Examining pre-service teachers’ acceptance of technology-rich learning environments: A UAE case study

Parkman, Scott; Litz, David; Gromik, Nicolas

doi:10.1007/s10639-017-9665-3

Cited by 36 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Emerging technologies in education are driving colleges and universities to progressively infuse their use in higher education (Rodriguez & Anicete, 2010;Alharbi & Drew, 2014;Bermúdez-Hernández et al, 2017). Given their incontestable importance (Revythi & Tselios, 2019), instructors are challenged to incorporate them as a means to complement conventional learning environments (Lee et al, 2009;Rhode et al, 2017), enhance learners' experiences, and improve academic outcomes (Parkman et al, 2018). A learning management system (LMS) is a web-based application capable of transforming face-to-face sessions by offering students a space for online learning (Wichadee, 2015).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Learning Management System Adoption in Higher Education Using the Extended Technology Acceptance Model

Fearnley¹,

Amora²

2020

ije

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A learning management system is capable of enriching instruction and acceptance of this learning technology by users is crucial to its successful application in higher education. This study investigated factors that influenced adoption of a learning management system by higher education teachers using the technology acceptance model which incorporates three external constructs: system quality, perceived self-efficacy and facilitating conditions. Data collected from faculty respondents (n=127) through an online survey were examined by employing partial least squares-structural equation modeling. While several relationships were confirmed, others were not supported by this research. Results showed that both system quality and perceived self-efficacy strongly influenced perceived usefulness, which in turn indirectly affected attitudes towards the technology and behavioral intention. Additionally, system quality directly affected perceived ease of use and attitudes toward technology use. The strong and direct influence of perceived self-efficacy on perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use suggests that faculty with positive beliefs about their ability to use the learning management system will regard it as both useful and easy to use. Facilitating conditions, on the other hand, affected neither perceived ease of use nor attitudes. Implications for practice, policy and potential research directions are likewise presented.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Learning Management System Adoption in Higher Education Using the Extended Technology Acceptance Model

Fearnley¹,

Amora²

2020

ije

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Keywords: higher education, learning management system, technology acceptance model, facilitating conditions, perceived self-efficacy, system quality Emerging technologies in education are driving colleges and universities to progressively infuse their use in higher education (Rodriguez & Anicete, 2010;Alharbi & Drew, 2014;Bermúdez-Hernández et al, 2017). Given their incontestable importance (Revythi & Tselios, 2019), instructors are challenged to incorporate them as a means to complement conventional learning environments (Lee et al, 2009;Rhode et al, 2017), enhance learners' experiences, and improve academic outcomes (Parkman et al, 2018).…”

Section: Marissa R Fearnley De La Salle-college Of Saint Benilde Manmentioning

confidence: 99%

Untitled

2020

ije

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Technology in Education is our second issue for 2020. The issue's editorial team have worked hard, in difficult global conditions, to work with reviewers and authors to bring this issue to publication. Many thanks go to the editor, Michael P. Menchaca, and his two Associate Editors, Daniel Hoffman and De-Graft Johnson Dei. While we have a special issue, COVID-19: Education Responses to a Pandemic, opening for submissions later this year, we need to acknowledge now that technology in education has been at the forefront of many educationalists' minds. We look forward to receiving many different and thought-provoking submissions later in the year. On reflecting on what might be said about technology and its use in education, I was reminded of the following comment: As far as technology itself and education is concerned, technology is basically neutral. It's like a hammer. The hammer doesn't care whether you use it to build a house or whether on torture, using it to crush somebody's skull, the hammer can do either. (Noam Chomsky). Technology, the "knowledge or use of the mechanical arts and applied sciences" (one definition in The Australian Pocket Oxford Dictionary), has been in education for far longer than many current students would acknowledge. So often the term "technology in education" has come to mean the use of computers and the affordances of the Internet. Probably the first use of technology in education was the realization that you could use a stick to scrawl on the ground instead of using a finger with all the hazards that can entail. Rudimentary technology indeed, but technology nevertheless. Please don't get me wrong: I am a fan of technology. As a university lecturer I ran tutorials in Second Life for my distance education students: but I used it with a purpose, developing a sense of social presence which has been shown to be important for engagement. I didn't make the technology drive the education. Education is and always must be the driving force behind any use of technology.

show abstract

“…The technical equipment is looked as a key factor for transforming teacher-centred pedagogy to student-centred pedagogy. Researches stated that the technology literacy (Dinçer, 2018), technology self-efficacy (Parkman, Litz, & Gromik, 2018), and the application level of digital technology (Elstad & Christophersen, 2017) could affect the instruction level in TRCs. The information technology skills are important contents of teacher training for TRCs.…”

Section: Professional Development Programs On Trcsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Existing research has revealed that to what extent TRCs play a role in shaping teaching and learning depends on what teachers expect to do, and what they do with them (Inan & Lowther, 2010;Parkman, Litz, & Gromik, 2018;Robinson, 2003). Particularly, teachers' psychological perception of the learning technology, learning platform and the arrangement of learning space in TRCs play an important role in teachers' choice of their teaching methods (Li, 2015).…”

Section: Research Questionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Expectations and Experiences of Technology-Rich Classrooms of Preservice and In-service Teachers in China

Zhao

2019

JED

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Technology-Rich Classrooms (TRCs) have been increasingly constructed in K12 schools. Existing studies revealed that to what extent TRCs play a role in shaping teaching and learning depends on what teachers expect to do and what they do with TRCs. This study aimed at exploring the gap between teachers’ experiences of existing TRCs and their expectations of ideal TRCs. A total of 194 preservice teachers studying at Beijing Normal University (BNU) and 149 in-service teachers who enrolled in a master program at BNU participated in the study. The Smart Classroom Inventory (SCI) a ten-component inventory revised from the previous study, was used to collect the data. Independent-samples t-tests and paired-samples t-tests revealed that: (a) both preservice teachers and in-service teachers reported significantly lower experiences of TRCs than their expectations of ideal ones in terms of most dimensions, with the only exception that preservice teachers’ Technology usage. (b) Whether in existing TRCs, or in ideal ones, both preservice teachers and in-service teachers reported relative lower scores of Flexibility, Learning data, Differentiation, Investigation, and Cooperation than other dimensions. (c) Preservice teachers reported significantly higher scores of Flexibility, Technology usage, Learning data, Differentiation, Investigation, and Cooperation than in-service teachers, while in-service teachers reported significantly higher scores of Physical design, Student Cohesiveness, Equity, and Learning experiences than preservice teachers.4) Preservice teachers reported significantly higher expectation of ideal Physical design, Differentiation than in-service teachers, while they reported significantly lower expectations of ideal Flexibility, Student Cohesiveness, Equity, and Learning experience than in-service teachers. Implications for preservice teachers’ education and in-service teachers’ professional development were discussed.

show abstract

Examining pre-service teachers’ acceptance of technology-rich learning environments: A UAE case study

Cited by 36 publications

References 25 publications

Learning Management System Adoption in Higher Education Using the Extended Technology Acceptance Model

Learning Management System Adoption in Higher Education Using the Extended Technology Acceptance Model

Untitled

Expectations and Experiences of Technology-Rich Classrooms of Preservice and In-service Teachers in China

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About