ZAHER ATWA (P 71592)

NAWAL MUSTAFA (P 59223)

SITI HASHIDAH BINTI MOHD NASIR (P 66513)

UNIVERSITI KEBANGSAAN
MALAYSIA
FAKULTI PENDIDIKAN
GGGB6323 ANALYSIS DATA
SEMESTER 2 2013/2014
INTRODUCTION


OPERATIONAL DEFINITION OF ICT
UNESCO Institute for Information Technologies in Education, 2003
audiocassette tapes, radio, videotapes, CD-ROM, the Internet, wireline
technology, wireless technology, web-based training, audioconferencing,
audiographics, interactive television, videoconferencing

Toomey, 2001
technologies that are used for accessing, gathering, manipulating and
presenting or communicating information which could include hardware
(e.g. computers and other devices); software applications; and
connectivity (e.g. access to the Internet, local networking infrastructure,
videoconferencing) as well as the increasing convergence
of computer-based, multimedia and communications technologies and
the rapid rate of change that characterises both the technologies and
their use


ISSUES IN ICT USAGE
Gender disparities in ICT usage
More males using ICT (Horvat, Oreski &
Markic, 2011, Madell & Muncer, 2004)
Nachimas, Moiduser & Shemla, 2000,
Sherman et. al., 2000)

OBJECTIVES
1. To find out the extent of ICT usage among
graduate students in UKM
2. To find out the level of acceptance of ICT
among graduate students in UKM

RESEARCH QUESTIONS
1. What is the extent of usage of ICT among
graduate students in UKM in their academic
life?
2. What is the acceptance level of ICT among
graduate students in UKM?


HYPOTHESIS
1. There is no difference between male and
female graduate students of UKM in using
ICT
2. There is no difference between Malaysia
and non-Malaysian graduate students of
UKM in using ICT

VALIDITY & REALIBILITY
UTAUT Unified Theory of Acceptance and
Use of Technology (Venkatesh et al., 2003)

RESEARCH MODEL THEORY
Venkatesh et al. (2003)
DATA COLLECTION
Sampling of population convenience
sampling
Due to researchers time constraints
Limited access to large number of samples


DATA INPUT
The data was checked and screened for any
errors.
Negatively worded items were recoded.
Regrouped into 5 constructs


DATA ANALYSIS

ICT ACCEPTANCE SCALES
Performance expectancy (PE1-4),
Effort expectancy (EE5-8),
Social influence (SI9-12),
Facilitating condition (FC13-20)
Behavioral intention (BI21-23).


DATA ANALYSIS: RELIABILITY
Reliability and consistency of the scale (Chronbachs alpha coefficient)

Performanc
e
expectancy
Effort
expectancy
Social
influenc
e
Facilitatin
g
condition
Behavio
ral
intentio
n
ICT
Acceptan
ce
() 0.835 0.876 0.804 .790 .946 .821
Mean
4.03 3.89 3.76
3.98 3.66 3.94
Std.
Deviation
.81629 .84976 .68403 .58004 .93036 .60641
**Mean 4.32 3.87 3.03 3.75 3.31
**Std.
Deviation
.665 .562 .300 .592 .465
**Oye et al (2011)
DATA ANALYSIS: RELIABILITY
Reliability and consistency of the scale (Chronbachs alpha coefficient)

Performanc
e
expectancy
Effort
expectancy
Social
influenc
e
Facilitatin
g
condition
Behavio
ral
intentio
n
ICT
Acceptan
ce
() 0.835 0.876 0.804 .790 .946 .821
Mean
4.03 3.89 3.76
3.98 3.66 3.94
Std.
Deviation
.81629 .84976 .68403 .58004 .93036 .60641
**Mean 4.32 3.87 3.03 3.75 3.31
**Std.
Deviation
.665 .562 .300 .592 .465
**Oye et al (2011)
All the scales are reliable and consistent with
their samples.
(>0.7) for each one, although the number of
the sample is less than 10 per each.

DATA ANALYSIS: ACCEPTANCE
Reliability and consistency of the scale (Chronbachs alpha coefficient)

Performanc
e
expectancy
Effort
expectancy
Social
influenc
e
Facilitatin
g
condition
Behavio
ral
intentio
n
ICT
Acceptan
ce
() 0.835 0.876 0.804 .790 .946 .821
Mean
4.03 3.89 3.76
3.98 3.66 3.94
Std.
Deviation
.81629 .84976 .68403 .58004 .93036 .60641
**Mean 4.32 3.87 3.03 3.75 3.31
**Std.
Deviation
.665 .562 .300 .592 .465
**Oye et al (2011)
Among the UTAUT constructs, performance expectancy exerted the
strongest effect.
Therefore Performance expectancy is the most influential factor for
the acceptance and use of ICT by the UKM Graduate Students.
DATA ANALYSIS: ACCEPTANCE
Reliability and consistency of the scale (Chronbachs alpha coefficient)

Performanc
e
expectancy
Effort
expectancy
Social
influenc
e
Facilitatin
g
condition
Behavio
ral
intentio
n
ICT
Acceptan
ce
() 0.835 0.876 0.804 .790 .946 .821
Mean
4.03 3.89 3.76
3.98 3.66 3.94
Std.
Deviation
.82 .85 .68 .58 .93 .60641
**Mean 4.32 3.87 3.03 3.75 3.31
**Std.
Deviation
.67 .56 .30 .59 .47
This result is consistent with Oye et al (2011) study which
conducted in Nigeria University. Performance expectancy has
the strongest effect and is the most influential factor for the
acceptance and use of ICT by the UKM Graduate Students.
**Oye et al (2011). Awareness, Adoption and Acceptance of ICT Innovation in Higher Education Institutions,
International Journal of Engineering Research and Applications (IJERA):1(4), pp.1393-1409
CORRELATIONS
Performa
nce
expectan
cy
Effort
expecta
ncy
Social
influenc
e
Facilitating
condition
Behavioral
intention
Perform
ance
expecta
ncy
Pearson
Correlation
1 .755
**
.671
**
.549
**
.230
Sig. (2-tailed)

.000 .000 .000 .133
N 44 44 44 44 44
Effort
expecta
ncy
Pearson
Correlation
.755
**
1 .737
**
.702
**
.323
*

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

.000 .000 .033
Social
influenc
e
Pearson
Correlation
.671
**
.737
**
1 .557
**
.305
*

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000

.000 .044
Facilitati
ng
conditio
n
Pearson
Correlation
.549
**
.702
**
.557
**
1 .278
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000

.068
Behavior
al
intention
Pearson
Correlation
.230 .323
*
.305
*
.278 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .133 .033 .044 .068

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
Correlation is positive for all of them,, small r=.10 to .29,,, medium r=.30 to .49,,, large r=.50 to 1.0
DATA ANALYSIS: GENDER SIGNIFICANT
No significant difference concerning gender
Group Statistics

Gende
r
N Mean Std.
Deviation
Std. Error
Mean
ICT Acceptance
Male 23 3.9506 .58547 .12208
Femal
e
20 3.9341 .65944 .14745
Independent Samples Test
Levene's Test for
Equality of
Variances
t-test for Equality of Means
F Sig. t df Sig. (2-
tailed)
Mean
Difference
Std. Error
Difference
95% Confidence Interval of the
Difference
Lower Upper
I
C
T

A
c
c
e
p
t
a
n
c
e

Equal
variances
assumed
.000 .993 .087 41 .931 .01650 .18982
-
.366
84
.399
85
Equal
variances not
assumed

.086
38.39
4
.932 .01650 .19143
-
.370
90
.403
90
DATA ANALYSIS: NATIONALITY SIGNIFICANT
No significant difference concerning Nationality
Group Statistics

Nationality N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error
Mean
ICT Acceptance (B1-
23)
Malaysian 13 4.0699 .40470 .11224
Non Malaysian 25 3.8891 .70578 .14116
Independent Samples Test
Levene's Test
for Equality of
Variances
t-test for Equality of Means
F Sig. t df Sig. (2-
tailed)
Mean
Differenc
e
Std.
Error
Differenc
e
95%
Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Lower Uppe
r
I
C
T

A
c
c
e
p
t
a
n
c
e


Equal
variance
s
assumed
3.594
.066
>0.05

.850 36 .401 .18084 .21263 -.25039
.612
07
Equal
variance
s not
assumed

1.003 35.533 .323 .18084 .18034 -.18508
.546
76
DATA ANALYSIS: MARITAL STATUS SIGNIFICANT
There is significant difference concerning Marital
Status.
Group Statistics

MaritalStat
us
N Mean Std.
Deviation
Std. Error
Mean
ICT Acceptance
Single 23 4.1285 .48796 .10175
Married 21 3.7359 .66644 .14543
Independent Samples Test
Levene's
Test for
Equality of
Variances
t-test for Equality of Means
F Sig. t df Sig.
(2-
tailed)
Mean
Differe
nce
Std. Error
Differenc
e
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Lower Upper
I
C
T

A
c
c
e
p
t
a
n
c
e

Equal
variance
s
assume
d
1.76
8
.191 2.23 42 .030 .3925 .17501 .03935 .74571
Equal
variance
s not
assume
d

2.22 36.45 .033 .3925 .17749 .03272 .75234
Thanks You
Terima Kasih