that at high awareness this relationship (0.035 at p = 0.703)
is insignificant. However, at low awareness, this relationship
is significant (0.272 at p = 0.000). This implies that the
instructors having low awareness give more importance to
ease of use (effort expectancy) of the technology. However,
ease of use becomes irrelevant at high-awareness levels.
Secondly, the awareness moderates the effect of SI on BI
(t = 2.774***, p < 0.01). At high awareness this relationship (t = 0.330 at p = 0.000) is significant. At low awareness this relationship is also insignificant (t = 0.008 at
p = 0.8977). Interestingly, high awareness has a stronger
impact on the relationship between SI and BI. This implies
that with the improved level of awareness, the impact of SI
on BI will be higher. Thirdly, the awareness moderates the
effect of M on BI (t = 1.666*, p < 0.10). At high awareness
this relationship (0.228 at p = 0.000) is significant. However, for low awareness, this relationship is mildly significant (0.088 at p = 0.109). This infers that the instructors
having high awareness will have a stronger relationship
between M and BI than the instructor having low awareness.
In other words, high awareness influences the motivational
level of the instructors on behavioral intention to use LMS in
their teaching. Literature shows that the lack of awareness of
the LMS usage exists in higher educational institutions
(HEI). Lack of awareness is considered one of the barriers to
technology adoption (Shannak, 2013). The results also
revealed that among the instructors who are even aware of
the LMS, a large number of the instructors are the light users
of the LMS. Therefore, it can be assumed that the instructors
use LMS, they used its very basic functions, or they use the
LMS only for posting the grades, which is mandatory from
higher management. This shows that although there is
awareness of the LMS, it is of a low level. These results
demonstrate that the instructors use the LMS but they are
utilizing a limited number of features.
8.5.4 Cultural Dimensions as the Moderator
of LMS Adoption
Here we address the question: To what extent (if any) does
cultural dimensions (such as PD, IND, MASC, and UA),
moderate the relationship between independent variables
(PE, EE, SI, FC, HM, and H) and ‘behavioral intention’ to
use the LMS?
In this study, Hofstede’s cultural dimensions (i.e. power
distance, individualism/collectivism, masculinity, and
uncertainty avoidance) were used as the moderators
(Al-Gahtani et al., 2007; Baptista & Oliveira, 2015) of LMS
adoption. The following section will discuss the impact of
four cultural dimensions on instructors’ behavioral intuition
to adopt an LMS.
(a) Power Distance as Moderating Variable: It was
found that the presence of power distance (PD) in a
society moderates the instructor’s behavioral intention
to adopt an LMS. Furthermore, the path-by-path test
exhibited that PD moderates three paths (i.e. SI!BI,
M!BI, and FC!BI). The finding of this study is
similar to researchers such as (Al-Gahtani et al., 2007;
Baptista & Oliveira, 2015; Im, Il Hong, & Seongtae
Kang, 2011), but other researchers such as (Nistor et al.,
2014; Yoon, 2009), found that PD does not behave as a
moderator of behavioral intention. It is evident from the
results that this society is lacking in the adoption of an
LMS. The finding that shows Arabs’ society possesses a
high PD value in the educational environment. As
shown in Fig. 4.2, the PD of Saudi Arabia is high
(95) as compared to the UK (35). This implies that in a
high PD society the subordinates are told (ordered) to
do their jobs and the boss is an autocrat (Al-Gahtani
et al., 2007). This shows that a society having a high PD
gives more importance to social norms, values, and
traditions, which in turn affect the adoption of an LMS.
Hence, the results of quantitative results, supported by
the previous literature, prove that the power distance
exists in the society and it moderates the behavioral
intention to use new technology. Thus, it can be
established that PD is present in the higher educational
institutions of Arab culture that may lead to the lower
adoption of the LMS. The existence of the PD is an
indication of the low adoption of the LMS.
(b) Individualism/collectivism (IND) as Moderator: At
the model level, the overall moderation test showed that
there is no moderating impact of individualism (IND).
The finding of this study is inconsistent with Nistor
et al. (2014) but consistent with Yoon (2009), who
found that IND has no moderating impact between
independent and dependent variables. Hofstede (1980)
stated that in greater individualistic societies, an individual is least concerned with the beliefs of other people
and, hence, he is less worried to follow any specific
behavior of the society. As shown in Fig. 4.2, the IND
value for Saudi Arabia is 25, whereas the IND value of
the UK is 89. The low value of the individualism index
for KSA refers to a culture where collective opinions
are more important. In other words, the collective
opinions of a group of people have a significant impact
on individual behavioral intentions, showing that there
is a positive correlation between subjective norm and
behavioral influence (Al-Gahtani et al., 2007). The
individual is more worried about the opinions of others
and hence follows the behavior that is more important
to the group. In this kind of culture, loyalty is more
dominant, and it overrides most other social rules and
8.5 Demographics and Cultural Dimensions
77
is insignificant. However, at low awareness, this relationship
is significant (0.272 at p = 0.000). This implies that the
instructors having low awareness give more importance to
ease of use (effort expectancy) of the technology. However,
ease of use becomes irrelevant at high-awareness levels.
Secondly, the awareness moderates the effect of SI on BI
(t = 2.774***, p < 0.01). At high awareness this relationship (t = 0.330 at p = 0.000) is significant. At low awareness this relationship is also insignificant (t = 0.008 at
p = 0.8977). Interestingly, high awareness has a stronger
impact on the relationship between SI and BI. This implies
that with the improved level of awareness, the impact of SI
on BI will be higher. Thirdly, the awareness moderates the
effect of M on BI (t = 1.666*, p < 0.10). At high awareness
this relationship (0.228 at p = 0.000) is significant. However, for low awareness, this relationship is mildly significant (0.088 at p = 0.109). This infers that the instructors
having high awareness will have a stronger relationship
between M and BI than the instructor having low awareness.
In other words, high awareness influences the motivational
level of the instructors on behavioral intention to use LMS in
their teaching. Literature shows that the lack of awareness of
the LMS usage exists in higher educational institutions
(HEI). Lack of awareness is considered one of the barriers to
technology adoption (Shannak, 2013). The results also
revealed that among the instructors who are even aware of
the LMS, a large number of the instructors are the light users
of the LMS. Therefore, it can be assumed that the instructors
use LMS, they used its very basic functions, or they use the
LMS only for posting the grades, which is mandatory from
higher management. This shows that although there is
awareness of the LMS, it is of a low level. These results
demonstrate that the instructors use the LMS but they are
utilizing a limited number of features.
8.5.4 Cultural Dimensions as the Moderator
of LMS Adoption
Here we address the question: To what extent (if any) does
cultural dimensions (such as PD, IND, MASC, and UA),
moderate the relationship between independent variables
(PE, EE, SI, FC, HM, and H) and ‘behavioral intention’ to
use the LMS?
In this study, Hofstede’s cultural dimensions (i.e. power
distance, individualism/collectivism, masculinity, and
uncertainty avoidance) were used as the moderators
(Al-Gahtani et al., 2007; Baptista & Oliveira, 2015) of LMS
adoption. The following section will discuss the impact of
four cultural dimensions on instructors’ behavioral intuition
to adopt an LMS.
(a) Power Distance as Moderating Variable: It was
found that the presence of power distance (PD) in a
society moderates the instructor’s behavioral intention
to adopt an LMS. Furthermore, the path-by-path test
exhibited that PD moderates three paths (i.e. SI!BI,
M!BI, and FC!BI). The finding of this study is
similar to researchers such as (Al-Gahtani et al., 2007;
Baptista & Oliveira, 2015; Im, Il Hong, & Seongtae
Kang, 2011), but other researchers such as (Nistor et al.,
2014; Yoon, 2009), found that PD does not behave as a
moderator of behavioral intention. It is evident from the
results that this society is lacking in the adoption of an
LMS. The finding that shows Arabs’ society possesses a
high PD value in the educational environment. As
shown in Fig. 4.2, the PD of Saudi Arabia is high
(95) as compared to the UK (35). This implies that in a
high PD society the subordinates are told (ordered) to
do their jobs and the boss is an autocrat (Al-Gahtani
et al., 2007). This shows that a society having a high PD
gives more importance to social norms, values, and
traditions, which in turn affect the adoption of an LMS.
Hence, the results of quantitative results, supported by
the previous literature, prove that the power distance
exists in the society and it moderates the behavioral
intention to use new technology. Thus, it can be
established that PD is present in the higher educational
institutions of Arab culture that may lead to the lower
adoption of the LMS. The existence of the PD is an
indication of the low adoption of the LMS.
(b) Individualism/collectivism (IND) as Moderator: At
the model level, the overall moderation test showed that
there is no moderating impact of individualism (IND).
The finding of this study is inconsistent with Nistor
et al. (2014) but consistent with Yoon (2009), who
found that IND has no moderating impact between
independent and dependent variables. Hofstede (1980)
stated that in greater individualistic societies, an individual is least concerned with the beliefs of other people
and, hence, he is less worried to follow any specific
behavior of the society. As shown in Fig. 4.2, the IND
value for Saudi Arabia is 25, whereas the IND value of
the UK is 89. The low value of the individualism index
for KSA refers to a culture where collective opinions
are more important. In other words, the collective
opinions of a group of people have a significant impact
on individual behavioral intentions, showing that there
is a positive correlation between subjective norm and
behavioral influence (Al-Gahtani et al., 2007). The
individual is more worried about the opinions of others
and hence follows the behavior that is more important
to the group. In this kind of culture, loyalty is more
dominant, and it overrides most other social rules and
8.5 Demographics and Cultural Dimensions
77