Strides in Development of Medical Education

Document Type : Original Article


Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran


Background Today knowledge and information sharing by means of new technologies among university students and faculty members is important. Therefore, it is necessary to identify factors which influence knowledge sharing among university students. Objectives The main purpose of the present study was to examine the role of technology acceptance in improving knowledge sharing among students of Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran. Methods In this applied research, a descriptive-analytic cross-sectional study was used. The study sample consisted of 228 medical students from Shiraz University of Medical Sciences. The data collection tools included two questionnaires, i.e., technology acceptance (Toe, 2011) and knowledge sharing (Van den Hoof & Van Weenen, 2004) questionnaires. The validity of these scales in terms of form and content was examined by experts in the field, and their reliability was confirmed by measuring Cronbach’s alpha coefficients. The reliability of technology acceptance and knowledge sharing questionnaires was 0.83 and 0.72, respectively. After confirming the validity and reliability of the questionnaires, they were distributed among the participants. Finally, the collected data were analyzed using one-sample -test and Pearson’s correlation coefficient test in SPSS and structural equation modeling (SEM) in Lisrel 8.8. Results The results of one-sample -test showed that the levels of technology acceptance and knowledge sharing were higher than the acceptable level among medical students. In addition, the results of Pearson’s correlation test indicated a significant positive relationship between technology acceptance (and its components) and knowledge sharing. In addition, SEM showed that technology acceptance is a significant positive predictor of knowledge sharing among students. Among different components of technology acceptance, only perceived usefulness (PU) and facilitating conditions (FC) were significant predictors of knowledge collecting (P = 0.37 and 0.28, respectively). Nevertheless, other components of technology acceptance could not predict different types of knowledge sharing. Conclusions The present results showed that PU and FC could predict the knowledge sharing of students more than other components. To improve knowledge sharing in the context of higher medical education, different aspects of technology acceptance need to be evaluated and expanded; accordingly, establishment of new educational policies is necessary.


  1. Koushazade SA, Omidianpoor S, Zohurian M. The impact of organizational factors on the effectiveness of knowledge management among nurses. Int J Hospital Res. 2015;4(3):129–35.
  2. Sohail MS, Daud S. Knowledge sharing in higher education institutions: Perspectives from Malaysia. Vine. 2009;39(2):125–42.
  3. Sa’adati Azar A, Nasiri MJ, Nasiri S. Knowledge sharing: The key factors in the success of knowledge management system in the organizational health of the employees working in the public universities of Tehran. Manag Issue Healthcare Sys. 2016;2:34–42. doi:10.19259/mihs.2016.01.04.
  4. Shaheen M, Panchapakesan Kumari C. Role of knowledge sharing in the learning process. Literacy Inf Comput Educ J. 2013;Special 2(1):1292–8. doi: 10.20533/licej.2040.2589.2013.0171.
  5. Liao C, Wang HY, Chuang SH, Shih ML, Liu CC. Enhancing knowledge management for RD innovation and firm performance: An integrative view. Afr J Bus Manag. 2010;4(14):3026–38.
  6. Chin Wei C, Siong Choy C, Geok Chew G, Yee Yen Y. Knowledge sharing patterns of undergraduate students. Libr Rev. 2012;61(5):327–44. doi:10.1108/00242531211280469.
  7. Kim D. The effects of knowledge sharing on program performance: Influences on CPS program performance [dissertation]. Virginia Tech; 2011.
  8. Chong CW, Teh PL, Tan BC. Knowledge sharing among Malaysian universities’ students: Do personality traits, class room and technological factors matter? Educ Stud. 2013;40(1):1–25. doi:10.1080/03055698.2013.825577.
  9. Meddour H, Abdul Majid AM, Yusoff RZ. The impact of information technology and networks on knowledge transfer and sharing: The mediating role of trust. World J Manag Behav Stud. 2016;4(1):31–40. doi:10.5829/idosi.wjmbs.2016.4.1.1326.
  10. Zhang X, Chen Z, Vogel D, Yuan M, Guo C. Knowledge-sharing reward dynamics in knowledge management systems: Game theory-based empirical validation. Hum Factor Ergon Man. 2010; 20(2): 103–22. doi:10.1002/hfm.20203.
  11. Zhang X, de Pablos PO, Xu Q. Culture effects on the knowledge sharing in multi-national virtual classes: A mixed method.Comput Hum Behav.2014;31:491–8. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2013.04.021.
  12. Al-Hawamdeh S. Knowledge management: Cultivating knowledge professionals. Oxford: Chandos Pub; 2003. doi: 10.1533/9781780631936.
  13. Razmerita L, Kirchner K, Nielsen P. What factors influence knowledge sharing in organizations? A social dilemma perspective of social media communication. J Knowl Manag. 2016;20(6):1225–46. doi:10.1108/jkm-03-2016-0112.
  14. Riege A. Three-dozen knowledge-sharing barriers managers must consider. J Knowl Manag. 2005;9(3):18–35. doi:10.1108/13673270510602746.
  15. Ong HB, Yeap PF, Tan SH, Chong LL. Factors influencing knowledge sharing among undergraduate students. Ind High Educ. 2011;25(2):133–40. doi: 10.5367/ihe.2011.0035.
  16. Hussein ARH, Nassuora AB. Jordanian student’s attitudes and perceptions towards knowledge sharing in institutions of higher education. Int J Acad Res. 2011;3(4):401–5.
  17. Majid S, Chitra PK. Role of knowledge sharing in the learning process. Literacy Inf Comput Educ J. 2013;Special 2(1):1292–8. doi:10.20533/licej.2040.2589.2013.0171.
  18. Fullwood R, Rowley J, Delbridge R. Knowledge sharing amongst academics in UK universities. J Knowl Manag. 2013;17(1):123–36. doi:10.1108/13673271311300831.
  19. van den Hooff B, Schouten AP, Simonovski S. What one feels and what one knows: The influence of emotions on attitudes and intentions towards knowledge sharing. J Knowl Manag. 2012;16(1):148–58. doi:10.1108/13673271211198990.
  20. Papadopoulos T, Stamati T, Nopparuch P. Exploring the determinants of knowledge sharing via employee weblogs. Int J Inform Manage. 2013;33(1):133–46. doi: 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2012.08.002.
  21. Siang JJ, Santoso HB. Students’perspective of learning management system: An empirical evidence of technology acceptance model in emerging countries. Res World. 2015;6(2):1.
  22. Teo T. Factors influencing teachers’ intention to use technology: Model development and test. Comput Educ. 2011;57(4):2432–40. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.06.008.
  23. Ajzen I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ Behav Hum Dec. 1991;50(2):179–211. doi:10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-t.
  24. Venkatesh V, Morris MG, Davis GB, Davis FD. User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quart. 2003;27(3):425.doi: 10.2307/30036540.
  25. Mehdipour Y, Ebrahimi S, Alipour J, Karimi A, Tabatabei F. [Determinants of physicians’ technology acceptance for e-health in healthcare setting]. J Health Biomed Inf. 2016;3(2):92–9. Persian.
  26. Kahrizsangi P, Rahimi Q, Zamani Nukabadi A. [A study of determinant factors of new information technology acceptance in sport and youth general office in Isfahan province based on TAM model]. Sport Manag. 2017;9(1):115–27. Persian.
  27. Ajam AA, Badnava S, Sabery R, Zabihi Hesary NK. [Anticipation of e-learning acceptance through nursing student’s enthusiasm scale at Gonabad University of Medical Sciences in 2015]. J Med Educ Dev. 2017;11(4):330–9. Persian.
  1. Venkatesh V, Davis FD. A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Manag Sci.2000;46(2):186–204. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.
  2. Bollen KA. Structural equations with latent variables. New York: John Wiley; 1989.
  3. Doloi H, Iyer KC, Sawhney A. Structural equation model for assessing impacts of contractor’s performance on project success. Int J Proj Manag. 2011;29(6):687–95. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2010.05.007.
  4. Singh R. Does my structural model represent the real phenomenon?: A review of the appropriate use of structural equation modelling (SEM) model fit indices. Market Rev. 2009;9(3):199–212. doi:10.1362/146934709x467767.
  5. Hair JF, Sarstedt M, Ringle CM, Mena JA. An assessment of the use of partial least squares structural equation modeling in marketing research. J Acad Market Sci. 2011;40(3):414–33. doi: 10.1007/s11747-011-0261-6.
  6. Bagozzi RP, Yi Y. Specification, evaluation, and interpretation of structural equation models. J Acad Market Sci. 2011;40(1):8–34. doi:10.1007/s11747-011-0278-x.
  7. Chinda T, Mohamed S. Structural equation model of construction safety culture. Eng Constr Archit Manag. 2008;15(2):114–31. doi:10.1108/09699980810852655.
  8. Marsh HW, Hau K, Grayson D. Goodness of fit in structural equation models. In: Maydeu-Olivares A, McArdle JJ, editors. Contemporary psychometrics. Mahwah, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Pub; 2005.p. 275–340.
  9. Hernández B, Jiménez J, Martín MJ. Extending the technology acceptance model to include the IT decision-maker: A study of business management software. Technovation. 2008;28(3):112–21. doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2007.11.002.
  10. Mastari Farahani F, Rezaei Sharif A, Ostadhasanloo H. [Obstacles of using information and communication technology in learningteaching process]. Educ Strategy Med Sci. 2012;5(1):15–21. Persian.
  11. Shoaei F, Alavi T. [The factors influencing technology acceptance among library users in technology faculties at Tehran’s governmental universities]. Libr Inf Sci. 2007;10(3):9–34. Persian.
  12. Mirasadollah Lajrod L, Alipour Darvish Z. [Organizational factors affecting knowledge sharing within group (case study: Offices of the Central Building of BSI)]. Educ Res J. 2014;1(29):62–78. Persian.
  13. Gunawan S, Shieh CJ. A study on the effects of knowledge share in virtual community on creative teaching behaviors and teacher efficacy. Eurasia J Math Sci Tech Educ. 2016;12(4):1101–13. doi:10.12973/eurasia.2016.1553a.
  14. Zaqout F, Abbas M. Towards a model for understanding the influence of the factors that stimulate university students’ engagement and performance in knowledge sharing. Libr Rev. 2012;61(5):345–61. doi:10.1108/00242531211280478.