Exploring the drivers of technology acceptance: a study of Nepali school students

  • Timothy Teo
  • Tenzin DoleckEmail author
  • Paul Bazelais
  • David John Lemay
Cultural and Regional Perspectives


The question of what drives learners to adopt and use certain technologies over others, generally referred to as technology acceptance in the literature, is of interest to educational technology researchers, to policymakers, and developers in educational institutions. Technology acceptance models can inform adoption and implementation decisions. Despite the growing literature on technology acceptance, there is less evidence from countries with the lowest economic development indicators such as Nepal. The present study investigates the factors motivating technology use in the Nepali context. The study is grounded in an extended technology acceptance model (TAM) applied to using the internet for learning (not limited to online learning environments). The data were collected from 126 school students in Nepal (Mage = 15.19). We found empirical support for our proposed research model. There were strong relationships between computer self-efficacy and perceived enjoyment, and perceived enjoyment and behavioral intention. We found no influence of perceived usefulness or attitude on behavioral intention, contrary to theorized relationships and the empirical literature. Our findings show that the extended TAM translates to understudied populations such as Nepali secondary school students and suggests that it is sensitive to local situational differences that influence technology acceptance behaviors.


Technology acceptance Antecedents to use Nepal Underdeveloped perspective 



This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. Abbas, T. (2016). Social factors affecting students’ acceptance of e-learning environments in developing and developed countries. Journal of Hospitality And Tourism Technology, 7(2), 200–212. Scholar
  2. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211.Google Scholar
  3. Arnett, J. (2008). The neglected 95%: Why American psychology needs to become less American. American Psychologist, 63(7), 602–614. Scholar
  4. Baller, S., Battista, A., Dutta, S., & Lanvin, B. (2016). The networked readiness index 2016 (pp. 1–36). Retrieved from
  5. Bazelais, P., Doleck, T., & Lemay, D. J. (2018). Investigating the predictive power of TAM: A case study of CEGEP students’ intentions to use online learning technologies. Education and Information Technologies, 23(1), 93–111. Scholar
  6. Bhuasiri, W., Xaymoungkhoun, O., Zo, H., Rho, J. J., & Ciganek, A. P. (2012). Critical success factors for e-learning in developing countries: A comparative analysis between ICT experts and faculty. Computers & Education, 58(2), 843–855.Google Scholar
  7. Center for Education Innovations. (2015). Integration of Technology in Schools. Retrieved 22 July, 2017 from
  8. Cheung, W., & Huang, W. (2005). Proposing a framework to assess Internet usage in university education: An empirical investigation from a student’s perspective. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(2), 237–253. Scholar
  9. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  10. Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340.Google Scholar
  11. Davis, F. D. (1993). User acceptance of information technology: System characteristics, user perceptions and behavioral impacts. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 38(3), 475–487. Scholar
  12. Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35(8), 982–1003.Google Scholar
  13. Dawadi, B. R., & Shakya, S. (2016). ICT implementation and infrastructure deployment approach for rural Nepal. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Computing and Information Technology (pp. 319–331). Switzerland: Springer.Google Scholar
  14. Doleck, T., Bazelais, P., & Lemay, D. J. (2017a). Examining the antecedents of social networking sites use among CEGEP students. Education and Information Technologies, 22(5), 2103–2123. Scholar
  15. Doleck, T., Bazelais, P., & Lemay, D. J. (2017b). Examining CEGEP students’ acceptance of CBLEs: A test of acceptance models. Education and Information Technologies, 22(5), 2523–2543. Scholar
  16. Doleck, T., Bazelais, P., & Lemay, D. J. (2017c). Examining the antecedents of Facebook acceptance via structural equation modeling: A case of CEGEP students. Knowledge Management & E-Learning, 9(1), 69–89.Google Scholar
  17. Doleck, T., Bazelais, P., & Lemay, D. J. (2018). The role of behavioral expectations in technology acceptance: A CEGEP case study. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 30(3), 407–425. Scholar
  18. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  19. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.Google Scholar
  20. Hair, J., Ringle, C., & Sarstedt, M. (2011). PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. The Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 19(2), 139–152. Scholar
  21. Hamner, M., & Qasi, R. (2009). Expanding the technology acceptance model to examine personal computing technology utilization in government agencies in developing countries. Government Information Quarterly, 26(1), 128–136.Google Scholar
  22. Henseler, J., Hubona, G., & Ray, P. (2016). Using PLS path modeling in new technology research: Updated guidelines. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 116(1), 2–20. Scholar
  23. Inan, F., & Lowther, D. (2009). Factors affecting technology integration in K-12 classrooms: A path model. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(2), 137–154. Scholar
  24. Jahan, S. (2016). Human development report 2016 (pp. 1–286). New York, NY. Retrieved 22 July, 2017 from
  25. King, W. R., & He, J. (2006). A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model. Information and Management, 43(6), 740–755. Scholar
  26. Kirkwood, A., & Price, L. (2013). Technology-enhanced learning and teaching in higher education: What is ‘enhanced’ and how do we know? A critical literature review. Learning, Media and Technology, 39(1), 6–36. Scholar
  27. Kock, N. (2015a). WarpPLS. Retrieved from
  28. Kock, N. (2015b). WarpPLS 5.0 user manual. ScripWarp Systems. Retrieved from
  29. Lai, H., & Chen, C. (2011). Factors influencing secondary school teachers’ adoption of teaching blogs. Computers & Education, 56(4), 948–960. Scholar
  30. Lee, Y.-H., Hsieh, Y.-C., & Hsu, C.-N. (2011). Adding innovation diffusion theory to the technology acceptance model: Supporting employees’ intentions to use E-learning systems. Educational Technology & Society, 14(4), 124–137.Google Scholar
  31. Legris, P., Ingham, J., & Collerette, P. (2003). Why do people use information technology? A critical review of the technology acceptance model. Information & Management, 40(3), 191–204. Scholar
  32. Lemay, D., Doleck, T., & Bazelais, P. (2017). “Passion and concern for privacy” as factors affecting snapchat use: A situated perspective on technology acceptance. Computers in Human Behavior, 75, 264–271. Scholar
  33. Lemay, D. J., Morin, M. M., Bazelais, P., & Doleck, T. (2018). Modeling students’ perceptions of simulation-based learning using the technology acceptance model. Clinical Simulation in Nursing, 20, 28–37. Scholar
  34. Lu, J., Yu, C., Liu, C., & Yao, J. (2003). Technology acceptance model for wireless Internet. Internet Research, 13(3), 206–222. Scholar
  35. Marangunić, N., & Granić, A. (2014). Technology acceptance model: A literature review from 1986 to 2013. Universal Access in the Information Society, 14(1), 81–95. Scholar
  36. Ministry of Education. (2016). Eduation in figures 2016 (pp. 1–26). Kathmandu: Ministry of Education. Retrieved from
  37. Musa, P. F. (2006). Making a case for modifying the technology acceptance model to account for limited accessibility in developing countries. Information Technology for Development, 12(3), 213–224.Google Scholar
  38. Park, S. Y. (2009). An analysis of the technology acceptance model in understanding university students’ behavioral intention to use E-learning. Educational Technology & Society, 12(3), 150–162.Google Scholar
  39. Park, N., Roman, R., Lee, S., & Chung, J. E. (2009). User acceptance of a digital library system in developing countries: An application of the technology acceptance model. International Journal of Information Management, 29(3), 196–209.Google Scholar
  40. Pherali, T. (2011). Education and conflict in Nepal: possibilities for reconstruction. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 9(1), 135–154. Scholar
  41. Rogers, E. (1983). Diffusion of innovations. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  42. Sang, G., Valcke, M., van Braak, J., Tondeur, J., & Zhu, C. (2010). Predicting ICT integration into classroom teaching in Chinese primary schools: Exploring the complex interplay of teacher-related variables. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 27(2), 160–172. Scholar
  43. Schepers, J., & Wetzels, M. (2007). A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model: Investigating subjective norm and moderation effects. Information and Management, 44(1), 90–103.Google Scholar
  44. Shields, R. (2011). ICT or I see tea? Modernity, technology and education in Nepal. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 9(1), 85–97. Scholar
  45. Stash, S., & Hannum, E. (2001). Who goes to school? Educational stratification by gender, caste, and ethnicity in Nepal. Comparative Education Review, 45(3), 354–378. Scholar
  46. Sun, H., & Zhang, P. (2006). The role of moderating factors in user technology acceptance. International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 64(2), 53–78. Scholar
  47. Tarhini, A., Hone, K., & Liu, X. (2013). Factors affecting students’ acceptance of E-learning environments in developing countries: A structural equation modeling approach. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 3(1), 54.Google Scholar
  48. Tarhini, A., Hone, K., Liu, X., & Tarhini, T. (2017). Examining the moderating effect of individual-level cultural values on users’ acceptance of E-learning in developing countries: A structural equation modeling of an extended technology acceptance model. Interactive Learning Environments, 25(3), 306–328.Google Scholar
  49. Taylor, S., & Todd, P. A. (1995). Understanding information technology usage: A test of competing models. Information Systems Research, 6(2), 144–176.Google Scholar
  50. Teo, T. (2008). Pre-service teachers’ attitudes towards computer use: A Singapore survey. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology. Scholar
  51. Teo, T. (2012). Examining the intention to use technology among pre-service teachers: An integration of the technology acceptance model and theory of planned behavior. Interactive Learning Environments, 20(1), 3–18. Scholar
  52. Teo, T., Doleck, T., & Bazelais, P. (2017). The role of attachment in Facebook usage: A study of Canadian college students. Interactive Learning Environments, 5, 6. Scholar
  53. Teo, T., & Fan, X. (2013). Coefficient alpha and beyond: Issues and alternatives for educational research. Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 22(2), 209–213.Google Scholar
  54. Teo, T., & Noyes, J. (2011). An assessment of the influence of perceived enjoyment and attitude on the intention to use technology among pre-service teachers: A structural equation modeling approach. Computers & Education, 57(2), 1645–1653. Scholar
  55. Teo, T., & Van Schalk, P. (2009). Understanding technology acceptance in pre-service teachers: A structural-equation modeling approach. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 18(1), 45. Scholar
  56. The World Bank. (2017). Data Nepal. Retrieved 22 July 2017, from
  57. UNESCO. (2015). Education for all: National Review report (pp. 1–125). Kathmandu, Nepal: UNESCO. Retrieved from
  58. Venkatesh, V. (2000). Determinants of perceived ease of use: Integrating control, intrinsic motivation, and emotion into the technology acceptance model. Information Systems Research, 11(4), 342–365. Scholar
  59. Venkatesh, V. (2006). Where to go from here? Thoughts on future directions for research on individual-level technology adoption with a focus on decision making. Decision Sciences, 37(4), 497–518. Scholar
  60. Venkatesh, V., & Bala, H. (2008). Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on interventions. Decision Sciences, 39(2), 273–315. Scholar
  61. Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (1996). A model of the antecedents of perceived ease of use: Development and test. Decision Sciences, 27, 451–481.Google Scholar
  62. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478.Google Scholar
  63. Williams, M., Rana, N., & Dwivedi, Y. (2015). The unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT): A literature review. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 28(3), 443–488. Scholar
  64. Wodon, Q. (2015). Technology in the classroom: Learning from OLE Nepal|global partnership for education. Retrieved 23 July 2017, from

Copyright information

© Association for Educational Communications and Technology 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Timothy Teo
    • 1
  • Tenzin Doleck
    • 2
    Email author
  • Paul Bazelais
    • 3
  • David John Lemay
    • 3
  1. 1.Murdoch UniversityMurdochAustralia
  2. 2.University of Southern CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA
  3. 3.McGill UniversityMontrealCanada

Personalised recommendations