The Impact of Employability on Technology Acceptance in Students: Findings from Coventry University London

Aaron Taylor


This article seeks to understand impact of employability on technology acceptance in students from a constructivist perspective.

The growing significance of technology usage in academia prompted this research as well as the need to understand if the technologies that I and my colleagues use on a regular basis were successful in engaging learners. It was imperative to understand if we were meeting the expectations of our students as well as Coventry University London which has invested a great deal into their implementation.

Therefore, 20 students from Coventry University London were interviewed to uncover their thoughts and experiences into their acceptance and ultimate use of learning technologies. These students were interviewed over a two-year period (2016-2017) in order to capture accurate data and keep pace with the ever-evolving and arguably ephemeral nature of technology. Students also participated in focus groups after each set of interviews in order to explore relevant issues in greater depth. The Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) was then applied to ascertain if employability was a significant variable in influencing technology acceptance. It was important to understand if the learning technologies utilised by academics were able to help students gain employment and be successful in their chosen occupations.

The empirical data confirmed the view that learning technologies which had a positive perceived benefit in enhancing employability outcomes play a significant role in engaging an array of international students in their studies.

These findings arguably demonstrate the need for the institution to reconfigure and enhance the clarity of its technology-enhanced learning strategy as well as its level of support to teaching staff. This proposal will allow academics to have sufficient opportunity to effectively utilise and apply learning technologies as part of their own individual pedagogical strategy and students to improve their employability skills as a result.


Technology acceptance; TAM; international postgraduate students; academics; employability; learning technologies; constructivism

Full Text:



Acharya, A. S., Prakash, A., Saxena, P. and Nigam, A. (2013). Sampling: Why and how of it. Indian Journal of Medical Specialities, 4(2), pp. 330-333.

Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In J. Kuhl & J. Beckmann (Eds.), Action control: From cognition to behavior. Berlin, Heidelber, New York: Springer-Verlag, pp. 11-39.

Babbie, E.R. (2007). Survey Research Methods (2nd edition). Wadsworth Cengage Learning.

Bhattacherjee, A. and Premkumar, G. (2004). Understanding changes in belief and attitude toward information technology usage: A theoretical model and longitudinal test. MIS quarterly, pp. 229-254.

Breen, L.J. (2007). The researcher ‘in the middle’: negotiating the insider/outsider dichotomy. The Australian Community Psychologist, 19(1), pp. 163-174.

Bryman, A. and Bell, E. (2011). Business Research Methods. Oxford University Press.

Coventry University Learning and Assessment Strategy. (2015). Link: [Accessed 21st May 2018].

Creswell, J. W. (2012) Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Sage.

Crotty, M. (1998). The Foundations of Social Research. Sage: UK.

Davis, F.D. (1989) Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), pp. 319–340.

Davis, F.D., Bagozzi, R.P. Warshaw, P.R. (1989). User acceptance of computer Technology: a comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35(8), pp. 982–1003.

Edmunds, R., Thorpe, M. and Conole, G. (2012). Student attitudes towards and use of ICT in course study, work and social activity: a technology acceptance model approach. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(1) pp. 71–84.

Etikan, I., Musa, S. A. and Alkassim, R. S. (2016). Comparison of convenience sampling and purposive sampling. American Journal of Theoretical and Applied Statistics, 5(1), 1-4.

Fink, A. and Kosekoff, J. (1985) How to conduct surveys: A step-by-step guide, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

JISC (2017a). Develop your students’ employability skills through technology. Available from: [Accessed 27th March, 2018].

JISC (2017b). Higher education students not prepared for digital workplace. Available from: [Accessed 26th March, 2018].

King, W. R. and He, J. (2006). A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model. Information & management, 43(6), pp. 740-755.

Kirkwood, A. and Price, L. (2014). 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), pp. 1–45.

Lai, K-W and Smith, L. (2017). Socio-demographic factors relating to perception and use of mobile technologies in tertiary teaching. British Journal of Educational Technology, pp 1-13.

Lincoln, Y. and Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. London: Sage.

Mercer, J. (2007). The challenges of insider research in educational institutions: wielding a double‐edged sword and resolving delicate dilemmas. Oxford Review of Education, 33(1), pp1-17.

Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in Education. Revised and Expanded from Case Study Research in Education. Jossey-Bass.

Newman, T. and Beetham, H. (2017). Student digital experience tracker 2017: the voice of 22,000 UK learners. Link: [Accessed 21st May, 2018].

Paley, J. and Lilford, R. (2011). Qualitative methods: an alternative view. British Medical Journal, 342, pp. 956-958.

Perryman, J. (2011). The return of the native: the blurred boundaries of insider/outsider research in an English secondary school. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 24(7), pp. 857-874.

Polit, D.F., Beck, C.T., & Hungler, B.P. (2001) Essentials of nursing research: Methods, appraisal, and utilisation (5th edition) Philadelphia: Lippincott.

Robson, C. (2011). Real world research: a resource for users of social research methods in applied settings. Wiley: Chichester.

Saunders, M., Lewis, P., and Thornhill, A. (2007). Research Methods for Business Students (4th edition). Pearson Education Limited.

Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Sage.

The Guardian University League Tables (2018). Link: [Accessed 9th June, 2018].

Venkatesh, V. and Davis, F.D. (2000). A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies. Management Science, 46(2), pp. 186–204.

Walker, R., Voce, J., Nicholls, J., Swift, E., Ahmed, J., Horrigan, S. and Vincent, P. (2014). 2014 Survey of technology enhanced learning for higher education in the UK. Oxford: Universities and Colleges Information Systems Association. Link: [Accessed 7th June, 2018].

Walker, R., Jenkins, M. and Voce, J. (2017). The rhetoric and reality of technology-enhanced learning developments in UK higher education: reflections on recent UCISA research findings (2012–2016), Interactive Learning Environments, pp1-12.

Yin, R. K. (2002). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.


  • There are currently no refbacks.

Copyright (c) 2018 Aaron Taylor