Interactive Technology and Smart Education

Acceptance and use of lecture capture system (LCS) in executive business studies: extending UTAUT2
Muhammad Shoaib Farooq, Maimoona Salam, Norizan Jaafar, Alain Fayolle, Kartinah Ayupp, Mirjana Radovic-Markovic, Ali
Sajid,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Muhammad Shoaib Farooq, Maimoona Salam, Norizan Jaafar, Alain Fayolle, Kartinah Ayupp, Mirjana Radovic-Markovic, Ali
Sajid, "Acceptance and use of lecture capture system (LCS) in executive business studies: extending UTAUT2", Interactive
Technology and Smart Education, https://doi.org/10.1108/ITSE-06-2016-0015
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/ITSE-06-2016-0015
Downloaded on: 05 October 2017, At: 03:31 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 0 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 1 times since 2017*
Downloaded by Australian Catholic University At 03:31 05 October 2017 (PT)

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:401304 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please
visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication
Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 Acceptance and Use of Lecture Capture System (LCS) in Executive Business Studies:
Extending UTAUT2

Abstract

Purpose
Adoption of latest technological advancements (e.g. lecture capture system) is a hallmark of
market-driven private universities. Among many other distinguishing features, lecture capture
system (LCS) is the one which is being offered to enhance the flexibility of learning
environment for attracting executive business students. Majority of foreign universities are
offering the facility of lecture capture system (LCS) to their students in offshore campuses
established in Malaysia. Yet, very petite is known about perception and behaviour of
executive business students towards acceptance and use of this facility. Therefore, in order to
Downloaded by Australian Catholic University At 03:31 05 October 2017 (PT)

bridge the identified gap in academic literature, this study is an effort to explore the causal
relationship between existing constructs of extended unified theory of acceptance and use of
technology (UTAUT2), personal innovativeness (PI), intention and use behaviour towards
lecture capture system (LCS). Moreover, this study makes significant theoretical contribution
by extending the extended unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT2) by
introducing a new variable namely personal innovativeness (PI) in the domain of information
technology (IT).

Design/methodology/approach
Smart-PLS-3.2.6 was employed for data analysis and all PLS related calculations. For this
purpose, a self-administered questionnaire was designed to collect data regarding acceptance
and use behaviour towards lecture capture system (LCS). A sample size of 481 responses
from executive business students, who were enrolled in offshore campuses of five selected
foreign universities in Malaysia, was used for testing the proposed theoretical model.

Findings
The results of structural equation modeling (SEM) revealed that, performance expectancy,
effort expectancy, social influence, facilitating conditions, price value, hedonic motivation,
habit and personal innovative (PI) in the domain of information technology (IT) have
significant positive influence on acceptance and use of lecture capture system (LCS) in
executive business students. Unique to this study is that, findings of this study have
highlighted personal innovativeness (PI) in the domain of information technology (IT) as an
important factor that affects intention and use behaviour towards lecture capture system
(LCS) in executive business student.

Practical implications
By validating and extending the extended unified theory of acceptance and use of technology
(UTAUT2), findings of this study provide a number of practical implications along with a
comprehensive, robust and useful framework for universities to successfully implement
technological advancements, such as lecture capture system (LCS) to enhance overall
learning outcomes.

Originality/value
By investigating the factors determining acceptance and use of lecture capture system (LCS)
in executive business students, using a partial least square (PLS) based structural equation

1
 modeling (SEM) approach, this study makes a sizeable theoretical, methodological and
contextual contribution to the overall body of knowledge.

Keywords Lecture Capture System (LCS), Interactive Learning, Extended Unified

Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT2), Technology Acceptance Model
(TAM), Business Education, Partial Least Squares - Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-
SEM)

Paper Type Research Paper

Introduction

Rapid technological advancements have a fundamental role in facilitating, simplifying and

changing people’s life style in numerous ways; such as development in education,
Downloaded by Australian Catholic University At 03:31 05 October 2017 (PT)

communication, business and health sectors. In this regard, various educational reforms have
emphasized on the adoption and integration of new technology in various aspects of
educational sector (Tosuntaş et al., 2015). As a result of the, rapid advancement in
technology, recent few years have seen an extensive growth in the use of different approaches
and implications of technology which have created global impact in delivery of education
(Farooq, 2016). Though it is evident that incorporation of technological advancements in
various educational methods have led to a user friendly, supportive and flexible learning
environment which is hallmark of our today’s educational system in advanced countries
(Ketterl et al., 2011). Various scholars (e.g. Danielson et al., 2014; Farooq, 2016; Nair et al.,
2015; Tatli and Kiliç, 2015) have reported positive impact of technology integration on
students’ learning outcomes. Therefore many developed countries such as UK, USA, Canada,
Australia and New Zealand have already undertaken various projects for integrating modern
advancements of information technology (IT) in their education system (Danielson et al.,
2014; Farooq, 2016; Nair et al., 2015). In this way, these advancements in information
technology (IT) have not merely supplemented and supported the traditional educational
system but also have opened various novel horizons for new learning methods (e.g. E-
learning and Mobile learning) which involve internet based communication for nurturing and
enhancing whole learning process (Brooks et al., 2014; Danielson et al., 2014).

Information technology (IT) enabled class rooms are aimed to enhance program flexibility
while maintaining students’ interest by making them actively involved in overall learning
process (Brooks et al., 2014; Lin, 2011). One of the various solutions which are designed to
do so is online web based lecturing system. This system is also known as lecture capture
system (LCS), which is used to record the lectures for online web streaming using a digital
recording setup (Nair et al., 2015; Toppin, 2010). These digital lecture recordings are then
made available in various streaming video formats for providing 24/7 access to registered
students via online student portals (Ketterl et al., 2011). In this way, these recorded video
lectures are accessible in remote locations which offers more flexible, off-campus and
conducive learning experience (Teo, 2011). Among various lecture capture systems (LCS)
being used most famous are Echo-360 and Media-Site (Farooq, 2016). These systems allow
lectures to be recoded through automated mechanism and make them digitally available to
students via online Learning Management System (LMS). These systems offer a number of
different benefits for students, by enabling them to skip, pause, slow down, fast forward or
rewind any specific segment of the recorded video lecture for reconsideration and better
understanding of topics which might have been missed in the class-room (Toppin, 2010).
Lecture Capturing System (LCS) comprises of an integrated setup of various hardware

2
 devices and software, which enable this system to capture video from various media
dimensions at the same time (Farooq et al., 2009; Ketterl et al., 2011).

Focusing more on the functional part; a peripheral camera device records the video of lecture
session using built-in automatic face-recognition software, which enables camera device to
move in right direction to capture and focus on the lecturer throughout the recording session
(Brooks et al., 2014; He, 2013; Rolf et al., 2014). Along with this, a high quality wireless
microphone is used to capture the audio, which is recorded separately and is automatically
transmitted to the main server. As a final point, Video Graphics Array (VGA) relayed signal
which is used to direct power point slides to the projector screen is rerouted through
customized Lecture Capturing System (LCS), where it is combined with the video and audio
of lecturer (Danielson et al., 2014). Built in features of Lecture Capturing System (LCS) are
designed to automatically adjust the synchronization of VGA signals with recorded video and
audio (Lampi et al., 2009). Once the footage is completed, it is relayed to online storage
Downloaded by Australian Catholic University At 03:31 05 October 2017 (PT)

server after automatic conversion to different formats of streaming media; which is instantly
available to all registered students through learning management system (LMS).

Moreover, as a replacement of hastily jotting down important notes from lecture in the class-
room, students get an opportunity to independently learn at their own pace anywhere and
anytime by using online video lectures (Nair et al., 2015). This innovation enables students to
easily view the recorded lectures as many times as they want which promotes the concept of
self-placed revision for better understanding of subjects (Farooq, 2016). Hence, Executive
students have no longer to worry if they missed a segment of lecture or even full lecture due
to busy work schedule or any unavoidable circumstances. Moreover with LCS extensive
contents of lecture can be converted to a short summarized periods by re-arranging the
contents of session. Thus, a combination of face-to-face lecture and video recording of
session can optimize the learning outcomes by enhancing flexibility for maintaining students’
overall involvement as active learner.

Since last few years privately run offshore campuses of foreign universities in Malaysia, have
adopted Lecture Capture System (LCS), as a hallmark of their distinguishing and competitive
feature, to attract more executive business students. However, public sector universities are
unable to cope with these rapid advancements in technology. As these lecture capture systems
(LCS) are developed for enhancing students learning outcomes (Lin, 2011), it is important to
understand the adaptation of these systems because acceptance and use of new technology is
a pre-requisite for active participation of end users (Danielson et al., 2014). To date most of
prior studies on LCS have mainly focused on its operational and technical issues exploring its
access, integration and implementation in education sector (e.g. Brooks et al., 2011; Rui et
al., 2004; Zhang et al., 2008). Only few have explored its acceptance and adoption by
teachers and students in different contexts (e.g. Farooq et al., 2010; Toppin, 2010), therefore
very petite is yet known about its acceptance and use behaviour in students.

Owing to the important role of students as end user of LCS system, it is important to
understand the factors affecting acceptance and use of LCS as a sustainable teaching and
learning tool (Lin, 2011). Therefore this study is an effort to explore the acceptance and use
of LCS in executive business students enrolled in offshore campuses of foreign universities in
Malaysia, while extending the Venkatesh et al.’s (2012) extended unified theory of
acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT2) which is used as underpinning theory.
Moreover, unlike other prior studies (Brooks et al., 2014; Ketterl et al., 2011; Li et al., 2016;
e.g. Wulff et al., 2014) which were conducted in developed countries (e.g. USA, UK, and

3
 Australia); this study involves respondents from Malaysia, which is a developing county
aimed to attract more internal students by offering wold class facilities and a number of
offshore campuses of foreign universities in Malaysia. Hence, this study makes sizeable
theoretical, contextual and methodological contribution by extending the extended unified
theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT2), in the context of developing
countries using partial least square (PLS) structural equation modeling (SEM) approach.

For the ease of readers, this article is organized in following sections. After Introduction,
literature review and theoretical background is presented. Afterward comprehensive review
of literature and relevant theories, hypotheses are derived on the base of logical connections
among proposed constructs of theoretical framework. Next section describes research design,
measurement scale and research methodology for testing the proposed theoretical framework
using partial least square (PLS) structural equation modeling (SEM) approach. Then next
section presents detailed results derived from analysis; in order to enhance the parsimony of
Downloaded by Australian Catholic University At 03:31 05 October 2017 (PT)

this study, we have presented results of measurement model and structural model separately;
followed by discussion of hypothesis testing and goodness of fir (GoF) analysis. Finally this
study is concluded with the discussion of findings, implications, limitations and concluding
remarks.

Theoretical Background

This section is aimed to provide a brief overview of theoretical models used to investigate
technology adoption in previous studies. Among these commonly used models are Davis’s
(1989) technology acceptance model (TAM), Venkatesh et al.’s (2003) unified theory of
acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT) and Venkatesh et al.’s (2012) extended theory of
acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT2). Although these models share some similarities
and are somewhat inspired by Fishbein and Ajzen’s (1975) theory of reasoned action (TRA).

Technology Acceptance Model (TAM)

Literature review reveals a number of different models which have been used for explaining
technology adoption behaviour in individuals. It is observed that majority of these models,
including Davis’s (1989) technology acceptance model (TAM), are inspired by theory of
reasoned action (TRA) proposed by Fishbein and Ajzen (1975). Van-Raaij and Schepers
(2008) note that grounding on the important fundamental concepts of social and human
psychology, Fishbein and Ajzen’s (1975) theory of reasoned action (TRA) is among few
most influential and widely employed theories for determining human behaviour. Theory of
reasoned action (TRA) states that attitude towards behaviour and subjective norms have a
direct influence on intention, which is in turn responsible for determining certain human
behaviour (Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975). Here, attitude refers to an individual’s positive or
negative perception towards performing certain behaviour. However, subjective norms are an
indication of positive or negative perception of important others towards a target behaviour
(Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975). Further, intention towards behaviour is supposed to capture all
motivational factors, which might have influence on a given behavioural aspect. Thus
intention is an indicator of, the extent to which an individual is willing to perform any certain
behavioural action (Ajzen and Fishbein, 1980).

This assertion of Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) theory of reasoned action (TRA) that the impact
of external influencing factors on human behaviour is mediated by intention towards

4
 behaviour, establishes one of the fundamental assumptions of Davis’s (1989) technology
acceptance model (TAM). More specifically according to technology acceptance model
(TAM) various external factors, such as system design, training implementation and self-
efficacy influence individuals’ intention through perceived usefulness and perceived ease of
use. Here perceived usefulness refers to the extent to which an individual recognizes a certain
technology to be helpful in daily life, and perceived ease of use refers to the degree to which
an individual is confident about being able to use a particular technology without facing any
difficulty (Davis, 1989). Technology acceptance model (TAM) is regarded as first theoretical
model to propose human psychological factors for capturing individuals’ attitude (i.e.
perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use) as determinants of technology acceptance;
moreover technology acceptance model (TAM) deviated from basic of theory of reasoned
action (TRA) by not incorporating subjective norms (Davis, 1989).

Although Davis’s (1989) technology acceptance model (TAM) has been applied to various
Downloaded by Australian Catholic University At 03:31 05 October 2017 (PT)

studies on technology adoption in a number of different contexts, ranging from consumers’

perspective to organizational perspective. Yet in recent past scholars have introduced more
robust theories which tenaciously focus on organizational perspective and consumers’
perspective, such as Venkatesh et al. (2003) proposed the unified theory of acceptance and
use of technology (UTAUT) focusing on technology adoption behaviour in organizations
followed by Venkatesh et al. (2012) extended theory of acceptance and use of technology
(UTAUT2) focusing on technology adoption behaviour in consumers. Hereafter discussion
continues with the brief elaboration of UTAUT and UTAUT2.

Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT)

More than a decade before Venkatesh et al. (2003) proposed the unified theory of acceptance
and use of technology (UTAUT) which was aimed to explain the factors influencing
acceptance and use of ICTs by organizational employees. According to Venkatesh et al.
(2003) UTAUT was proposed on the base of experimental combination of eight other distinct
models adapted from psychological and sociological theories; which were mainly used in
prior studies for explaining acceptance and use of new technology. These eight models and
theories include, (1) Theory of reasoned action (TRA), (2) Technology acceptance Model
(TAM), (3) Motivational model (MM), (4) Theory of planned behaviour (TPB), (5)
Combined TAM and TPB (C-TAM-TPB), (6) Model of PC utilization (MPCU), (7)
Innovation diffusion theory (IDT), (8) Social cognitive theory (Tosuntaş et al., 2015).

Conceptual model of UTAUT is built on the tenants of four latent variables i.e. (1)
Performance Expectancy (PE); (2) Effort Expectancy (EE); (3) Facilitating Conditions (FC)
and (4) Social Influence (SI) as determinants of Use Behaviour; which measures acceptance
as use of technology. Literature review revealed that UTAUT has become one of the most
embraced and widely used models for testing the adaptation of ICTs in various fields; such
as online learning; internet banking; online recruitment process; online ticketing system and
e-governance adoption (Farooq, 2016; Nair et al., 2015; Schaupp et al., 2010; Wulff et al.,
2014). According to Tosuntaş et al. (2015), UTAUT is one of the extensively used models for
testing the acceptance and use of various technologies in a number of different studies (e.g.
Farooq et al., 2016; Ketterl et al., 2011; Nair et al., 2015; Teo, 2011). With its four
exogenous constructs i.e. (1) Performance Expectancy, (2) Effort Expectancy, (3) Social
Influence and (4) Facilitating Conditions; UTAUT explains up to 70 percent of variance in
acceptance and use of technology. A number of other scholars (e.g. Brooks et al., 2014;

5
 Farooq, 2016; Nair et al., 2015; Tosuntaş et al., 2015) have endorsed that these four variables
are significant predictors of acceptance and use of technology.

Extended Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT2)

Extended theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT2) was presented by

Venkatesh et al. (2012) with an aim to explore factors affecting acceptance and use of
technology with consumers’ perspective. According to Venkatesh et al. (2012) this new
extended theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT2) extends older version of
Venkatesh et al.’s (2003) theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT) by
integrating three new constructs i.e. (1) Hedonic Motivation, (2) Price Value and (3) Habit;
along with four main constructs i.e. (1) Performance Expectancy (PE); (2) Effort Expectancy
(EE); (3) Facilitating Conditions (FC) and (4) Social Influence (SI) as determinants of Use
Behaviour and acceptance of technology in consumers.
Downloaded by Australian Catholic University At 03:31 05 October 2017 (PT)

These three constructs are based on revised UTAUT (Venkatesh et al., 2003), concept of
habit (Limayem et al., 2007), hedonic motivation (Van-der-Heijden, 2004) and use of
technology (Burton-Jones and Straub, 2006; Ketterl et al., 2011). Building on these seven
latent variables UTAUT2 is aimed to adapt UTAUT for testing acceptance and use of
technology with a consumers’ perspective; for this purpose UTAUT2 incorporates four
fundamental constructs of UTAUT along with addition of three new constructs. Considering
this advancement, we have decided to employ UTAUT2 as underpinning theory for
investigating the role of personal innovativeness in acceptance and use of lecture capture
system (LCS) in executive business studies programs offered by offshore campuses of
foreign universities in Malaysia.

Personal Innovativeness (PI) and Acceptance and Use of Technology

Personal innovativeness (PI) in the domain of information technology (IT) have an

undeniable relation with technology adoption in end used. Various scholars (e.g. Agarwal and
Prasad, 1998; Dutta et al., 2015; Farooq, 2016; Karahanna et al., 2002; Rosen, 2004) have
suggested that personality traits, such as personal innovativeness (PI) play an important role
for technology adoption in the domain of IT. This study is an effort to empirically explore the
role of personal innovativeness (PI) for determining acceptance and use of lecture capture
system (LCS) in executive business graduates. According to Schillewaert et al. (2005)
personal innovativeness (PI) in the domain of IT refers to the peoples’ perceived pre-
disposition or personal attitude which reflects their tendency to independently experiment and
adopt new advancements in information technology. In other words personal innovativeness
(PI) can be conceptualized as willingness to adopt latest technological gadgets, or risk taking
propensity, which might be attached with trying new features and advancements in the
domain of IT (Agarwal and Prasad, 1998; Bommer and Jalajas, 1999). Moreover, Thatcher
and Perrewé (2002) note that personal innovativeness (PI) is a stable and situation-specific
trait which have a strong tendency to influence adoption and acceptance of information
technology (IT). Here, it is pertinent to mention that “personal innovations (PI) in the domain
of IT” proposed in our study, is different from the “innovativeness” construct suggested by
Rogers (1995) in the Innovation Diffusion Theory. Because, innovativeness construct used in
the Innovation Diffusion Theory refers to the measure of individuals’ relative earlier adoption
of technology as compared to others (Rogers, 1995). Whereas “personal innovativeness (PI)
in the domain of IT” is a personal attribute which inculcates the desire and openness to
experiment new advancements in the field of IT.

6
 It is expected that by incorporating personal innovativeness (PI) in the domain of IT, this
study will offer some interesting insights about factors affecting acceptance and use of
technology in executive business graduates. Moreover by exploring the role of personal
innovativeness (PI) in the domain of IT, this study answers a call for research by various
scholars (Rosen, 2004; e.g. Van-Raaij and Schepers, 2008).

Hypotheses Development and Theoretical Framework

Hypothesis Development
Downloaded by Australian Catholic University At 03:31 05 October 2017 (PT)

As mentioned in the previous section, this study involves the phenomenon of personal
innovativeness (PI) in the domain of IT as a potential determinant of acceptance and use of
lecture capture system (LCS) in executive business students. Moreover, as suggested by
Schillewaert et al. (2005) this study regards personal innovativeness (PI) as a personal trait
which influences individuals’ desire and openness towards adopting a new advancement in
information technology. Further Van-Raaij and Schepers (2008) note that innovative people
are well aware of technological advancements and they enjoy receiving latest news updates in
their relative area of interest; through which they remain ahead of others in terms of technical
know-how. Furthermore this extra information helps them to make a wise decision for
incorporating latest gadgets and tools in their daily lifestyle (Robinson Jr. et al., 2005).
Therefore, personal innovativeness (PI) in the domain of information technology (IT) might
have influence on behavioural intention (BI) and use behaviour (UB) of information
technology.

Previously Schillewaert et al. (2005) have reported a positive and strong direct influence of
personal innovativeness (PI) in the domain of information technology (IT), on perceived
usefulness and perceived ease of use in the context of adoption of sales automation system in
a sales team. Likewise, in another empirical study for extending technology acceptance
model (TAM), Van-Raaij and Schepers (2008) have testified a direct and positive
relationship between personal innovativeness (PI) in the domain of information technology
(IT) and perceived ease of use. Similarly, Lewis et al. (2003) reported a positive relationship
between personal innovations in the domain of information technology (PIIT) and adoption
of internet technology in university students. Adhering to the same logical connection which
is suggested by various scholars (e.g. Lewis et al., 2003; Schillewaert et al., 2005; Van-Raaij
and Schepers, 2008) between personal innovations (PI) in the domain of information
technology (IT) and technology adoption or perceived ease of use; we assume that personal
innovativeness (PI) can be instrumental for determining behavioural intention (BI) and use
behaviour (UB) of lecture capture system (LCS) after incorporating other constructs of
UTAUT2. Therefore, considering the logical relationship between Personal Innovativeness
(PI) and other existing constructs of UTAUT2 model, i.e. Performance Expectancy (PE),
Effort Expectancy (EE), Facilitating Conditions (FC), Social Influence (SI), Hedonic
Motivation (HM), Price Value (PV), Habit (H), Behavioural Intention (BI) and Use
Behaviour (UB), we propose following hypotheses:

H1. Performance expectancy positively affects behavioural intention to use lecture

capture system

7
 H2. Effort expectancy positively affects behavioural intention to use lecture capture
system

H3. Social influence positively affects behavioural intention to use lecture capture system

H4a. Facilitating conditions positively affect behavioural intention to use lecture capture
system

H4b. Facilitating conditions positively affect use behaviour towards lecture capture system

H5. Hedonic motivation positively affects behavioural intention to use lecture capture
system
Downloaded by Australian Catholic University At 03:31 05 October 2017 (PT)

H6. Price value positively affects behavioural intention to use lecture capture system

H7a. Habit positively affects behavioural intention to use lecture capture system

H7b. Habit positively affects use behaviour towards lecture capture system

H8a. Personal innovativeness positively affects behavioural intention to use lecture capture
system

H8b. Personal innovativeness positively affects use behaviour towards lecture capture
system

H9. Behavioural intention positively affects use behaviour towards lecture capture system

Proposed Theoretical Framework

Developing on the base of aforementioned hypothesized relationships we have proposed a

theoretical framework for this study, which comprises of eight latent exogenous constructs,
i.e. Performance Expectancy (PE), Effort Expectancy (EE), Facilitating Conditions (FC),
Social Influence (SI), Hedonic Motivation (HM), Price Value (PV), Habit (H) and Personal
Innovativeness (PI); along with two endogenous constructs i.e. Behavioural Intention (BI)
and Use Behaviour (UB). This proposed framework along with pictorial depiction of
proposed hypothesized path relations is presented in Figure 1.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Insert Figure 1 about here
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed theoretical framework demonstrates how personal innovativeness and existing

constructs of UTAUT2 influence behavioural intention and use behaviour towards adoption
of lecture capture system (LCS). More precisely, Behavioural Intention (BI) to use lecture
capture system (LCS) is preceded by all eight exogenous latent constructs i.e. Performance
Expectancy (PE), Effort Expectancy (EE), Facilitating Conditions (FC), Social Influence (SI),
Hedonic Motivation (HM), Price Value (PV), Habit (H) and Personal Innovativeness (PI);
whereas on the base logical connections derived from literature review, this framework
proposes that actual Use Behaviour (UB) towards lecture capture system (LCS) is directly

8
 influenced by four constructs i.e. Facilitating Conditions (FC), Habit (H), Personal
Innovativeness (PI), and Behavioural Intention (BI).

Research Design

This study has carried out empirical analysis on a sample of 481 executive business students
enrolled in five selected offshore campuses of foreign universities in Malaysia. Respondents
were asked to fill a self-administered questionnaire, which was purposely designed for
collecting data required for testing proposed theoretical framework. Variance based structural
equation modeling (PLS-SEM) was used for data analysis. Moreover, this study employs
Smart-PLS-3.2.6 (Ringle et al., 2017) for all of PLS related calculations in this study. This
choice of PLS software was based on the user friendly interface of this application,
availability of resources, backup support and nature of study (Farooq, 2016; Hair et al., 2017;
Downloaded by Australian Catholic University At 03:31 05 October 2017 (PT)

Ringle et al., 2017).

Sample

The sample of respondents was selected from five selected offshore campuses of foreign
universities in Malaysia, using a convenience sampling method. Malaysia is characterised by
a perfect blend of Asian culture in the context of developing countries, which represents
Chinese, Indian and Malaysian culture. Therefore it is expected that the findings of this study
can be generalized to other developing countries, which share similar socio-cultural values
and background. Data was collected using a self-administered questionnaire, with the
informed consent of respondents. Average time required for completing the questionnaire
was less than 15 minutes. Out of 700 questionnaires which were distributed among executive
business students of five selected offshore campuses of foreign universities in Malaysia, 521
responses were recorded. Out of 521 received responses 40 questionnaires were discarded
due to incomplete responses and missing data in various sections. Hence remaining 481
responses yielding 68.7% response rate were used for further data analysis of this study.
Moreover, no noticeable differences were observed in the demographic profiles of retained
and discarded responses. Descriptive statistics and demographic characteristics of sample
respondents is presented in Table 1

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Insert Table 1 about here
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As presented in Table 1, average age of respondents was 34 years, which shows that they are
upright on the phase of a professional career development. Moreover, 46.10% of respondents
were male and 53.90% respondents are female, which demonstrate a balanced proportion
from both genders. Further ethnic background of respondents (i.e. 34.93% Malaysian,
27.44% Chinese and 32.02% Indians) also represents a sizeable and balanced proportion from
all ethnicities of Malaysia. Moreover, in order to make sure that only those executive
business students who have the facility of lecture capture system (LCS) are included in the
final sample; we asked the respondents to select the semester number, to record since how
long they are using this facility. It was revealed that 30.70% respondents are using this
facility since semester one, 28.90% respondents are using this facility since semester two,
21.30% respondents are using this facility since semester three and 19.10% of respondents
are using this facility since last fourth semester of their studies. These descriptive statistics

9
 and demographic characteristics demonstrate an un-biased data collection process, which
adds to the sanctity and generalizability of the findings of this study.

Operationalization of Constructs / Measurement Scale

In order to operationalize the constructs involved in this study measurement scale items were
adapted from various previous studies on technology acceptance behaviour, specifically from
relevant studies on UTAUT and UTAUT2 (e.g. Danielson et al., 2014; Nair et al., 2015;
Tosuntaş et al., 2015, 2015, Venkatesh et al., 2003, 2012), and questions were adapted to the
context of this study for measuring acceptance and use behaviour towards lecture capture
system (LCS). After making a pool of relevant items from literature review, a total of 31
items were selected, which are presented in Appendix.

As depicted, performance expectancy, effort expectancy, social influence and facilitating

Downloaded by Australian Catholic University At 03:31 05 October 2017 (PT)

conditions are operationalized with four items measurement scale each. Moreover, price
value is measured using two items measurement scale. Further, Hedonic motivation, habit,
personal innovativeness and behavioural intention are operationalized using three items scale
each; whereas use behaviour is operationalized with a single item measurement scale. Along
with these questions, some descriptive questions (e.g. Age, Gender, Ethnic background and
duration of using lecture capture system) were also added to record demographic
characteristics of respondents. A five points Likert type scale (1 = Strongly Disagree; 5 =
Strongly Agree) was used to record the responses for all items except Use Behaviour (UB);
for which we used (1 = Never; 5 = Many Times) because it was aimed to record the
frequency of using lecture capture system (LCS).

Further, before using this final questionnaire; it was proof read by linguistics and
academicians in the relevant field to ascertain and validate the appropriateness of
questionnaire items for assessing the acceptance and use of lecture capture system (LCS).
This proof reading helped to enhance the clarity of meanings and sentence structure through
minor modifications, which resulted in an improved version of final questionnaire. Moreover,
pre-testing was also performed involving a sample of 50 respondents using a convenience
sampling method. It is pertinent to mention that only those respondents which were currently
using or had previously used lecture capture system (LCS) were taken into account. Findings
of pre-test demonstrated the reliability and validity of measurement scales and revealed that
questionnaire does not require any further changes. Therefore the same version of
questionnaire (which was used in pre-test) was employed for actual data collection process.

Research Findings and Results

Analysis of Measurement Model

As per the guidelines of Hair et al. (2017) measurement model which is often referred as
outer model, was assessed for its reliability and validity of constructs. In order to assess the
reliability of constructs Cronbach’s alpha and Composite reliability values were assessed.
Findings show that Cronbach’s alpha values range from 0.738 to 1.00, which indicates that
all values are higher than the critical level of 0.7, and suggest that measurement models are
reliable. Moreover Composite reliability values range from 0.860 to 1.00, which is also above
0.70. These results demonstrate the reliability of constructs, moreover these findings are also
at par with the values reported by other studies (e.g. Farooq and Radovic-Markovic, 2016;

10
 Nair et al., 2015; Venkatesh et al., 2003, 2012). Complete list of reliability and validity
results is presented in Table 2.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Insert Table 2 about here
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As a next step, validity of measurement models was assessed with a two steps approach, i.e.
(1) convergent validity and (2) discriminant validity. In order to assess convergent validity,
average variance extracted (AVE) values were observed. Findings suggest that AVE values
for this study range from 0.530 to 1.00, which is higher than the threshold critical level of 0.5.
Moreover Fornell-Larcker criterion, cross loadings and Heterotrait-Monotrait (HTMT) values
were also assessed for evaluating discriminant validity of measurement models. Fornell-
Larcker criterion requires that the square root of AVE values should be higher than the
Downloaded by Australian Catholic University At 03:31 05 October 2017 (PT)

maximum value of construct’s correlations with any other construct involved in the
theoretical model (Hair et al., 2017). Findings of this study fulfil this criterion and complete
calculation of Fornell-Larcker criterion is presented in Table 3.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Insert Table 3 about here
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Further cross loadings values were also assessed for ascertaining the discriminant validity of
constructs, and as per the findings all cross loading values are higher than 0.700. Moreover
these findings show that each item have higher loading with its own underlying construct,
which fulfils the criterion described by Hair et al. (2017) and establish the discriminant
validity of all constructs involved in the measurement model of this study. Complete list of
cross loadings is presented in Table 4.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Insert Table 4 about here
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Moreover, Heterotrait-Monotrait (HTMT) ratio of correlations was also calculated, which is

suggested by Henseler et al. (2015) as a modern tool for analyzing discriminant validity of
constructs involved in measurement model. As a rule of thumb, a greater than 0.85 value of
Heterotrait-Monotrait (HTMT) indicates a potential problem of discriminant validity (Hair et
al., 2017). For this study, all HTMT values were well below the threshold level of 0.85,
which indicates that there is no issue of discriminant validity.

Analysis of Structural Model

As mentioned earlier, this study involves variance based, partial least square (PLS) structural
equation modeling (SEM) approach. For this purpose latest version of Smart-PLS-3.2.6 was
used to perform all empirical calculations regarding evaluation of structural model. As a first
step for assessment of structural model all hypothesized path relations were assessed for the
strength and direction of path coefficient (beta) values followed by analysis of t-values for
significance of relations. In order to calculate empirical t-values we used bootstrapping
procedure with 5000 iterations, so that statistical significance of path coefficient values can
be established. It is pertinent to mention that this study observes the guidelines suggested by

11
 Hair et al. (2017) that ‘empirical t-values’ should be larger than the ‘critical t-values’.
According to them, ‘critical t-values’ are 2.57, 1.96 and 1.65 for a significance level of 1%,
5% and 10% respectively. Thus these t-values were further used for exploring the proposed
hypotheses. A complete demonstration of findings derived from conceptual model is
presented in Figure 2.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Insert Figure 2 about here
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As depicted in Figure 2, all seven constructs of UTAUT2 i.e. Performance Expectancy (PE),
Effort Expectancy (EE), Facilitating Conditions (FC), Social Influence (SI), Hedonic
Motivation (HM), Price Value (PV), Habit (H) along with Personal Innovativeness (PI),
explain 58.1% of variance (R2 = 0.581) in Behavioural Intention (BI) towards use of lecture
Downloaded by Australian Catholic University At 03:31 05 October 2017 (PT)

capture system (LCS). Whereas Behavioural Intention (BI), Facilitating Conditions (FC),
Habit (H) and Personal Innovativeness (PI) explain 68.2% of variance (R2 = 0.682) in Use
Behaviour (UB) towards lecture capture system (LCS). Hence, overall results of R2 value
show that proposed model explains 68.2% of total variance. According to Hair et al. (2017) a
model can be classified as weak, moderate or substantial on the base of its R2 values of 0.19,
0.33 or 0.67 respectively. According to this criteria, theoretical model proposed by this study
have substantial explanatory power (R2 = 0.682) for explaining technology acceptance and
use behaviour. Moreover it is observed that these results are comparable to previous studies
(e.g. Nair et al., 2015; Venkatesh et al., 2012) which used similar measurement scales.

Further in addition to the size of R2 value, predictive relevance (Q2) was also calculated using
predictive relevance technique. According to Hair et al. (2017) a Q2 value, greater than zero
indicates that proposed theoretical model have sufficient predictive relevance; whereas a Q2
value less than zero indicates that proposed theoretical model lacks predictive relevance. In
this regard, in order to calculate Q2 value for this study, blindfolding routine was used, which
is a built-in feature in Smart-PLS-3.2.6. Findings revealed that Behavioural Intention (BI)
and Use Behaviour (UB) have a Q2 value of 0.508 and 0.625, respectively. Hence these
findings of Q2 value and R2 value indicate that proposed theoretical model of this study have
strong predictive relevance along with substantial explanatory power. Hereafter discussion
continues with the assessment of goodness of fit (GoF) indices followed by analysis of
proposed hypotheses.

Discussion of Hypothesis Testing

Path coefficient values and t-values suggested different levels of support for hypothesized
relations proposed in the structural model of this study. Except H8a (PI → BI) and H8b (PI
→ UB), which were significant at p<0.05 all other hypothesized relations were found to be
significant at p<0.01. Hypothesized relation between performance expectancy (PE) and
behavioural intention (BI) was found to be positive and fairly significant (β = 0.386; t-value =
4.029), which provides support for H1 (PE → BI) at p<0.01 significance level. A similar
level of support at p<0.01 was found for H2 (EE → BI) describing a significant and positive
relationship (β = 0.247; t-value = 3.108) between effort expectancy (EE) and behavioural
intention (BI). Next hypothesis, H3 (SI → BI) also displayed a strong positive relationship (β
= 0.273; t-value = 3.035) between social influence (SI) and behavioural intention (BI) at
p<0.01 significance level. Further, hypothesized relation between facilitating conditions (FC)
and behavioural intention (BI) was found to be significant (β = 0.266; t-value = 3.005)

12
 providing support for H4a (FC → BI) at p<0.01 significance level. Similarly proposed
hypothesis H4b (FC → UB) was also found to be significant (β = 0.203; t-value = 3.603)
suggesting a positive direction relationship between facilitating conditions (FC) and use
behaviour (UB) at p<0.01 significance level. Next hypothesis, H5 (HM → BI) between
hedonic motivation (HM) and behavioural intention (BI) was also found significant (β =
0.189; t-value = 2.981) at p<0.01 significance level. As expected, relationship between price
value (PV) and behavioural intention (BI) was also found to be positive and fairly significant
(β = 0.331; t-value = 4.87) at p<0.01 providing support for H6 (PV → BI). Moreover
proposed relationship between habit (H) and behavioural intention (BI) was also significant at
(β = 0.385; t-value = 4.98) demonstrating support for hypothesis H7a (H → BI) at p<0.01
significance level. Likewise, H7b (H → UB) which was found positive and significant (β =
0.42; t-value = 5.58) indicates a strong relationship between habit (H) and use behaviour
(UB) at p<0.01 significance level. However, hypotheses H8a (PI → BI) was found significant
at p<0.05, indicating a positive direct relationship (β = 0.181; t-value = 2.088) between
Downloaded by Australian Catholic University At 03:31 05 October 2017 (PT)

personal innovativeness (PI) and behavioural intention (BI). Similar significance level p<0.05
was found for relationship between personal innovativeness (PI) and use behaviour (UB) at
(β = 0.173; t-value = 1.98) indicating support for H8b (PI → UB). Finally last hypothesized
relation between behavioural intention (BI) and use behaviour (UB) was also found
significant (β = 0.725; t-value = 8.831) providing support for H9 (BI → UB) at p<0.01
significance level. For the ease of readers, a summarized view of hypothesis testing is
presented in Table 5. Now discussion continues with the assessment of Goodness of Fit
(GoF) index for overall assessment of proposed structural model.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Insert Table 5 about here
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Goodness of Fit (GoF) Index

Although, PLS-SEM do not generate overall Goodness of Fit (GoF) indices and R2 value is
considered as the primary way to evaluate the explanatory power of the model (Henseler et
al., 2016). However a diagnostic tool, presented by Tenenhaus et al. (2005) as the Goodness
of Fit (GoF) index for PLS-SEM was used to assess the model fit. This Goodness of Fit
(GoF) is measured by using the geometric mean of the average communality score (AVE
value) and the average R2 values (for endogenous constructs) and is calculated using
following equation, (GoF = √(AVE × R2 )). Although Tenenhaus et al. (2005) did not
reported any cut off values for this aforementioned Goodness of Fit (GoF) index, but Wetzels
et al. (2009) reported following cut off values for assessing the results of the GoF analysis:
GoFsmall = 0.1; GoFmedium = 0.25; GoFlarge = 0.36. According to Henseler et al. (2016) a good
model fit indicates that a model is parsimonious and plausible. Considering the guidelines of
Tenenhaus et al. (2005) and Henseler et al. (2016) researcher have calculated the Goodness
of Fit (GoF) index for the model involved in this study, which is presented in Table 6. As
depicted in the said table, conceptual model used in this study yielded a Goodness of Fit
(GoF) index value of 0.660, which indicates a very good (GoFlarge) model fit.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Insert Table 6 about here
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

13
 However, it is noteworthy that Goodness of Fit (GoF) is only a diagnostic tool which
indicates how well collected data fits with the proposed conceptual model (Henseler et al.,
2016). Therefore, Henseler et al. (2016) have suggested the use of Standardized Root Mean
Square Residual (SRMR) as a criterion of approximate model fit. A close to 0 value for
Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) indicates perfect model fit, however
Henseler et al. (2016) have recommended that less than 0.08 can be considered adequate fit
for PLS-SEM models. For the proposed model of this study, the SRMR = 0.031 was
observed, which indicates an adequate model fit.

On the base of comprehensive analysis of measurement models and structural model, it is

concluded that both models (i.e. measurement model and structural model) are validated.
Moreover, these results demonstrate that proposed theoretical model of this study also have
significant predictive relevance and explanatory power. Now discussion continues with the
implications devised from this study, followed by its limitations and conclusion.
Downloaded by Australian Catholic University At 03:31 05 October 2017 (PT)

Implications

A number of practical implications are devised from this study. It is expected that findings of
this study will serve as a torchbearer for policy makers and for other public sector universities
in Malaysia; moreover these findings can be taken as guidelines for successful
implementation of latest technologies such as lecture capture system (LCS) with a student-
oriented approach for enhancing overall learning experience. Further, proposed conceptual
framework of this study can assist the relevant authorities to understand students’ behaviour
and take necessary actions for better integration of latest technological advancements at their
infancy stage. The integration of latest technological advancements, such as lecture capture
system (LCS) have enabled us to blur the limitations of formal education system. Lecture
capture system (LCS) have a significant role in broadening the range of learning outcomes by
taking the educational process out of the class room and enabling students to take advantage
of off-campus learning at their own pace and convenience. Findings of this this study will
help to bridge the gap between formal and informal education system by enhancing our
understanding about factors influencing acceptance and use of lecture capture system (LCS).
Moreover, by validating the existing constructs of extended unified theory of acceptance and
use of technology (UTAUT2), findings of this study can help future researchers for analyzing
the adoption of various other technologies, such as acceptance and use of Moodle and
interactive white-boards etc. Despite all these implications, findings of this study are subject
to some limitations, which are mentioned in next section.

Limitations

While conducting this study, we came across some limitations, it is expected that these
limitations can serve as guidelines for future research directions. Such as, this study do not
provide cross cultural comparison of respondents, because multi-group analysis (MGA) was
not in the scope of this study, therefore it is considered a limitation of this study. Further, due
to limited resources this study involves respondents from Malaysia only, which is a
developing country; therefore a comparative analysis of users’ behaviour in developed
countries was not possible. It is expected that future studies can overcome this limitation by
conducting comparative analysis of respondents from developed countries and developing
countries. Another limitation, which we came across was that, this study involves self-
reported user behaviour; because of limited resources it was not possible for researchers to
monitor actual use behaviour in all students. For this reason, we suggest that future studies

14
 can overcome this limitation by monitoring actual time spent on lecture capture system (LCS)
by recording students’ log files in learning management system (LMS). Further, this study
investigates the role of personal innovations (PI) in the domain of information technology
(IT) along with other existing constructs of extended theory of acceptance and use of
technology (UTAUT2); while ignoring other personality traits (e.g. tacit knowledge, self-
efficacy and prior experience etc.), which might influence individuals’ use behaviour towards
technology. Moreover, this study is a cross-sectional exploratory analysis of users’ behaviour
towards lecture capture system (LCS); however a longitudinal study which was not possible
due to time constraints, might reveal a better picture for analyzing dynamics of evolving
behaviour towards acceptance and use of technology over a period of longer time frame.
Therefore it is suggested that future researchers can overcome this limitation by conducted a
longitudinal study.
Downloaded by Australian Catholic University At 03:31 05 October 2017 (PT)

Conclusion

This study have extended the overall body of knowledge by introducing and validating the
role of a new construct, i.e. personal innovativeness (PI) in extended unified theory of
acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT2). By doing so, with a rigorous methodology of
partial least square (PLS) based structural equation model (SEM), this study have not only
yielded a considerable potential reap in the context of developing countries; but have also
imparted a sizeable theoretical, methodological and contextual contribution. Findings of this
study have confirmed that personal innovativeness (PI) in the domain of information
technology (IT) is an integral personal trait, which have a significant role in determining
users’ acceptance and use of technology. Furthermore this study have validated the existing
constructs of extended unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT2), and
findings of this study confirm that, Performance Expectancy (PE), Effort Expectancy (EE),
Facilitating Conditions (FC), Social Influence (SI), Hedonic Motivation (HM), Price Value
(PV), Habit (H) and Personal Innovativeness (PI) have a significant role in adoption of latest
technological advancements, such as lecture capture system (LCS). Moreover, this study have
opened up new avenues for further investigation or replication of similar studies in different
contexts to explore the role of personality traits in acceptance and use of technology.

15
 Appendix (Summary of Measurement Scale Items)

Performance Expectancy (PE)

PE_1 Lecture Capture System (LCS) is useful for my studies
PE_2 Lecture Capture System (LCS) helps me to achieve my tasks in a better way
PE_3 Use of Lecture Capture System (LCS) enhances my productivity
PE_4 Use of Lecture Capture System (LCS) helps me to get good grades

Effort Expectancy (EE)

EE_1 I can easily interact with Lecture Capture System (LCS)
EE_2 For me it is easy to use Lecture Capture System (LCS)
EE_3 Lecture Capture System (LCS) do not require much efforts
EE_4 For me it is easy to understand various features of Lecture Capture System (LCS)
Downloaded by Australian Catholic University At 03:31 05 October 2017 (PT)

Social Influence (SI)

SI_1 My class fellows think that I should use Lecture Capture System (LCS)
SI_2 My close friends suggest me to use Lecture Capture System (LCS)
SI_3 My teachers think that Lecture Capture System (LCS) is useful for me
SI_4 My university encourages the use of Lecture Capture System (LCS)

Facilitating Conditions (FC)

FC_1 I have a laptop for using Lecture Capture System (LCS)
FC_2 I know how to use Lecture Capture System (LCS)
FC_3 Lecture Capture System (LCS) of my university is compatible with my devices
FC_4 IT department of my university facilitates me in case I face any problem while using
Lecture Capture System (LCS)

Hedonic Motivations (HM)

HM_1 Use of Lecture Capture System (LCS) is very interesting for me
HM_2 Using Lecture Capture System (LCS) is an exciting way to learn
HM_3 Lecture Capture System (LCS) motivates me to learn at my own pace in an enjoyable
and comfortable way

Price Value (PV)

PV_1 Lecture Capture System (LCS) offers a good value for my dues paid to university
PV_2 Flexibility offered by Lecture Capture System (LCS) justify its price value

Habit (H)
H_1 I often use recorded lectures from Lecture Capture System (LCS)
H_2 I am used to using Lecture Capture System (LCS)
H_3 Use of Lecture Capture System (LCS) is a habit for me

Personal Innovativeness (PI)

PI_1 I like to experiment new features and advancements in information technologies
PI_2 I am keen to try new features available in Lecture Capture System (LCS) provided by
my university
PI_3 Usually I am in first few to adopt innovative learning methods among my peers

Behavioural Intention (BI)

16
 BI_1 I will keep using Lecture Capture System (LCS) in coming semesters
BI_2 I will recommend Lecture Capture System (LCS) to my friends also
BI_3 I have positive perceptions about Lecture Capture System (LCS)

Use Behaviour (UB) Single Item Construct

UB_1 How frequently you use Lecture Capture System (LCS)
Downloaded by Australian Catholic University At 03:31 05 October 2017 (PT)

17
 Bibliography

Agarwal, R. and Prasad, J. (1998), “A Conceptual and Operational Definition of Personal

Innovativeness in the Domain of Information Technology”, Information Systems
Research, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 204–215.
Ajzen, I. and Fishbein, M. (1980), Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behaviour,
Prentice Hall International, Inc, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Bommer, M. and Jalajas, D. (1999), “The Threat of Organizational Downsizing on the
Innovative Propensity of R&D Professionals”, R&D Management, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp.
27–34.
Brooks, C., Epp, C.D., Logan, G. and Greer, J. (2011), “The Who, What, When, and Why of
Lecture Capture”, Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Learning
Analytics and Knowledge, ACM, pp. 86–92.
Brooks, C., Erickson, G., Greer, J. and Gutwin, C. (2014), “Modelling and Quantifying the
Downloaded by Australian Catholic University At 03:31 05 October 2017 (PT)

Behaviours of Students in Lecture Capture Environments”, Computers & Education,

Vol. 75, pp. 282–292.
Burton-Jones, A. and Straub, D.W. (2006), “Reconceptualizing System Usage: An Approach
and Empirical Test”, Information Systems Research, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 228–246.
Danielson, J., Preast, V., Bender, H. and Hassall, L. (2014), “Is the Effectiveness of Lecture
Capture Related To Teaching Approach or Content Type?”, Computers & Education,
Vol. 72, pp. 121–131.
Davis, F.D. (1989), “Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of
Information Technology”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 319–340.
Dutta, D.K., Gwebu, K.L. and Wang, J. (2015), “Personal Innovativeness in Technology,
Related Knowledge and Experience, and Entrepreneurial Intentions in Emerging
Technology Industries: A Process of Causation or Effectuation?”, International
Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 529–555.
Farooq, M.S. (2016), Social Support and Entrepreneurial Skills as Antecedents of
Entrepreneurial Behaviour, PhD Thesis, Universiti Malaysia Sarawak (UNIMAS),
Malaysia.
Farooq, M.S., Aslam, H.A., Khan, R.A. and Gillani, F. (2009), “Process Definition Clarity
affecting Quality of Healthcare Services in Public Sector Hospitals”, The Second
Canadian Quality Congress, Canada.
Farooq, M.S., Jaafar, N., Ayupp, K., Salam, M., Mughal, Y.H., Azam, F. and Sajid, A.
(2016), “Impact of Entrepreneurial Skills and Family Occupation on Entrepreneurial
Intentions”, Science International-Lahore, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 3145–3148.
Farooq, M.S. and Radovic-Markovic, M. (2016), “Modeling Entrepreneurial Education and
Entrepreneurial Skills as Antecedents of Intention towards Entrepreneurial Behaviour
in Single Mothers: A PLS-SEM Approach”, Entrepreneurship: Types, Current Trends
and Future Perspectives, presented at the Fifth International Conference
“Employment, Education and Entrepreneurship” (EEE 2016), Faculty of Business
Economics and Entrepreneurship, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia, pp. 198–
216.
Farooq, M.S., Sajid, A., Khan, R. and Rafique, U. (2010), “Relationship of Motivation and
the Performance of Employees”, Report and Opinion, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 75–76.
Fishbein, M. and Ajzen, I. (1975), Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior: An Introduction
to Theory and Research, Addison-Wiley Publishing Company, Massachusetts.
Hair, J.F., Hult, G.T.M., Ringle, C. and Sarstedt, M. (2017), A Primer on Partial Least
Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM), 2nd ed., Sage Publications
Limited Inc, London; Thousand Oaks, Calif., available at: https://uk.sagepub.com/en-

18
 gb/eur/a-primer-on-partial-least-squares-structural-equation-modeling-pls-
sem/book244583.
He, W. (2013), “Examining Students’ Online Interaction in a Live Video Streaming
Environment Using Data Mining and Text Mining”, Computers in Human Behavior,
Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 90–102.
Henseler, J., Hubona, G. and Ray, P.A. (2016), “Using PLS Path Modeling In New
Technology Research: Updated Guidelines”, Industrial Management & Data Systems,
Vol. 116 No. 1, pp. 2–20.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C.M. and Sarstedt, M. (2015), “A New Criterion for Assessing
Discriminant Validity in Variance-Based Structural Equation Modeling”, Journal of
the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 115–135.
Karahanna, E., Ahuja, M., Srite, M. and Galvin, J. (2002), “Individual Differences and
Relative Advantage: The Case of GSS”, Decision Support Systems, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp.
327–341.
Downloaded by Australian Catholic University At 03:31 05 October 2017 (PT)

Ketterl, M., Mertens, R., Wiesen, C. and Vornberger, O. (2011), “Enabling User To User
Interactions in Web Lectures with History‐Aware User Awareness”, Interactive
Technology and Smart Education, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 224–235.
Lampi, F., Lemelson, H., Kopf, S. and Effelsberg, W. (2009), “A Question Managing Suite
for Automatic Lecture Recording”, Interactive Technology and Smart Education, Vol.
6 No. 2, pp. 108–118.
Lewis, W., Agarwal, R. and Sambamurthy, V. (2003), “Sources of Influence on Beliefs about
Information Technology Use: An Empirical Study of Knowledge Workers”, MIS
Quarterly, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 657–678.
Li, J., Kizilcec, R., Bailenson, J. and Ju, W. (2016), “Social Robots and Virtual Agents as
Lecturers for Video Instruction”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 55, Part B, pp.
1222–1230.
Limayem, M., Hirt, S.G. and Cheung, C.M.K. (2007), “How Habit Limits the Predictive
Power of Intention: The Case of Information Systems Continuance”, MIS Quarterly,
Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 705–737.
Lin, K.-M. (2011), “E-Learning Continuance Intention: Moderating Effects of User E-
Learning Experience”, Computers & Education, Vol. 56 No. 2, pp. 515–526.
Nair, P.K., Ali, F. and Leong, L.C. (2015), “Factors Affecting Acceptance & Use of ReWind:
Validating the Extended Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology”,
Interactive Technology and Smart Education, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 183–201.
Ringle, C., Wende, S. and Becker, J.-M. (2017), SmartPLS-3, SmartPLS GmbH,
Boenningstedt, available at: http://www.smartpls.com.
Robinson Jr., L., Marshall, G.W. and Stamps, M.B. (2005), “Sales Force Use of Technology:
Antecedents to Technology Acceptance”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 58 No.
12, pp. 1623–1631.
Rogers, E. (1995), Diffusion of Innovations, Free Press, New York, NY.
Rolf, R., Reuter, H., Abel, M. and Hamborg, K.-C. (2014), “Requirements of Students for
Video-Annotations in Lecture Recordings”, Interactive Technology and Smart
Education, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 223–234.
Rosen, P.A. (2004), “The Effect of Personal Innovativeness in the Domain of Information
Technology on the Acceptance and Use of Technology: A Working Paper”,
Oklahoma State University.
Rui, Y., Gupta, A., Grudin, J. and He, L. (2004), “Automating Lecture Capture and
Broadcast: Technology and Videography”, Multimedia Systems, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 3–
15.

19
 Schaupp, L.C., Carter, L. and McBride, M.E. (2010), “E-File Adoption: A Study of U.S.
Taxpayers’ Intentions”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 636–644.
Schillewaert, N., Ahearne, M.J., Frambach, R.T. and Moenaert, R.K. (2005), “The Adoption
of Information Technology in the Sales Force”, Industrial Marketing Management,
Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 323–336.
Tatli, C. and Kiliç, E. (2015), “Interactive Whiteboards: Do Teachers Really Use Them
Interactively?”, Interactive Learning Environments, Vol. 0 No. 0, pp. 1–17.
Tenenhaus, M., Esposito Vinzi, V., Chatelin, Y.-M. and Lauro, C. (2005), “PLS Path
Modeling”, Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Vol. 48 No. 1, pp. 159–205.
Teo, T. (2011), “Factors Influencing Teachers’ Intention to Use Technology: Model
Development and Test”, Computers & Education, Vol. 57 No. 4, pp. 2432–2440.
Thatcher, J.B. and Perrewé, P.L. (2002), “An Empirical Examination of Individual Traits as
Antecedents to Computer Anxiety and Computer Self-Efficacy”, MIS Quarterly, Vol.
26 No. 4, pp. 381–396.
Downloaded by Australian Catholic University At 03:31 05 October 2017 (PT)

Toppin, I.N. (2010), “Video Lecture Capture (VLC) System: A Comparison of Student
versus Faculty Perceptions”, Education and Information Technologies, Vol. 16 No. 4,
pp. 383–393.
Tosuntaş, Ş.B., Karadağ, E. and Orhan, S. (2015), “The Factors Affecting Acceptance and
Use of Interactive Whiteboard within the Scope of FATIH Project: A Structural
Equation Model Based On the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of
Technology”, Computers & Education, Vol. 81, pp. 169–178.
Van-der-Heijden, H. (2004), “User Acceptance of Hedonic Information Systems”, MIS
Quarterly, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 695–704.
Van-Raaij, E.M. and Schepers, J.J.L. (2008), “The Acceptance and Use of a Virtual Learning
Environment in China”, Computers & Education, Vol. 50 No. 3, pp. 838–852.
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M.G., Davis, G.B. and Davis, F.D. (2003), “User Acceptance of
Information Technology: Toward a Unified View”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp.
425–478.
Venkatesh, V., Thong, J.Y. and Xu, X. (2012), “Consumer Acceptance and Use of
Information Technology: Extending the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of
Technology”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 157–178.
Wetzels, M., Odekerken-Schröder, G. and Van Oppen, C. (2009), “Using PLS Path Modeling
for Assessing Hierarchical Construct Models: Guidelines and Empirical Illustration”,
MIS Quarterly, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 177–195.
Wulff, B., Fecke, A., Rupp, L. and Hamborg, K.-C. (2014), “LectureSight: An Open Source
System for Automatic Camera Control for Lecture Recordings”, Interactive
Technology and Smart Education, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 184–200.
Zhang, C., Rui, Y., Crawford, J. and He, L.-W. (2008), “An Automated End-to-End Lecture
Capture and Broadcasting System”, ACM Trans. Multimedia Comput. Commun.
Appl., Vol. 4 No. 1, p. 6:1–6:23.

20
 Downloaded by Australian Catholic University At 03:31 05 October 2017 (PT)

Figure 1

21
Proposed Theoretical Framework
 Downloaded by Australian Catholic University At 03:31 05 October 2017 (PT)

Figure 2
Findings of Structural Model

22
 Table 1 Descriptive Statistics and Demographic Characteristics

N Mean % SD
Age 481 34.05 6.28
Gender
Male 222 46.10%
Female 259 53.90%
Ethnic Background
Malaysian 168 34.93
Chinese 132 27.44
Indian 154 32.02
Others 27 5.61
Downloaded by Australian Catholic University At 03:31 05 October 2017 (PT)

Using Lecture Capture System

(LCS) System Since
Semester 1 148 30.70%
Semester 2 139 28.90%
Semester 3 102 21.30%
Semester 4 92 19.10%

Table 2 Reliability and Validity of Latent Constructs

Cronbach’s Composite
Latent Constructs AVE
Alpha Reliability
Performance Expectancy (PE) 0.673 0.777 0.898
Effort Expectancy (EE) 0.592 0.738 0.868
Social Influence (SI) 0.557 0.767 0.874
Facilitating Conditions (FC) 0.530 0.746 0.860
Hedonic Motivations (HM) 0.685 0.801 0.877
Price Value (PV) 0.763 0.867 0.920
Habit (H) 0.673 0.777 0.901
Personal Innovativeness (PI) 0.730 0.804 0.879
Behavioural Intention (BI) 0.694 0.822 0.920
Use Behaviour (UB)* 1.000 1.000 1.000
* Single Item Construct

23
 Table 3 Fornell-Larcker criterion (Square Root of AVE Compared the To
Construct Correlations)

Constructs PE EE SI FC HM PV H PI BI UB
PE 0.820
EE 0.666 0.769
SI 0.501 0.518 0.746
FC 0.591 0.717 0.504 0.728
HM 0.587 0.556 0.540 0.492 0.827
PV 0.560 0.540 0.393 0.519 0.503 0.873
H 0.688 0.581 0.535 0.499 0.638 0.551 0.82
PI 0.420 0.541 0.329 0.390 0.470 0.417 0.312 0.854
BI 0.746 0.658 0.539 0.634 0.619 0.657 0.731 0.340 0.833
Downloaded by Australian Catholic University At 03:31 05 October 2017 (PT)

UB 0.736 0.584 0.497 0.559 0.602 0.573 0.755 0.441 0.844 1

* Values in the bold are Square root of AVE

Table 4 Cross Loadings among Measurement Scale Items

Items PE EE SI FC HM PV H PI BI UB
PE_1 0.782 0.482 0.338 0.426 0.386 0.367 0.491 0.479 0.582 0.532
PE_2 0.815 0.499 0.323 0.427 0.409 0.422 0.528 0.346 0.572 0.569
PE_3 0.779 0.456 0.298 0.398 0.410 0.384 0.484 0.410 0.513 0.508
PE_4 0.751 0.459 0.349 0.376 0.410 0.344 0.469 0.301 0.510 0.536
EE_1 0.504 0.731 0.325 0.505 0.368 0.317 0.405 0.297 0.476 0.434
EE_2 0.501 0.735 0.307 0.459 0.384 0.318 0.420 0.500 0.441 0.417
EE_3 0.365 0.728 0.303 0.471 0.290 0.354 0.294 0.411 0.406 0.298
EE_4 0.395 0.749 0.338 0.513 0.355 0.360 0.360 0.506 0.421 0.336
SI_1 0.336 0.310 0.749 0.260 0.395 0.234 0.361 0.331 0.304 0.322
SI_2 0.339 0.332 0.768 0.315 0.391 0.234 0.390 0.385 0.383 0.343
SI_3 0.202 0.270 0.885 0.240 0.221 0.106 0.220 0.441 0.229 0.183
SI_4 0.278 0.310 0.876 0.351 0.274 0.222 0.290 0.390 0.355 0.287
FC_1 0.424 0.501 0.324 0.784 0.309 0.361 0.338 0.306 0.438 0.390
FC_2 0.441 0.517 0.265 0.781 0.299 0.344 0.354 0.407 0.474 0.393
FC_3 0.348 0.518 0.240 0.719 0.249 0.271 0.250 0.198 0.390 0.331
FC_4 0.176 0.271 0.377 0.811 0.272 0.213 0.168 0.320 0.239 0.182
HM_1 0.448 0.424 0.374 0.378 0.832 0.394 0.473 0.251 0.481 0.449
HM_2 0.398 0.385 0.397 0.331 0.841 0.321 0.464 0.288 0.436 0.409
HM_3 0.450 0.400 0.396 0.319 0.828 0.343 0.506 0.191 0.471 0.481
PV_1 0.386 0.352 0.265 0.360 0.345 0.829 0.393 0.326 0.484 0.387
PV_2 0.426 0.421 0.234 0.376 0.360 0.834 0.403 0.396 0.512 0.448
H_1 0.483 0.381 0.379 0.300 0.479 0.326 0.792 0.466 0.485 0.537
H_2 0.509 0.475 0.370 0.386 0.476 0.415 0.806 0.355 0.573 0.566

24
 H_3 0.487 0.334 0.322 0.286 0.394 0.369 0.748 0.401 0.535 0.556
PI_1 0.305 0.320 0.501 0.402 0.209 0.302 0.341 0.880 0.441 0.509
PI_2 0.451 0.477 0.370 0.211 0.302 0.408 0.231 0.700 0.298 0.304
PI_3 0.412 0.239 0.394 0.371 0.481 0.521 0.456 0.817 0.346 0.472
BI_1 0.573 0.474 0.332 0.466 0.429 0.464 0.573 0.333 0.797 0.646
BI_2 0.590 0.491 0.403 0.461 0.471 0.468 0.575 0.491 0.835 0.695
BI_3 0.525 0.485 0.386 0.457 0.443 0.518 0.500 0.366 0.789 0.618
UB_1 0.614 0.462 0.375 0.437 0.480 0.451 0.633 0.525 0.422 1.000

Table 5 Hypothesis Testing

Downloaded by Australian Catholic University At 03:31 05 October 2017 (PT)

Beta Error t-value Decision

Hypotheses
H1 PE → BI 0.386 0.042 4.029* Supported
H2 EE → BI 0.247 0.044 3.108* Supported
H3 SI → BI 0.273 0.035 3.035* Supported
H4a FC → BI 0.266 0.043 3.005* Supported
H4b FC → UB 0.203 0.029 3.603* Supported
H5 HM → BI 0.189 0.035 2.981* Supported
H6 PV → BI 0.331 0.033 4.870* Supported
H7a H → BI 0.385 0.039 4.980* Supported
H7b H → UB 0.420 0.043 5.580* Supported
H8a PI → BI 0.181 0.038 2.088** Supported
H8b PI → UB 0.173 0.051 1.980** Supported
H9 BI → UB 0.725 0.046 8.831* Supported
Note: * p<0.01, ** p<0.05

Table 6 Goodness of Fit (GoF) Index Calculation

Latent Constructs AVE R2

Performance Expectancy 0.673 --
Effort Expectancy 0.592 --
Social Influence 0.557 --
Facilitating Conditions 0.530 --
Hedonic Motivation 0.685 --
Price Value 0.763 --
Habit 0.673 --
Personal Innovativeness 0.730 --
Behavioural Intention 0.694 0.581
Use Behaviour 1.000 0.682
Average Values 0.690 0.632
AVE * R2 0.436
GoF = √(AVE × R2) 0.660
* Criteria: GoFsmall = 0.1; GoFmedium = 0.25; GoFlarge = 0.36

25