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An
introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley
Publishing Company, 1975.
[9] I. Ajzen, "The theory of planned behavior," Organizational behavior and
human decision processes, vol. 50, pp. 179-211, 1991.
[10] F. D. Davis, "Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user
acceptance of information technology," MIS Quarterly, vol. 13, p.
319339, 1989.
[11] M. Igbaria, T. Guimaraes, and G. B. Davis, "Testing the determinants of
microcomputer usage via a structural equation model," Journal of
Management Information Systems, vol. 11, pp. 87-114, 1995.
[12] K. Mathieson, E. Peacock, and W. W. Chin, "Extending the technology
acceptance model: The influence of perceived user resources," The
database for advances in information systems, vol. 32, pp. 86-112, 2001.
41
[13] W. H. Loo, P. H. P. Yeow, and S. C. Chong, "User acceptance of
Malaysian government multipurpose smartcard applications,"
Government Information Quarterly, vol. 26, pp. 358-367, 2009.
[14] R. Agarwal and J. Prasad, "A conceptual and operational definition of
personal innovativeness in the domain of information technology,"
Information Systems Research, vol. 9, pp. 204-215, 1998.
[15] H. P. Shih, "Extended technology acceptance model of internet
utilization behavior," Information and Management, vol. 41, pp. 719-
729, 2004.
[16] P. F. Musa, "Making a case for modifying the technology acceptance
model to account for limited accessibility in developing countries,"
Information technology for development, vol. 12, pp. 213-224, 2006.
[17] F. C. Tung, S. C. Chang, and C. M. Chou, "An extension of trust and
TAM model with IDT in the adoption of the electronic logistics
information system in HIS in the medical industry," International
Journal of Medical Informatics, vol. 77, pp. 324-335 2008.
[18] J. L. Hale, B. J. Householder, and K. L. Greene, "The theory of reason
action," in The persuasion handbook: developments in theory and
practice, ed California: Sage Publications, Inc., 2002, pp. 259-288.
[19] B. H. Sheppard, J. Hartwick, and P. R. Warshaw, "The theory of
reasoned action: A meta-analysis of past research with recommendations
for modifications and future research," The Journal of Consumer
Research, vol. 15, pp. 325-343, 1988.
[20] M. Y. Chuttur, "Overview of the technology acceptance model: Origins,
developments and future directions," Sprouts: Working Papers on
Information Systems, vol. 9, pp. 1-22, 2009.
[21] P. Legris, J. Ingham, and P. Collerette, "Why do people use information
technology?: A critical review of the technology acceptance model,"
Information and Management, vol. 40, pp. 191-204, 2003.
[22] S. Y. Yousafzai, F. R. Gordon, and J. G. Pallister, "Technology
acceptance: A meta-analysis of the TAM: Part 1," Journal of Modelling
in Management, vol. 2, pp. 251-280, 2007.
[23] R. P. Bagozzi, "The legacy of the technology acceptance model and a
proposal for a paradigm shift," Journal of thr Association of Information
Systems, vol. 8, pp. 244-254, 2007.
[24] V. Venkatesh and F. D. Davis, "A theoretical extension of the
technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies,"
Management Science, vol. 46, pp. 186-204, 2000.
[25] K. Mathieson, "Predicting user intentions: Comparing the technology
acceptance model with the theory of planned behavior," Information
Systems Research, vol. 2, pp. 173-191, 1991.
[26] S. Taylor and P. A. Todd, "Understanding information technology
usage: A test of competing models," Information Systems Research, vol.
6, pp. 144-176, 1995.
[27] O. F. El-Gayar and M. Moran, "College students' acceptance of Tablet
PCs: An application of the UTAUT Model," Dakota State University,
pp. 2845-2850, 2006.
[28] J. T. Marchewka, C. Liu, and K. Kostiwa, "An application of the
UTAUT model for understanding student perceptions using Course
Management Software," Communications of the IIMA, vol. 7, pp. 93-
104, 2007.
[29] D. Jong and T. S. Wang, "Student acceptance of web-based learning
system," Paper presented at the 2009 International Symposium on Web
Information Systems and Applications (WISA09), Nanchang, Peoples
Republic of China, May 22-24, 2009.
[30] S. Ismail, "Students acceptance in using Blog as learning tool in an
international private university," Paper presented at the ICI9 -
International Conference on Information, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia,
August 12-13, 2009.
[31] J. Sohn, Tip: Check and reply from multiple email addresses in Gmail,
The Official Gmail Blog, [Online], June 12, 2009, Accessed May 10,
2010, http://gmailblog.blogspot.com/2009/06/tip-check-and-reply-from-
multiple-email.html.

42