nach oben

Education and Information Technologies

Erschienen in:

07.08.2019

A longitudinal study to understand students’ acceptance of technological reform. When experiences exceed expectations

verfasst von: Annelies Raes, Fien Depaepe

Erschienen in: Education and Information Technologies | Ausgabe 1/2020

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

This study investigates technology acceptance over time of two specific technologies in a university setting, namely interactive quizzes and screen sharing. This topic is investigated in the framework of the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) that includes the perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use and behavioural intention as main concepts. This study also add experience or actual use to this framework. Although previous research investigated the relation between technology acceptance and actual use, no longitudinal study of TAM variables has been previously conducted in the context of interactive quizzes and screen sharing from a student perspective. This study aims to meet this research gap and investigated students’ expectations towards educational technology at the start of the project and students’ experiences with educational technology throughout the academic year. Results reveal that students started out with a positive predisposition to the usefulness, ease of use, and behavioural intention of using educational technology in university settings. The TAM perceptions after experiencing the technology were significantly higher than before using the technology. This was the case for both interactive quizzes and screen sharing technology. The longitudinal results even counter a novelty effect. Although educational reform is also related to organizational processes, students’ acceptance is critical to make sure that technologies might contribute to improve learning and teaching.

Vorheriger Artikel Study of a sequence to stimulate the engagement in one-to-one iPad programs at elementary schools

Nächster Artikel A design-based research approach for developing data-focussed business curricula

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Ajzen, I., & Madden, T. J. (1986). Prediction of goal-directed behavior: Attitudes, intentions, and perceived behavioral control. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 22(5), 453–474.CrossRef

Bhattacherjee, A. (2001). Understanding information systems continuance: An expectation-confirmation model. MIS Quarterly, 25, 351–370.CrossRef

Bhattacherjee, A., & Premkumar, G. (2004). Understanding changes in belief and attitude toward information technology usage: A theoretical model and longitudinal test. MIS Quarterly, 28, 229–254.CrossRef

Burton-Jones, A., & Hubona, G. S. (2006). The mediation of external variables in the technology acceptance model. Information & Management, 43(6), 706–717.CrossRef

Cheng, E. W. L. (2018). Choosing between the theory of planned behavior (TPB) and the technology acceptance model (TAM ). Educational Technology Research and Development., 67, 21–37. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-018-9598-6.CrossRef

Chung, C. W., Lee, C. C., & Liu, C. C. (2013). Investigating face-to-face peer interaction patterns in a collaborative web discovery task: The benefits of a shared display. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29(2), 188–206. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2012.00493.x.CrossRef

Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(1), 319–340.CrossRef

Dobbins, C., & Denton, P. (2017). MyWallMate: An investigation into the use of Mobile Technology in Enhancing Student Engagement. TechTrends, 61(6), 541–549. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-017-0188-y.CrossRef

Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: And introduction to theory and research. MA: Addsion-Wesley Reading.

Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59–109. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001059.CrossRef

Fullan, M. (2007). The new meaning of educational change (4th ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.

Griffin, P., Care, E., & McGaw, B. (2011). The changing role of education and schools. In P. Griffin, B. McGaw, & E. Care (Eds.), Assessment and teaching 21st century skills. Heidelberg: Springer.

Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning. A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. Taylor & Francis.

Hu, P. J. H., Clark, T. H., & Ma, W. W. (2003). Examining technology acceptance by school teachers: A longitudinal study. Information & Management, 41(2), 227–241.CrossRef

Islam, A. K. M. N. (2013). Investigating e-learning system usage outcomes in the university context. Computers and Education, 69, 387–399. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.07.037.CrossRef

Jaffee, D. (1998). Institutionalized resistance to asychronous learning networks. Journal of Asychronous Learning Networks, 2(2), 21–32.

Jahnke, I. (2016). Digital didactical designs: Teaching and learning in CrossActionSpaces. Routledge.

Kay, R. H., & LeSage, A. (2009). A strategic assessment of audience response systems used in higher education. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 25(2), 235–249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.05.001.CrossRef

Kerne, A., Koh, E., Smith, S., Choi, H., Graeber, R., & Webb, A. (2007). Promoting emergence in information discovery by representing collections with composition. In Proceedings of the 6th ACM SIGCHI conference on Creativity & cognition - C&C ‘07 (p. 117). New York, New York, USA: ACM Press. https://doi.org/10.1145/1254960.1254977.

Klem, A. M., & Connell, J. P. (2004). Relationships matter: Linking teacher support to student engagement and achievement. Journal of School Health, 74(7), 262–273. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1746-1561.2004.tb08283.x.CrossRef

Lantz, M. E., & Stawiski, A. (2014). Effectiveness of clickers: Effect of feedback and the timing of questions on learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 31, 280–286. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CHB.2013.10.009.CrossRef

Laurillard, D. (2002). Rethinking University teaching. A conversational framework for the effective use of learning technologies. London: Routledge.CrossRef

Lavrakas, P. J. (2008). Encyclopedia of survey research methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc.. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412963947.CrossRef

Legris, P., Ingham, J., & Collerette, P. (2003). Why do people use information technology? A critical review of the technology acceptance model. Information and Management, 40(3), 191–204. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-7206(01)00143-4.CrossRef

Linn, M. C., & Eylon, B.-S. (2011). Science learning and instruction. Taking advantage of technology to promote knowledge integration. New York: Routledge.CrossRef

Lust, G., Elen, J., & Clarebout, G. (2013). Students’ tool-use within a web enhanced course: Explanatory mechanisms of students’ tool-use pattern. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(5), 2013–2021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.03.014.CrossRef

Mayer, R. E., Stull, A., DeLeeuw, K., Almeroth, K., Bimber, B., Chun, D., Bulger, M., Campbell, J., Knight, A., & Zhang, H. (2009). Clickers in college classrooms: Fostering learning with questioning methods in large lecture classes. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 34(1), 51–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2008.04.002.CrossRef

Nulty, D. D. (2008). The adequacy of response rates to online and paper surveys: What can be done? Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(3), 301–314. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930701293231.CrossRef

Pegrum, M. (2015). Mobile learning: What is it and what are its possibilities (p. 142). Teaching and Digital Technologies: Big Issues and Critical Questions.

Raes A., Vens C., Vanneste P., Depaepe F. (2018). Teaching for versus through problem solving: Impact on teaching and learning. In: Rethinking learning in the digital age: Making the learning sciences count: vol. 1 (408-415). Presented at the International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS) 2018, London, UK. ISBN: 978-1-7324672-0-0.

Raes, A., Vanderhoven, E., & Schellens, T. (2013). Increasing anonymity in peer assessment by using classroom response technology within face-to-face higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 40(1), 178–193. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2013.823930.CrossRef

Raes, A., Vanneste, P., Windey, I., Van den Noortgate, W. & Depaepe, F. (2019). Monitoring student engagement through multimodal analytics to improve learning across spaces. To be presented at the Research Community W000519N – First meeting Workshop Leuven, October 16-18, 2019.

Roschelle, J., Rafanan, K., Bhanot, R., Estrella, G., Penuel, B., Nussbaum, M., & Claro, S. (2010). Scaffolding group explanation and feedback with handheld technology: Impact on students’ mathematics learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(4), 399–419.CrossRef

Scott, S. D., Grant, K. D., & Mandryk, R. L. (2003). System guidelines for co-located, collaborative work on a tabletop display. In ECSCW 2003 (pp. 159–178). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-0068-0_9.CrossRef

Sheeran, P. (2002). Intention—Behavior relations: A conceptual and empirical review. European Review of Social Psychology, 12(1), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/14792772143000003.CrossRef

Spanjers, I. A. E., Könings, K. D., Leppink, J., Verstegen, D. M. L., de Jong, N., Czabanowska, K., & van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2015). The promised land of blended learning: Quizzes as a moderator. Educational Research Review, 15, 59–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2015.05.001.CrossRef

Stahl, G., Koschmann, T., & Suthers, D. D. (2006). Computer-supported collaborative learning: An historical perspective. Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences, 409–426. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139519526.029.

Straub, E. T. (2017). Understanding Technology Adoption: Theory and Future Directions for Informal Learning. Review of Educational Research 79 (2):625-649

Šumak, B., Hericko, M., & Pušnik, M. (2011). A meta-analysis of e-learning technology acceptance: The role of user types and e-learning technology types. Computers in Human Behavior, 27, 2067–2077. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2011.08.005.CrossRef

Sung, Y.-T., Yang, J.-M., & Lee, H.-Y. (2017). The effects of Mobile-computer-supported collaborative learning: Meta-analysis and critical synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 87(4), 768–805. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654317704307.CrossRef

Teo, T. (2009). Is there an attitude problem? Reconsidering the role of attitude in the TAM. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(6), 1139–1141. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2008.00913.x.CrossRef

Turner, M., Kitchenham, B., Brereton, P., Charters, S., & Budgen, D. (2010). Does the technology acceptance model predict actual use? A systematic literature review. Information and Software Technology, 52(5), 463–479. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2009.11.005.CrossRef

Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46, 186–204. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926.CrossRef

Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., & Ackerman, P. L. (2000). A longitudinal field investigation of gender differences in individual technology adoption decision making processes. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 83(1), 33–60.CrossRef

Venkatesh, V., Speier, C., & Morris, M. G. (2002). User acceptance enablers in individual decision making about technology: Toward an integrated model. Decision Sciences, 33(2), 297–316.CrossRef

Yang, J., Schneller, C., & Roche, S. (2015). The Role of Higher Education in Promoting Lifelong Learning The Role of Higher Education in Promoting Lifelong Learning. Retrieved January 2019 from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0023/002335/233592e.pdf

Yun, G. W., & Trumbo, C. W. (2006). Comparative response to a survey executed by post, E-mail, & web form. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2000.tb00112.x.

Zurita, G., & Nussbaum, M. (2007). A conceptual framework based on activity theory for mobile CSCL. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(2), 211–235. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2006.00580.x.CrossRef

Titel: A longitudinal study to understand students’ acceptance of technological reform. When experiences exceed expectations
verfasst von: Annelies Raes
Fien Depaepe
Publikationsdatum: 07.08.2019
Verlag: Springer US
Erschienen in: Education and Information Technologies / Ausgabe 1/2020
Print ISSN: 1360-2357
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-7608
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-019-09975-3

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Springer Professional "Technik"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2020

Finding model through latent semantic approach to reveal the topic of discussion in discussion forum

Cloud computing services adoption among higher education faculties: development of a standardized questionnaire

The effect of modelling, collaborative and game-based learning on the geometry success of third-grade students

Artificial intelligence moving serious gaming: Presenting reusable game AI components

Study of a sequence to stimulate the engagement in one-to-one iPad programs at elementary schools

Constraints and strategies for effective use of social networking sites (snss) for collaborative learning in tertiary institutions in nigeria: perception of tvet lecturers