Track 02 - Educational innovation
Authors: José Carlos Sánchez Prieto, Susana Olmos Migueláñez and Francisco José García-Peñalvo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rP98kYJZyp0&list=PLboNOuyyzZ879QIq5OTq3y3qE62GN4Api&index=5
Mobile Acceptance among Pre-Service Teachers: A Descriptive Study Using a TAM-Based Model
1. Mobile Acceptance among Pre-
Service Teachers: A Descriptive
Study Using a TAM-Based Model
José Carlos Sánchez Prieto
Susana Olmos Migueláñez
Francisco J. García Peñalvo
GRIAL Research Group
Educational Research Institute
University of salamanca
4. INTRODUCTION: TEACHERS
The teachers are key agents in the process of educational
innovation.
• New Workload
• Intimidated by the
devices
• Unsure about the
capability
5. INTRODUCTION: TAM Model
The Technology Acceptance Model (Davis, 1989)
The perception of the improvement
that a given IS can produce on a given
task.
The perceived level of effort necessary
for the use of the IS
6.
7. METHODOLOGY: R. Model
Perceived
Usefulness
Perceived Ease
of Use
Behavioural
Intention
Self-Efficacy
Mobile
Anxiety
An individual’s belief in their own
abilities to organise and execute the
actions necessary to manage certain
situations
Degree of apprehension, or even fear,
that an individual feels when he or she
faces the possibility of using the
computer
8. METHODOLOGY: Variables
Exogenous
• Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, self-
efficacy and mobile device anxiety.
Endogenous
• Behavioural intention.
Other explanatory variables
• Age, gender, year.
9. METHODOLOGY: P&S
• Sample: 678 students.
• Gender:
• Women: 65.2%
• Men: 34.8%
• Year:
• First: 29.8%
• Second: 27.9%
• Third: 19.5%
• Fourth: 22.9%
• Age
• Average: 21.09
• 51.3% between 19-21 years old
10. METHODOLOGY: Instrument
• Two sections:
▫ Students’ identification data (gender, age and
year).
▫ Sixteen items formulated with a Likert-type scale
of seven intervals (0-6).
▫ From TAM and TAM3.
• Cronbach’s alpha: 0,880
17. DISCUSSION
• Positive attitude towards the use of mobile
technologies: Slightly above the scores obtained in
other studies.
• No differences according to the year: Lack of proper
training, or having had few experiences as students
in mLearning activities.
• Some statistical differences according to the variable
gender for a significance level of 0.05.
• The results follow the lines of other studies on
technology acceptance, although there are other
studies that haven’t found these differences.
• Consider interesting to add other types of
explanatory variables when facing future studies,
such as: previous experience with the devices or the
teaching-learning styles.
20. [1] Fulatelli, G., Taibi, D. and Arrigo, M. 2015. A framework to support educational decision making in mobile
learning. Computers in Human Behavior 47 (Jun. 2015), 50-59.
[2] Koole, M. 2009. A model for framing mobile learning. In Mobile learning: Transforming the delivery of
education and training, M. Ally, Ed. AU Press, Edmonton, Alberta, 25-47.
[3] Fundación Telefónica. 2014. La Sociedad de la Información en España 2014. Telefónica, Madrid, España.
[4] Oberer, B. and Erkollar, A. 2014. Tablets as Primary Educational Computing Devices. An Impact Analysis on
the Educational Landscape in an Austrian University. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 116, 21 (Feb.
2014), 477-480.
[5] Sharples, M., Amedillo Sanchez, I., Milrad, M. and Vavoula, G. 2009. Mobile learning: small devices, big
issues. In Technology Enhanced Learning: Principles and Products, N. Balacheff, S. Ludvigsen, T.D. Jong and S.
Barnes, Eds. Springer, Heidelberg, 233-249.
[6] Alonso De Castro, M. G. 2014. Educational projects based on mobile learning. Teoría de la Educación.
Educación y Cultura en la Sociedad de la Información 15, 1 (Feb. 2014), 10-19.
[7] Alvarez, C., Alarcon, R. and Nussbaum, M. 2011. Implementing collaborative learning activities in the
classroom supported by one-to-one mobile computing: A design-based process. Journal of Systems and Software
84, 11 (Nov. 2011), 1961-1976.
[8] Murray, O. and Olcese, N. 2011. Teaching and Learning with iPads, Ready or Not? TechTrends 55, 6 (Nov.
2011), 42-48.
[9] Orr, G. 2010. A Review of Literature in Mobile Learning: Affordances and Constraints. In Wireless, Mobile and
Ubiquitous Technologies in Education (WMUTE), 2010 6th IEEE International Conference on (Kaohsiung,
China, April 12 - 16, 2010). IEEE, 107-111.
[10] Wang, R., Wiesemes, R. and Gibbons, C. 2012. Developing digital fluency through ubiquitous mobile devices:
Findings from a small-scale study. Computers & Education 58, 1 (Jan. 2012), 570-578.
[11] Corbeil, J.R. and Valdés-Corbeil, M.E. 2007. Are you Ready for Mobile learning? Educause Quarterly 30, 2
(Jan. 2007), 51-60.
[12] Chen, F.H., Looi, C.K. and Chen, W. 2009. Integrating technology in the classroom: a visual conceptualization
of teachers' knowledge, goals and beliefs. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 25, 5 (Jul. 2009), 470-488.
21. [13] Dündar, H. and Akçayir, M. 2014. Implementing tablet PCs in schools: Students’ attitudes and opinions.
Computers in Human Behavior 32 (Mar. 2014), 40-46.
[14] Al-Fudail, M. and Mellar, H. 2008. Investigating teacher stress when using technology. Computers &
Education 51, 3 (Nov. 2008) 1103-1110.
[15] Oakley, G., Pegrum, M., Faulkner, R. and Striepe, M. 2012. Exploring the pedagogical applications of mobile
technologies for teaching literacy. Report for the Association of Independent Schools of Western Australia 2014.
[16] Davis, F.D. 1989. Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information
Technology. MIS Quarterly 13, 3 (Sep. 1989), 319-340.
[17] Fishbein, M. and Ajzen, I. 1975. Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior : an introduction to theory and
research. Addison-Wesley Pub. Co., Reading, Massachusets.
[18] Teo, T., Lee, C.B. and Chai, C.S. 2008. Understanding pre-service teachers' computer attitudes: applying and
extending the technology acceptance model. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 24, 2 (Jul. 2008), 128-143.
[19] King, W.R. and He, J. 2006. A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model. Information &
Management 43, 6 (Jan. 2006), 740-755.
[20] Hernández García, Á. 2008. Desarrollo de un modelo unificado de adopción del comercio electrónico entre
empresas y consumidores finales. Aplicación al mercado español. Doctoral Thesis. E.T.S.I. Telecomunicación
(UPM), Madrid.
[21] Joo, Y., Lee, H. and Ham, Y. 2014. Integrating user interface and personal innovativeness into the TAM for
mobile learning in Cyber University. Journal of Computing in Higher Education 26, 2 (Aug. 2014), 143-158.
[22] Kim, D., Chun, H. and Lee, H. 2014. Determining the factors that influence college students' adoption of
smartphones. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 65, 3 (Jan. 2014), 578-588.
[23] Yamakawa, P., Delgado, C., Díaz, E., Garayar, E. and Laguna, H. 2013. Factors influencing the use of mobile
technologies in a university environment: A case from Latin America. International Journal of Information and
Communication Technology Education 9, 2, (Jul. 2013), 24-38.
[24] Kuo, K., Liu, C. And Ma, C. 2013. An investigation of the effect of nurses' technology readiness on the
acceptance of mobile electronic medical record systems. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making 13, 88
(Aug. 2013), 1-14.
22. [25] Riad Jaradat, M. 2013. Applying the technology acceptance model to the introduction of mobile voting.
International Journal of Mobile Learning and Organisation 7, 1 (Jan. 2013), 29-47.
[26] Acarli, D.S. and Sağlam, Y. 2015. Investigation of Pre-service Teachers’ Intentions to Use of Social Media in
Teaching Activities within the Framework of Technology Acceptance Model. Procedia - Social and Behavioral
Sciences 176, 20 (Mar. 2015), 709-713.
[27] Camilleri, V. and Montebello, M. 2011. Virtual world presence for pre-service teachers: Does the TAM model
apply? In Games and Virtual Worlds for Serious Applications (VS-GAMES), 2011 Third International Conference
on, (Athens, Greece, May 04-06, 2011) IEEE, 156-159.
[28] Teo, T. 2010. A path analysis of pre-service teachers' attitudes to computer use: applying and extending the
technology acceptance model in an educational context. Interactive Learning Environments 18, 1 (Feb. 2010), 65-
79.
[29] Valtonen, T., Kukkonen, J., Kontkanen, S., Sormunen, K., Dillon, P. and Sointu, E. 2015. The impact of
authentic learning experiences with ICT on pre-service teachers' intentions to use ICT for teaching and learning.
Computers & Education 81 (Feb. 2015), 49-58.
[30] Venkatesh, V. and Bala, H. 2008. Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions.
Decision Sciences 39, 2 (May. 2008), 273-315.
[31] Venkatesh, V., Morris, M.G., Gordon B. Davis and Davis, F.D. 2003. User Acceptance of Information
Technology: Toward a Unified View. MIS Quarterly 27, 3 (Sep. 2003), 425-478.
[32] Abbad, M.M., Morris, D. and De Nahlik, C. 2009. Looking under the Bonnet: Factors Affecting Student
Adoption of E-Learning Systems in Jordan. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning 10,
2 (Apr. 2009), 1-25.
[33] Roca, J.C. and Gagné, M. 2008. Understanding e-learning continuance intention in the workplace: A self-
determination theory perspective. Computers in Human Behavior 24, 4 (Jul. 2008), 1585-1604.
[34] Saadé, R. and Bahli, B. 2005. The impact of cognitive absorption on perceived usefulness and perceived ease
of use in on-line learning: An extension of the technology acceptance model. Information and Management 42, 2
(Jan. 2005), 317-327.
23. [35] Chen, Y., Lin, Y., Yeh, R.C. and Lou, S. 2013. Examining factors affecting college students' intention to use
web-based instruction systems: Towards an integrated model. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology
12, 2 (Apr. 2013), 111-121.
[36] Teo, T. and Noyes, J. 2011. An assessment of the influence of perceived enjoyment and attitude on the
intention to use technology among pre-service teachers: A structural equation modeling approach. Computers &
Education 57, 2 (Sep. 2011), 1645-1653.
[37] Wu, C. and Liu, C. 2013. Acceptance of ICT-mediated teaching/learning systems for elementary school
teachers: Moderating effect of cognitive styles. Education and Information Technologies 2, 20 (Sep 2013) 1-21.
[38] Bandura, A. 1978. Self-Efficacy: Toward a Unifying Theory of Behavior Change. Psychological review 84,2
(Mar. 1977) 191-215.
[39] Tarhini, A., Hone, K. and Liu, X. 2014. A cross-cultural examination of the impact of social, organisational
and individual factors on educational technology acceptance between British and Lebanese university students.
British Journal of Educational Technology 46, 4 (May 2014) 739-755.
[40] Lee, Y., Hsieh, Y. and Ma, C. 2011. A model of organizational employees’ e-learning systems acceptance.
Knowledge-Based Systems 24, 3 (Apr. 2011) 355-366.
[41] Nam, C.S., Bahn, S. and Lee, R. 2013. Acceptance of Assistive Technology by Special Education Teachers: A
Structural Equation Model Approach. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction 29, 5 (Apr. 2013)
365-377.
[42] Teo, T., Lee, C.B., Chai, C.S. and Wong, S.L. 2009. Assessing the intention to use technology among pre-
service teachers in Singapore and Malaysia: A multigroup invariance analysis of the Technology Acceptance Model
(TAM). Computers & Education 53, 3 (Nov. 2009) 1000-1009.
[43] Lei, J. 2009. Digital natives as preservice teachers: what technology preparation is needed? Journal of
Computing in Teacher Education 25, 3 (Apr. 2009) 87-97.
[44] Padilla-Meléndez, A., Del Aguila-Obra, A.R. and Garrido-Moreno, A. 2013. Perceived playfulness, gender
differences and technology acceptance model in a blended learning scenario. Computers & Education 63 (Apr.
2013), 306-317.
24. [45] Ramírez-Correa, P., Rondán-Cataluña, F.J. and Arenas-Gaitán, J. 2010. Influencia del género en la
percepción y adopción de e-learning: Estudio exploratorio en una universidad chilena. Journal of Technology
Management and Innovation 5, 3 (Sep.2010) 129-141.