nach oben

Technology, Knowledge and Learning

Erschienen in:

12.08.2021 | Original research

The Acceptance of Learning Management Systems and Video Conferencing Technologies: Lessons Learned from COVID-19

verfasst von: Mark Anthony Camilleri, Adriana Caterina Camilleri

Erschienen in: Technology, Knowledge and Learning | Ausgabe 4/2022

Einloggen

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

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

During the outbreak of the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, higher education institutions (HEIs) have shifted from traditional and blended learning approaches to a fully virtual course delivery. This research investigates the students’ perceptions on remote learning through asynchronous learning management systems (LMS) and via synchronous video conferencing technologies like Google Meet, Microsoft Teams or Zoom, among others. The data was gathered from a sample of 501 higher education students in a Southern European context. A survey questionnaire included measures that investigated the participants’ acceptance of interactive technology to better understand their utilitarian motivations to use them. The findings suggest that the research participants accessed asynchronous content and interacted with online users, including with their course instructor, in real time. While there are a number of theoretical or opinion papers on the impact of COVID-19 on higher education services, currently, there are still a few empirical papers that shed light on the factors that are having an effect on the students’ attitudes and intentions to utilize remote learning technologies. This contribution underlines the importance of maintaining ongoing, interactive engagement with students, and of providing them with appropriate facilitating conditions, to continue improving their learning journey.

Vorheriger Artikel University Virtual Learning in Covid Times

Nächster Artikel Correction to: The Acceptance of Learning Management Systems and Video Conferencing Technologies: Lessons Learned from COVID‑19

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 "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

Agudo-Peregrina, Á. F., Iglesias-Pradas, S., Conde-González, M. Á., & Hernández-García, Á. (2014). Can we predict success from log data in VLEs? Classification of interactions for learning analytics and their relation with performance in VLE-supported F2F and online learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 31, 542–550.CrossRef

Aguilar, S. J. (2020). Guidelines and tools for promoting digital equity. Information and Learning Sciences, 121(5/6), 285–299.CrossRef

Aguilera-Hermida, A. P. (2020). College students’ use and acceptance of emergency online learning due to Covid-19. International Journal of Educational Research Open, 1 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S266637402030011X

Ahmed, E., & Ward, R. (2016). Analysis of factors influencing acceptance of personal, academic and professional development e-portfolios. Computers in Human Behavior, 63, 152–161.CrossRef

Ainsworth, S. (2006). DeFT: A conceptual framework for considering learning with multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 16(3), 183–198.CrossRef

Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211.

Al-Maroof, R., Al-Qaysi, N., & Salloum, S. A. (2021). Blended learning acceptance: A systematic review of information systems models. Technology, Knowledge and Learning. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-021-09519-0CrossRef

Al-Rahmi, W. M., Alias, N., Othman, M. S., Marin, V. I., & Tur, G. (2018). A model of factors affecting learning performance through the use of social media in Malaysian higher education. Computers and Education, 121, 59–72.CrossRef

Althunibat, A. (2015). Determining the factors influencing students’ intention to use m-learning in Jordan higher education. Computers in Human Behavior, 52, 65–71.CrossRef

Anshari, M., Almunawar, M. N., Shahrill, M., Wicaksono, D. K., & Huda, M. (2017). Smartphones usage in the classrooms: Learning aid or interference? Education and Information Technologies, 22(6), 3063–3079.CrossRef

Araújo, F. J. D. O., de Lima, L. S. A., Cidade, P. I. M., Nobre, C. B. & Neto, M. L. R. (2020). Impact of Sars-Cov-2 and its reverberation in global higher education and mental health. Psychiatry Research. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2020.112977 (in press).

Bao, W. (2020). COVID-19 and online teaching in higher education: A case study of Peking University. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies, 2(2), 113–115.CrossRef

Baturay, M. H., Gökçearslan, Ş, & Ke, F. (2017). The relationship among pre-service teachers’ computer competence, attitude towards computer-assisted education, and intention of technology acceptance. International Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning, 9(1), 1–13.CrossRef

Bergdahl, N., & Nouri, J. (2020). Covid-19 and crisis-prompted distance education in Sweden. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 1–17. https://www.springerprofessional.de/en/covid-19-and-crisis-promted-distance-education-in-sweden/18343024

Billinghurst, M., & Duenser, A. (2012). Augmented reality in the classroom. Computer, 45(7), 56–63.CrossRef

Boelens, R., Voet, M., & De Wever, B. (2018). The design of blended learning in response to student diversity in higher education: Instructors’ views and use of differentiated instruction in blended learning. Computers and Education, 120, 197–212.CrossRef

Bolumole, M. (2020). Student life in the age of COVID-19. Higher Education Research and Development. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2020.1825345CrossRef

Briz-Ponce, L., Pereira, A., Carvalho, L., Juanes-Méndez, J. A., & García-Peñalvo, F. J. (2017). Learning with mobile technologies—Students’ behavior. Computers in Human Behavior, 72, 612–620.CrossRef

Butler, A., Camilleri, M. A., Creed, A., & Zutshi, A. (2021). The use of mobile learning technologies for corporate training and development: A contextual framework. In Strategic corporate communication in the digital age. Emerald Publishing Limited. https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/978-1-80071-264-520211007/full/html

Camilleri, M. A., & Camilleri, A. C. (2017). Digital learning resources and ubiquitous technologies in education. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 22(1), 65–82.CrossRef

Camilleri, M. A., & Camilleri, A. C. (2019). The students’ readiness to engage with mobile learning apps. Interactive Technology and Smart Education., 17(1), 28–38.CrossRef

Camilleri, M. A., & Camilleri, A. C. (2020). The students' acceptance and use of their university's virtual learning environment. In Proceedings of the 2020 11th international conferencing on e-education, e-business, e-management, and e-learning (pp. 48–53). https://doi.org/10.1145/3377571.3377574

Camilleri, M. A. (2021a). Evaluating service quality and performance of higher education institutions: A systematic review and a post COVID-19 outlook. International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJQSS-03-2020-0034

Camilleri, M. A. (2021b). Using the balanced scorecard as a performance management tool in higher education. Management in Education, 35(1), 10–21.CrossRef

Cesco, S., Zara, V., De Toni, A. F., Lugli, P., Betta, G., Evans, A. C., & Orzes, G. (2021). Higher education in the first year of COVID-19: Thoughts and perspectives for the future. International Journal of Higher Education, 10(3), 285–294.

Chattaraman, V., Kwon, W. S., Gilbert, J. E., & Ross, K. (2019). Should AI-Based, conversational digital assistants employ social-or task-oriented interaction style? A task-competency and reciprocity perspective for older adults. Computers in Human Behavior, 90, 315–330.CrossRef

Chen, Q., Chen, H. M., & Kazman, R. (2007). Investigating antecedents of technology acceptance of initial eCRM users beyond generation X and the role of self-construal. Electronic Commerce Research, 7(3–4), 315–339.CrossRef

Chen, Y., Wang, Y., Kinshuk, C., & Chen, N. S. (2014). Is FLIP enough? Or should we use the FLIPPED model instead? Computers and Education, 79, 16–27.CrossRef

Cheng, M., & Yuen, A. H. K. (2018). Student continuance of learning management system use: A longitudinal exploration. Computers and Education, 120, 241–253.CrossRef

Cheon, J., Lee, S., Crooks, S. M., & Song, J. (2012). An investigation of mobile learning readiness in higher education based on the theory of planned behavior. Computers and Education, 59(3), 1054–1064.CrossRef

Cochrane, T. D. (2014). Critical success factors for transforming pedagogy with mobile Web 2.0. British Journal of Educational Technology, 45(1), 65–82.CrossRef

Crompton, H., & Burke, D. (2018). The use of mobile learning in higher education: A systematic review. Computers and Education, 123, 53–64.CrossRef

Cruz-Benito, J., Therón, R., García-Peñalvo, F. J., & Lucas, E. P. (2015). Discovering usage behaviors and engagement in an Educational Virtual World. Computers in Human Behavior, 47, 18–25.CrossRef

Dabbagh, N., & Kitsantas, A. (2012). Personal Learning Environments, social media, and self-regulated learning: A natural formula for connecting formal and informal learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 15(1), 3–8.CrossRef

Dalgarno, B., & Lee, M. J. (2010). What are the learning affordances of 3-D virtual environments? British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(1), 10–32.CrossRef

Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340.CrossRef

Dečman, M. (2015). Modeling the acceptance of e-learning in mandatory environments of higher education: The influence of previous education and gender. Computers in Human Behavior, 49, 272–281.CrossRef

Di Mitri, D., Schneider, J., Specht, M., & Drachsler, H. (2018). From signals to knowledge: A conceptual model for multimodal learning analytics. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 34(4), 338–349.CrossRef

Dumpit, D. Z., & Fernandez, C. J. (2017). Analysis of the use of social media in Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) using the Technology Acceptance Model. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 14(1), 1–16.CrossRef

Fiore, A. M., & Jin, H. J. (2003). Influence of image interactivity on approach responses towards an online retailer. Internet Research, 13(1), 38–48.CrossRef

Fitter, N. T., Raghunath, N., Cha, E., Sánchez, C. A., Takayama, L., & Matarić, M. J. (2020). Are we there yet? Comparing remote learning technologies in the university classroom. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 5(2), 2706–2713.CrossRef

Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(3), 382–388.CrossRef

Fowler, C. (2015). Virtual reality and learning: Where is the pedagogy? British Journal of Educational Technology, 46(2), 412–422.CrossRef

Fridin, M. (2014). Storytelling by a kindergarten social assistive robot: A tool for constructive learning in preschool education. Computers and Education, 70, 53–64.CrossRef

Furió, D., Juan, M. C., Seguí, I., & Vivó, R. (2015). Mobile learning vs. traditional classroom lessons: A comparative study. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 31(3), 189–201.CrossRef

Gangwar, H., Date, H., & Ramaswamy, R. (2015). Understanding determinants of cloud computing adoption using an integrated TAM-TOE model. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 28(1), 107–130.CrossRef

Gikandi, J. W., Morrow, D., & Davis, N. E. (2011). Online formative assessment in higher education: A review of the literature. Computers and Education, 57(4), 2333–2351.CrossRef

Gómez-Aguilar, D. A., Hernández-García, Á., García-Peñalvo, F. J., & Therón, R. (2015). Tap into visual analysis of customization of grouping of activities in eLearning. Computers in Human Behavior, 47, 60–67.CrossRef

Gonzalez, T., de la Rubia, M. A., Hincz, K. P., Comas-Lopez, M., Subirats, L., Fort, S., & Sacha, G. M. (2020). Influence of COVID-19 confinement on students’ performance in higher education. PloS one, 15(10), e0239490. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0239490

Hair, J. F., Jr., Howard, M. C., & Nitzl, C. (2020). Assessing measurement model quality in PLS-SEM using confirmatory composite analysis. Journal of Business Research, 109, 101–110.CrossRef

Hartshorne, R., & Ajjan, H. (2009). Examining student decisions to adopt Web 2.0 technologies: Theory and empirical tests. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 21(3), 183.CrossRef

Heilesen, S. B. (2010). What is the academic efficacy of podcasting? Computers and Education, 55(3), 1063–1068.CrossRef

Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115–135.CrossRef

Hoi, V. N. (2020). Understanding higher education learners' acceptance and use of mobile devices for language learning: A Rasch-based path modeling approach. Computers and Education, 146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103761

Howley, I. (2020). Adapting guided inquiry learning worksheets for emergency remote learning. Information and Learning Sciences, 121(7/8), 549–557.CrossRef

Hung, S. T. A. (2016). Enhancing feedback provision through multimodal video technology. Computers and Education, 98, 90–101.CrossRef

Ifenthaler, D. (2012). Determining the effectiveness of prompts for self-regulated learning in problem-solving scenarios. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 15(1), 38–52.

Ifenthaler, D., & Schweinbenz, V. (2013). The acceptance of Tablet-PCs in classroom instruction: The teachers’ perspectives. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(3), 525–534.CrossRef

Jeno, L. M., Grytnes, J. A., & Vandvik, V. (2017). The effect of a mobile-application tool on biology students’ motivation and achievement in species identification: A self-determination theory perspective. Computers and Education, 107, 1–12.CrossRef

Johnson, N., Veletsianos, G., & Seaman, J. (2020). US Faculty and administrators’ experiences and approaches in the early weeks of the COVID-19 pandemic. Online Learning, 24(2), 6–21.CrossRef

Kurucay, M., & Inan, F. A. (2017). Examining the effects of learner-learner interactions on satisfaction and learning in an online undergraduate course. Computers and Education, 115, 20–37.CrossRef

Khalifa, M., & Kwok, R. C. W. (1999). Remote learning technologies: Effectiveness of hypertext and GSS. Decision Support Systems, 26(3), 195–207.CrossRef

Klašnja-Milićević, A., Vesin, B., Ivanović, M., & Budimac, Z. (2011). E-Learning personalization based on hybrid recommendation strategy and learning style identification. Computers and Education, 56(3), 885–899.CrossRef

Lambić, D. (2016). Correlation between Facebook use for educational purposes and academic performance of students. Computers in Human Behavior, 61, 313–320.CrossRef

Lambropoulos, N., Faulkner, X., & Culwin, F. (2012). Supporting social awareness in collaborative e-learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(2), 295–306.CrossRef

Lee, Y. H., Hsieh, Y. C., & Hsu, C. N. (2011). Adding innovation diffusion theory to the technology acceptance model: Supporting employees’ intentions to use e-learning systems. Journal of Educational Technology and Society, 14(4), 124–137.

Lee, Y., & Lee, J. (2014). Enhancing pre-service teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs for technology integration through lesson planning practice. Computers and Education, 73, 121–128.CrossRef

Lin, S., Zimmer, J. C., & Lee, V. (2013). Podcasting acceptance on campus: The differing perspectives of teachers and students. Computers and Education, 68, 416–428.CrossRef

Liu, Y. (2003). Developing a scale to measure the interactivity of websites. Journal of Advertising Research, 43(2), 207–216.CrossRef

Liu, I. F., Chen, M. C., Sun, Y. S., Wible, D., & Kuo, C. H. (2010). Extending the TAM model to explore the factors that affect intention to use an online learning community. Computers and Education, 54(2), 600–610.CrossRef

Liyanagunawardena, T. R., Adams, A. A., & Williams, S. A. (2013). MOOCs: A systematic study of the published literature 2008–2012. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 14(3), 202–227.CrossRef

López-Pérez, M. V., Pérez-López, M. C., & Rodríguez-Ariza, L. (2011). Blended learning in higher education: Students’ perceptions and their relation to outcomes. Computers & education, 56(3), 818–826.

McMillan, S. J., & Hwang, J. S. (2002). Measures of perceived interactivity: An exploration of the role of direction of communication, user control, and time in shaping perceptions of interactivity. Journal of Advertising, 31(3), 29–42.CrossRef

McStay, A. (2020). Emotional AI and EdTech: Serving the public good? Learning, Media and Technology, 45(3), 270–283.CrossRef

MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, P. M. (2012). Common method bias in marketing: Causes, mechanisms, and procedural remedies. Journal of Retailing, 88(4), 542–555.CrossRef

Makransky, G., Terkildsen, T. S., & Mayer, R. E. (2019). Adding immersive virtual reality to a science lab simulation causes more presence but less learning. Learning and Instruction, 60, 225–236.CrossRef

Merhi, M. I. (2015). Factors influencing higher education students to adopt podcast: An empirical study. Computers and Education, 83, 32–43.CrossRef

Moore, J. L., Dickson-Deane, C., & Galyen, K. (2011). e-Learning, online learning, and distance learning environments: Are they the same? The Internet and Higher Education, 14(2), 129–135.CrossRef

Moss, N. D., O’Connor, E. L., & White, K. M. (2010). Psychosocial predictors of the use of enhanced podcasting in student learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(3), 302–309.CrossRef

Motiwalla, L. F. (2007). Mobile learning: A framework and evaluation. Computers and Education, 49(3), 581–596.CrossRef

Ng, W. (2012). Can we teach digital natives digital literacy? Computers and Education, 59(3), 1065–1078.CrossRef

Ngai, E. W., Poon, J. K. L., & Chan, Y. H. (2007). Empirical examination of the adoption of WebCT using TAM. Computers and Education, 48(2), 250–267.CrossRef

Nistor, N. (2013). Stability of attitudes and participation in online university courses: Gender and location effects. Computers and Education, 68, 284–292.CrossRef

Ocak, M. A. (2011). Why are faculty members not teaching blended courses? Insights from faculty members. Computers and Education, 56(3), 689–699.CrossRef

Ozkan, S., & Koseler, R. (2009). Multi-dimensional students’ evaluation of e-learning systems in the higher education context: An empirical investigation. Computers and Education, 53(4), 1285–1296.CrossRef

Park, S. Y., Nam, M. W., & Cha, S. B. (2012). University students’ behavioral intention to use mobile learning: Evaluating the technology acceptance model. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(4), 592–605.CrossRef

Park, J. Y. (2015). Student interactivity and teacher participation: An application of legitimate peripheral participation in higher education online learning environments. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 24(3), 389–406.CrossRef

Payne, K., Keith, M. J., Schuetzler, R. M., & Giboney, J. S. (2017). Examining the learning effects of live streaming video game instruction over Twitch. Computers in Human Behavior, 77, 95–109.CrossRef

Porter, W. W., Graham, C. R., Spring, K. A., & Welch, K. R. (2014). Blended learning in higher education: Institutional adoption and implementation. Computers and Education, 75, 185–195.CrossRef

Rahiem, M. D. (2020). The emergency remote learning experience of university students in indonesia amidst the COVID-19 crisis. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 19(6), 1–26.CrossRef

Rakes, C. R., Ronau, R. N., Bush, S. B., Driskell, S. O., Niess, M. L., & Pugalee, D. K. (2020). Mathematics achievement and orientation: A systematic review and meta-analysis of education technology. Educational Research Review, 31. https://www-sciencedirect-com.ejournals.um.edu.mt/science/article/pii/S1747938X19301800?via%3Dihub

Rana, N. P., Slade, E., Kitching, S., & Dwivedi, Y. K. (2019). The IT way of loafing in class: Extending the theory of planned behavior (TPB) to understand students’ cyberslacking intentions. Computers in Human Behavior, 101, 114–123.CrossRef

Rienties, B., & Toetenel, L. (2016). The impact of learning design on student behaviour, satisfaction and performance: A cross-institutional comparison across 151 modules. Computers in Human Behavior, 60, 333–341.CrossRef

Ringle, C. M., Wende, S., & Becker, J. M. (2014). SmartPLS 3. Hamburg: SmartPLS. Academy of Management Review, 9, 419–445.

Sablić, M., Mirosavljević, A., & Škugor, A. (2020). Video-based learning (VBL)—past, present and future: An overview of the research published from 2008 to 2019. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-020-09455-5

Sánchez, R. A., & Hueros, A. D. (2010). Motivational factors that influence the acceptance of Moodle using TAM. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(6), 1632–1640.CrossRef

Sánchez-Franco, M. J., Martínez-López, F. J., & Martín-Velicia, F. A. (2009). Exploring the impact of individualism and uncertainty avoidance in Web-based electronic learning: An empirical analysis in European higher education. Computers and Education, 52(3), 588–598.CrossRef

Sánchez-Franco, M. J. (2010). WebCT–The quasimoderating effect of perceived affective quality on an extending Technology Acceptance Model. Computers and Education, 54(1), 37–46.CrossRef

Sánchez-Prieto, J. C., Olmos-Migueláñez, S., & García-Peñalvo, F. J. (2017). MLearning and pre-service teachers: An assessment of the behavioral intention using an expanded TAM model. Computers in Human Behavior, 72, 644–654.CrossRef

Schoonenboom, J. (2014). Using an adapted, task-level technology acceptance model to explain why instructors in higher education intend to use some learning management system tools more than others. Computers and Education, 71, 247–256.CrossRef

Selwyn, N. (2010). Looking beyond learning: Notes towards the critical study of educational technology. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(1), 65–73.CrossRef

Shih, H. P. (2008). Using a cognition-motivation-control view to assess the adoption intention for Web-based learning. Computers and Education, 50(1), 327–337.CrossRef

Soflano, M., Connolly, T. M., & Hainey, T. (2015). An application of adaptive games-based learning based on learning style to teach SQL. Computers and Education, 86, 192–211.CrossRef

Sun, P. C., Tsai, R. J., Finger, G., Chen, Y. Y., & Yeh, D. (2008). What drives a successful e-Learning? An empirical investigation of the critical factors influencing learner satisfaction. Computers and Education, 50(4), 1183–1202.CrossRef

Sung, Y. T., Chang, K. E., & Yang, J. M. (2015). How effective are mobile devices for language learning? A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 16, 68–84.CrossRef

Sung, Y. T., Chang, K. E., & Liu, T. C. (2016). The effects of integrating mobile devices with teaching and learning on students’ learning performance: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. Computers and Education, 94, 252–275.CrossRef

Tam, M. (2000). Constructivism, instructional design, and technology: Implications for transforming distance learning. Journal of Educational Technology and Society, 3(2), 50–60.

Tao, Y. H., Cheng, C. J., & Sun, S. Y. (2009). What influences college students to continue using business simulation games? The Taiwan experience. Computers and Education, 53(3), 929–939.CrossRef

Teo, T. (2009). Modelling technology acceptance in education: A study of pre-service teachers. Computers and Education, 52(2), 302–312.CrossRef

Teo, T., & Zhou, M. (2014). Explaining the intention to use technology among university students: A structural equation modeling approach. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 26(2), 124–142.CrossRef

Thai, N. T. T., De Wever, B., & Valcke, M. (2017). The impact of a flipped classroom design on learning performance in higher education: Looking for the best “blend” of lectures and guiding questions with feedback. Computers and Education, 107, 113–126.CrossRef

Thorson, K. S., & Rodgers, S. (2006). Relationships between blogs as eWOM and interactivity, perceived interactivity, and parasocial interaction. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 6(2), 5–44.CrossRef

Valk, J. H., Rashid, A. T., & Elder, L. (2010). Using mobile phones to improve educational outcomes: An analysis of evidence from Asia. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 11(1), 117–140.CrossRef

Vanderhoven, E., Raes, A., Montrieux, H., Rotsaert, T., & Schellens, T. (2015). What if pupils can assess their peers anonymously? A quasi-experimental study. Computers and Education, 81, 123–132.CrossRef

Van Raaij, E. M., & Schepers, J. J. (2008). The acceptance and use of a virtual learning environment in China. Computers and Education, 50(3), 838–852.CrossRef

Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478.CrossRef

Venkatesh, V., Thong, J. Y., & Xu, X. (2012). Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS Quarterly, 36(1), 157–178. https://doi.org/10.2307/41410412.

Viberg, O., & Grönlund, Å. (2013). Cross-cultural analysis of users’ attitudes toward the use of mobile devices in second and foreign language learning in higher education: A case from Sweden and China. Computers and Education, 69, 169–180.CrossRef

Wang, Q., Woo, H. L., & Zhao, J. (2009a). Investigating critical thinking and knowledge construction in an interactive learning environment. Interactive Learning Environments, 17(1), 95–104.CrossRef

Wang, Q. (2009). Design and evaluation of a collaborative learning environment. Computers and Education, 53(4), 1138–1146.CrossRef

Wang, Y. S., Wu, M. C., & Wang, H. Y. (2009b). Investigating the determinants and age and gender differences in the acceptance of mobile learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(1), 92–118.CrossRef

Wu, G. (2005). The mediating role of perceived interactivity in the effect of actual interactivity on attitude toward the website. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 5(2), 29–39.CrossRef

Wu, H. K., Lee, S. W. Y., Chang, H. Y., & Liang, J. C. (2013). Current status, opportunities and challenges of augmented reality in education. Computers and Education, 62, 41–49.CrossRef

Titel: The Acceptance of Learning Management Systems and Video Conferencing Technologies: Lessons Learned from COVID-19
verfasst von: Mark Anthony Camilleri
Adriana Caterina Camilleri
Publikationsdatum: 12.08.2021
Verlag: Springer Netherlands
Erschienen in: Technology, Knowledge and Learning / Ausgabe 4/2022
Print ISSN: 2211-1662
Elektronische ISSN: 2211-1670
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-021-09561-y

Premium Partner

Marktübersichten

Die im Laufe eines Jahres in der „adhäsion“ veröffentlichten Marktübersichten helfen Anwendern verschiedenster Branchen, sich einen gezielten Überblick über Lieferantenangebote zu verschaffen.

Zur Marktübersicht

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 "Technik"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 4/2022

Identifying Tertiary Students’ Perception of Usabilities of Rain Classroom

From Distance Learning to Integrated Digital Learning: A Fuzzy Cognitive Analysis Focused on Engagement, Motivation, and Participation During COVID-19 Pandemic

Determinants of Students’ Intention to Continue Using Online Private Tutoring: An Expectation-Confirmation Model (ECM) Approach

Differential Analysis of the Years of Experience of Higher Education Teachers, their Digital Competence and use of Digital Resources: Comparative Research Methods

The Internet and K-12 Education: Capturing Digital Metrics During the COVID-19 Era

Gamification Design in Education: What Might Give a Sense of Play and Learning?

Premium Partner

Marktübersichten