Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
From a research perspective, other support resources (outside of the help desk) that are available
and utilized by users require investigation. In everyday computer usage, specific attention needs to
be paid to how CSE influences support resource choice when users experience technical problems
or require assistance and in how CSE develops along with learning and other factors depending on
the support resource used.
Summary
This section has recounted the range of research that explores the development of computer self-
efficacy in various contexts related to users' computer software learning processes within organi-
zations. The ongoing programs of research presented addressed the development of CSE in
environments such as formal training, self-directed learning, new technology implementation, and
enterprise-wide information systems support. Each of these learning opportunities within organi-
zations represents a situation where CSE has been demonstrated to be an important influence to be
considered. While still ongoing, and thus not conclusive, these programs of research present initial
results that further our understanding of how CSE is developed, and how various organizational
activities (such as training, support, technology introduction) ought to be designed and managed.
FUTURE DIRECTIONS
In undertaking this extensive review of computer self-efficacy within the IS field, we have uncov-
ered a wide variety of fruitful areas for future research. In this section we summarize these
avenues according to the key dimensions of this review.
Definition and Measurement of CSE
Our review concluded that opportunities exist for future research in the fundamental area of com-
puter self-efficacy definition and measurement. Specifically, future research is required to empir-
ically test the conceptual development in the work of Marakas et al. (1998). Their discussion of
the generality and specificity of self-efficacy suggests the need to study the evolution of both and
how they are related to each other. Given their theorization, the question remains, is GCSE a
weighted average of a collection of SCSE, or is it something different? Also, how are these two
levels of CSE related to individual technology performances and outcomes?
Furthermore, the relationship between the task that individuals are attempting to accomplish
and their efficacy towards the technology that they use in its accomplishment requires further
study. As this review highlights, Bandura (1997) argues that SE must be specific to the task. In
MIS research we have largely assumed that the task and the technology used are undifferentiated.
Thus we have tended to study the influence of, for example, Lotus 123 self-efficacy and Windows
95 self-efficacy (Agarwal et al., 2000a) as if these were the “tasks” that the user is attempting to
accomplish rather than more task-oriented activities such as “creating a financial model” using
Lotus 123 or “creating an effective file structure” using Windows 95. In today's world of increas-
ingly integrated and multi-functional software programs, it seems particularly important to theo-
rize and empirically examine the relationship between task and technology in the formation and
influence of CSE. These arguments regarding task domain and technology domain are important
to our future development of the CSE concept and our understanding of its influences on user
behavior in organizations. They remind us of the need to carefully examine the definition of CSE
and the domain in which it is measured.
Search WWH ::




Custom Search