1. 3rd eLearning Innovations Conference & Expo
2 October 2015
By
Daniel Makini Getuno 
Department of Curr. Instr. & Ed. Management/e-Campus
EGERTON UNIVERSITY
Is UTAUT being used just for the
sake of it? A critical review of
literature in the Kenyan Context

2. Overview
• Background
• What is UTAUT?
• The Problem
• Methodology
• Results
• Discussion & Conclusion
• Suggestions for future research

3. Background
• Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA)
• Technology Acceptance Model (TAM)
• Motivational Model (MM)
• Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB)
• Combined Theory of Planned
Behaviour/Technology Acceptance Model (C-
TPB-TAM)
• Model of PC Utilization (MPCU)
• Rodger’s Diffusion of Innovation Theory (DI)
• Social Cognitive Theory (SCT).

4. Rodgers’ 5-stage process
(i) knowledge of the innovation
(ii) persuasion
(iii) a decision to accept or reject the innovation,
(iv) implementation of the innovation
(v) confirmation i.e. seeking reinforcement of
the decision from others.

5. TAM
Designed to predict information technology
acceptance and usage on the job.
Constructs:
• Perceived Usefulness
• Perceived Ease of Use
• Subjective Norm

6. What is UTAUT?

7. The Core Constructs
• Performance Expectancy (PE) – the degree to
which a student believes that using an e-
learning system will help him or her to attain
gains in academic performance.
• Effort Expectancy (EE)–the degree of ease
associated with the use of the e-learning
system. This pertains to perceived ease of use,
complexity, and ease of use.

8. • Peer Influence (PI) –the degree to which an
individual perceives that significant others
believe he or she should use the new e-
learning system. It is represented as subjective
norm, social factors, and image.
• Facilitating Conditions (FC) – Refers to the
degree to which an individual believes that an
organizational and technical infrastructure
exists to support use of the e-learning system.

9. The Problem, Motivation
• PhD Study Framework
• Williams, Rana, Dwivedi and Lal (2008) in a
systematic review of 450 citations of the
UTAUT that attempted to better understand
the reasons for the citations, use and
adaptation of the theory, found that only 43
(less than 10%) of the studies actually utilized
the theory or its constructs.

10. Objectives/Questions
Did studies use/follow the original UTAUT
study in terms of:
• Was the technology new to the participants?
• Were measurements done at various points in
time?
• Methods of data analysis?
• Interpretation of results?
• Appropriate use of constructs?

11. Methodology
• Review of Online papers/abstracts – targeted
sample =40, actual sample = 16
• Qualitative research design
• Data analyzed thematically and
generalizations arrived at

12. Results
• Little or no effort/explanation was made to
establish “newness” of the technology
• None of the studies were longitudinal i.e.
were done at one point in time
• Several data analysis techniques used e.g.
structural equation modelling (SEM), Analysis
of Moment Structure (AMOS)
• % Variance of BI to adopt e-services/ICT not
given in certain circumstances.
• UTAUT mostly used alone but sometimes with
other models/theories

13. Other results
• Similar study/ different title/author???
• Only 2 studies in education

14. Discussion
• New technology/ new users e.g. Equitel is to
be studied
• Longitudinal studies – fear of “sample death”
• Choice of data analysis method/statistics? Are
we getting comfortable/cautious not to try
other areas?
• Results to be explained fully to show % model
accounts for variance in Behavioural Intention
(BI) and hence actual use.

15. Conclusion
• UTAUT can be used in many contexts – mobile
money, customer care services, e-learning
• Exercise caution in what model to use. Why
use UTAUT together with other models that
were used in its derivation?

16. Recommendations
• Use of UTAUT in educational contexts (e-
learning)
• Use UTAUT on its own, as opposed to using it
with other theories
• Emphasize correct use of UTAUT from a
methodological perspective (study design,
interpretation of results).

17. Questions/Comments
?