This document discusses an extended technology acceptance model (TAM) to measure mobile learning adoption among teachers. The extended TAM incorporates additional constructs from other models including previous experience, perceived enjoyment, self-efficacy, subjective norm, and facilitating conditions. The relationships between these constructs and perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, attitude, and behavioral intention are presented. The authors propose validating this extended TAM model through a study of primary education teachers in Castilla y León to analyze acceptance of mobile technologies. The document concludes that understanding teachers' attitudes is key to successfully guiding educational technology integration and that the extended TAM is an effective tool for evaluating adoption.

1. MOBILE LEARNING ADOPTION FROM
INFORMAL INTO FORMAL: AN EXTENDED TAM
MODEL TO MEASURE MOBILE ACCEPTANCE
AMONG TEACHERS
José Carlos Sánchez Prieto
Susana Olmos Migueláñez
Francisco J. García Peñalvo
GRIAL Research Group
Educational Research Institute
University of Salamanca

2. INTRODUCTION

3. Introduction
INFORMAL FORMAL
• Contextual
• Individualized
• Situated
• Autonomy
• Communication
• Anytime/Anywhere
• All levels
• PLEs, zero-paper,
AR
[12, 59, 64, 65]

4. Introduction
SUCCESS TEACHERS TAM
[8, 15, 56]

5. THE TAM MODEL
ANTECEDENTS, EVOLUTION AND FUTURE LINES

6. Antecedents: TRA
Propposed by Ajzen and Fishbane
Attitude
Subjective
Norm
Behavioral
Intention
Behavior
• Behavioral intention: A person’s general feeling of favorableness
or unfavorableness toward some stimulus object.
• Subjective norm: The organizational or social pressure towards
performing a determined behavior perceived by the individual
[20]

7. Antecedents: TPB
Attitude
Subjective
Norm
Perceived
Behavioral
Control
Behavioral
Intention
Behavior
• Limitations with voluntariness
• Perceived behavioral control: The organizational or social
pressure towards performing a determined behavior perceived by
the individual
[2]

8. Characteristics and evolution
Perceived
Usefulness
Perceived
Ease of Use
Attitude
Towards Using
Behavioral
Intention
Actual
Use
• Perceived usefulness: The degree to which a person believes that
using a particular system would enhance his or her job
performance.
• Perceived ease of use: The degree to which a person believes that
using a particular system would be free of effort.
[15]

9. Characteristics and evolution
Theoretical
strength
High percentage
of the variance
Simplicity
No external
variables
Use of self-reports
Exploratory
studies
[25, 34, 40]

10. Characteristics and evolution
Inclusion of external precursors
• Such as the working experience or the self-efficacy
Incorporation of factors from other
theories
• In order to increment the predictive capacity
Introduction of contextual factors
• Such as gender, culture or features of the device.
Measurement of final elements
[34]

11. Characteristics and evolution
TAM 2
• Subjective
norm
• Previous
experience
• Voluntariness
TAM 3
• Anchor
• Adjustment
[67, 68]

12. Fields of application and future
• Popular in the fields of commerce and ICTs
• Also used in education and healthcare
Individual variables
Additional variables
Actual use
Elderly [44]

13. TAM AND EDUCATION

14. TAM applied to students
Classroom-based
formal education
• Secondary and
primary
• Higher
education
eLearning and
mLearning
• Higher
education
• Lifelong learning

15. TAM applied to teachers
Pre-service
• Try to estimate the future acceptance
• TAM and extended TAM
In service
• Becoming more important due to the
fundamental role that they play in the
process of the integration of IS

16. TAM in Spain
• We can find some interesting research
Higer education
• Arteaga Sánchez
and Duarte
Hueros
• Parra-Meroño and
Carmona-Martínez
• Padilla-Meléndez,
Del Águila-Obra
and Garrido-
Moreno
Lifelong learning
• Roca and Cagné

17. AN EXTENDED TAM MODEL
TO MEASURE MOBILE
ACCEPTANCE

18. New constructs
• Previous experience
• One of the more efficient moderating factor
• Previous experience of the subjects with the technologies in their
daily life
• Perceived enjoyment:
• It is found within the motivational model of technology behavior
(MM)
• The degree in which the activity of using the technology is
perceived as enjoyable, regardless of the consequences on the
performance that can be anticipated
• Subjective norm:
• Comes from the TPB and
• Considers the social and organizational pressure perceived by the
teachers for the use of mobile technologies
[34, 17, 16]

19. Constructs
• Self-efficacy:
• Comes from the social cognitive theory (Bandura)
• Designates the assessment that a person makes
about their own ability to adequately use the
devices.
• Facilitating conditions:
• Integrated inside the unified theory of acceptance
and use of technology (UTAUT)
• Measures the perception of the individual of the
resources at his disposal in order to support the
behavior.
[4, 25, 67]

20. Relationships
Perceived
Usefulness
Previous
Experience
Preceived
Enjoyment
Self-efficacy
Facilitating
Conditions
Subjective
Norm
Perceived
Ease of Use
Attitude Towards
Using
Behavioral
Intention

21. Relationships
Perceived
Usefulness
Previous
Experience
Preceived
Enjoyment
Self-efficacy
Facilitating
Conditions
Subjective
Norm
Perceived
Ease of Use
Behavioral
Intention

22. Instrument
Divided in two sections
• Identification data and a Likert-type scale
Currently on validation
Study on the acceptance of
mobile technologies
• By the primary education teachers of
Castilla y León

23. C
O
N
C
L
U
S
I
O
N
S
• MLearning is a methodological alternative, traditionally
situated within the field of informal education, which is
starting to be integrated in environments of formal
education.
• We consider that the knowledge of the attitudes of the
teachers towards the mobile technologies is a key
element to successfully guide the process of change
• The TAM model is an efficient tool to evaluate the
technological adoption, and it has been used in
educational contexts, both with teachers and students,
obtaining good results.
• Our proposal consists in a theoretical model, elaborated
after an extensive literature review that serves to explain
the teachers’ adoption of mobile technologies.

24. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION

25. References
1. 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), 6-30.
2. Ajzen, I. 1985. From Intentions to Actions: A Theory of Planned Behavior. In Action Control From Cognition to Behavior, Kuhl, J. and
Beckmann, J. eds.Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 11-39.
3. Al-Debei, M. M. 2014. The quality and acceptance of websites: An empirical investigation in the context of higher education.
International Journal of Business Information Systems, 15, 2 (Feb. 2014), 170-188.
4. Bandura, A. 1978. Self-Efficacy: Toward a Unifying Theory of Behavior Change. Psychol. Rev. 84, 2, 191-215.
5. Beschorner, B. and Hutchison, A. 2013. iPads as a Literacy Teaching Tool in Early Childhood. International Journal of Education in
Mathematics, Science and Technology, 1, 1 (Jan. 2013), 16-24.
6. Bourgonjon, J., De Grove, F., De Smet, C., Van Looy, J., Soetaert, R. and Valcke, M. 2013. Acceptance of game-based learning by
secondary school teachers. Comput. Educ., 67, 0 (Sep. 2013), 21-35. DOI=http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.02.010.
7. Buchanan, T., Sainter, P. and Saunders, G. 2013. Factors affecting faculty use of learning technologies: Implications for models of
technology adoption. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 25, 1 (Apr. 2013), 1-11.
8. Chen, F., Looi, C. and Chen, W. 2009 Integrating technology in the classroom: a visual conceptualization of teachers' knowledge, goals
and beliefs. J. Comput. Assisted Learn., 25, 5 (Jul. 2009), 470-488. DOI=10.1111/j.1365-2729.2009.00323.x
9. Chen, H. and Tseng, H. 2012. Factors that influence acceptance of web-based e-learning systems for the in-service education of junior
high school teachers in Taiwan. Eval. Program Plann., 35, 3 (Aug. 2012), 398-406.
10. Chen, L., Gillenson, M. L. and Sherrell, D. L. 2002. Enticing online consumers: an extended technology acceptance perspective.
Information & Management, 39, 8 (Sep. 2002), 705-719. DOI=http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0378-7206(01)00127-6.
11. 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.
12. Cochrane, T. D. 2011. Beyond the Yellow Brick Road: Mobile Web 2.0 Informing a New Institutional E-Learning Strategy. Journal of
Asynchronous Learning Networks, 15, 4 (Nov. 2011), 60-68.
13. Conde González, M. Á, García Peñalvo, F. J., Alier, M. and Piguillem, J. 2013. The Implementation, Deployment and Evaluation of a
Mobile Personal Learning Environment. Journal of Universal Computer Science, 19, 7 (Jan 2013), 854-872.
14. Davis, F. D. 1986. A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-user information systems : theory and results.
Doctoral Thesis. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
15. Davis, F. D. 1989. Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology. MIS Quarterly, 13,
3 (Sep. 1989), 319-340

26. References
16. Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P. and Warshaw, P. R. 1992. Extrinsic and Intrinsic Motivation to Use Computers in the
Workplace. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol., 22, 14 (Jul. 1992), 1111-1132. DOI=10.1111/j.1559-1816.1992.tb00945.x.
17. De Smet, C., Bourgonjon, J., De Wever, B., Schellens, T. and Valcke, M. 2012. Researching instructional use and the
technology acceptation of learning management systems by secondary school teachers. Comput. Educ., 58, 2 (Feb. 2012),
688-696. DOI=http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.09.013.
18. Deshpande, Y., Bhattacharya, S. and Yammiyavar, P. 2012. A behavioral approach to modeling Indian children's ability of
adopting to e-learning environment. In Intelligent Human Computer Interaction (IHCI), 2012 4th International Conference
on, (Kharagpur, India, December 27-29 2012).
19. Echeng, R., Usoro, A. and Majewski, G. 2013. Acceptance of Web 2.0 in learning in higher education: An empirical study
of a Scottish University. International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications, 4, 10 (2013), 146-151.
20. Fishbein, M. and Ajzen, I. 1975. Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: an introduction to theory and research. Addison-
Wesley Pub. Co., Reading, Massachusets, 1975.
21. Fundación Telefónica. 2013. La Sociedad de la Información en España 2013. Retrieved June 16, 2014 from
http://www.fundacion.telefonica.com/es/arte_cultura/publicaciones/sie/sie2013.htm
22. Gao, Y. 2005. Applying the Technology Acceptance Model to Educational Hypermedia: A Field Study. Journal of
Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 14, 3 (Jul. 2005), 237-247.
23. Gefen, D., Karahanna, E. and Straub, D. W. 2003. Trust and TAM in Online Shopping: An Integrated Model. MIS Quarterly,
27, 1 (Mar. 2003), 51-90.
24. Heijden, H. 2000. E-Tam: a revision of the Technology Acceptance Model to explain website revisits. Research
memoranda. VU University Amsterdam, Faculty of Economics, Business Administration and Econometrics.
25. 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).
26. Hesser, T. L. and Schwartz, P. M. 2013. iPads in the Science Laboratory: Experience in Designing and Implementing a
Paperless Chemistry Laboratory Course. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations & Research, 14, 2 (Apr. 2013), 5-9.
27. Holden, H. and Rada, R. 2011. Understanding the Influence of Perceived Usability and Technology Self-Efficacy on
Teachers' Technology Acceptance. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 43, 4 (Jun. 2011), 343-367.
28. Hsu, C. and Lu, H. 2004. Why Do People Play On-line Games? An Extended TAM with Social Influences and Flow
Experience. Inf. Manage., 41, 7 (Sep. 2004), 853-868. DOI=10.1016/j.im.2003.08.014.
29. Huffman, W. H. and Huffman, A. H. 2012. Beyond basic study skills: The use of technology for success in college. Comput.
Hum. Behav., 28, 2 (Mar. 2012), 583-590.
30. Hung, M. and Jen, W. 2012. The adoption of mobile health management services: An empirical study. J. Med. Syst., 36, 3
(Jun. 2012), 1381-1388.

27. References
31. Hutchison, A., Beschorner, B. and Schmidt-Crawford, D. 2012. Exploring the Use of the iPad for Literacy Learning. The Reading
Teacher, 66, 1 (Jul. 2012), 15-23. DOI=10.1002/TRTR.01090.
32. Jou, M. and Wang, J. 2012. Observations of achievement and motivation in using cloud computing driven CAD: Comparison of college
students with high school and vocational high school backgrounds. Comput. Hum. Behav., (Mar. 2012), 364–369.
33. Kim, M., Choi, M. and Kim, J. 2012. Factors influencing the usage and acceptance of multimedia-based digital textbooks in pilot school.
KSII Transactions on Internet and Information Systems, 6, 6 (Jun. 2012), 1707-1717.
34. King, W. R. and He, J. 2006. A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model. Information & Management, 43, 6 (Sep. 2006), 740-
755. DOI=http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2006.05.003.
35. Kiraz, E. and Ozdemir, D. 2006. The Relationship between Educational Ideologies and Technology Acceptance in Pre-service
Teachers. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 9, 2 (Apr. 2006), 152-165.
36. Koutromanos, G., Styliaras, G. and Christodoulou, S. 2014. Student and in-service teachers' acceptance of spatial hypermedia in their
teaching: The case of HyperSea.
37. 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, 1 (Aug. 2013), 1-14.
38. Lee, M. K. O., Cheung, C. M. K. and Chen, Z. 2005. Acceptance of Internet-based learning medium: the role of extrinsic and intrinsic
motivation. Information & Management, 42, 8 (Dec. 2005), 1095-1104. DOI=http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2003.10.007.
39. Lee, Y., Hsieh, Y. and Hsu, C. 2011. Adding Innovation Diffusion Theory to the Technology Acceptance Model: Supporting Employees'
Intentions to use E-Learning Systems. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 14, 4 (Oct. 2011), 124-137.
40. Legris, P., Ingham, J. and Collerette, P. 2003. Why do people use information technology? A critical review of the technology
acceptance model. Information & Management, 40, 3 (Jan. 2003), 191-204. DOI=http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0378-7206(01)00143-4.
41. Liao, Y., Wang, K., Chan, P., Lin, Y., Chin, J. and Chen, Y. 2010. Digital folklore contents on education of childhood folklore and
corporate identification system design. In Proceedings of ICADL. 15-24.
42. Liaw, S., Huang, H. and Chen, G. 2007. Surveying instructor and learner attitudes toward e-learning. Comput. Educ., 49, 4 (Dec. 2007),
1066-1080. DOI=http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2006.01.001.
43. Mah, B. Y. 2009. An investigation on students' acceptance of writing web logs: A test of technology acceptance model. In Education
Technology and Computer, 2009. ICETC '09. International Conference on (Singapore, April 17-20 2009), 181-185.
44. Maranguniè, N. and Granié, A. 2014. Technology acceptance model: a literature review from 1986 to 2013. Universal Access in the
Information Society, (Feb. 2014), 1-15. DOI=10.1007/s10209-014-0348-1.
45. Navarro, I., Galindo, A. and Fonseca, D. 2013. Augmented Reality Uses in Educational Research Projects: The Falcones Project, a
Case Study Applying Technology in the Humanities Framework at High School Level. In Proceedings of the First International
Conference on Technological Ecosystem for Enhancing Multiculturality. (Salamanca, Spain, November 3-15, 2013). ACM, New York,
NY, USA, 411-415.

28. References
46. Ong, C. and Lai, J. 2006. Gender differences in perceptions and relationships among dominants of e-learning acceptance. Comput.
Hum. Behav., 22, 5 (Sep. 2006), 816-829.
47. 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. Comput. Educ., 63, 0 (Apr. 2013), 306-317.
DOI=http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.12.014.
48. Park, N., Lee, K. M. and Cheong, P. H. 2007. University instructors' acceptance of electronic courseware: An application of the
technology acceptance model. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13, 1 (Dec. 2007), 163-186.
49. Parra-Meroño, M. C. and Carmona-Martínez, M. M. 2011. Las tecnologías de la información y las comunicaciones en la enseñanza
superior española. Factores explicativos del uso del campus virtual. Estudios Sobre Educacion, 20 (Jun 2011), 73-98
50. Persico, D., Manca, S. and Pozzi, F. 2014. Adapting the technology acceptance model to evaluate the innovative potential of e-learning
systems. Comput. Hum. Behav., 30 (Jan. 2014), 614-622.
51. Rahmat, M. K. and Au, W. K. 2012. The role of teacher-teaching experience in VAE teachers' integration of ICT. In Proceedings of the
20th International Conference on Computers in Education, ICCE 2012 (Singapore, November 26-30,2012), 762-766.
52. Ramayah, T. 2010. The role of voluntariness in distance education students' usage of a course website. Turkish Online Journal of
Educational Technology, 9, 3 (Jul. 2010), 96-105.
53. Roca, J. C., Chiu, C. and Martínez, F. J. 2006. Understanding e-learning continuance intention: An extension of the Technology
Acceptance Model. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 64, 8 (Aug. 2006), 683-696.
DOI=http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2006.01.003.
54. Rossing, J. P., Miller, W. M., Cecil, A. K. and Stamper, S. E. 2012. iLearning: The Future of Higher Education? Student Perceptions on
Learning with Mobile Tablets. Journal of Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 12, 2 (Jun. 2012), 1-26.
55. 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.
56. Sánchez Prieto, J. C., Olmos Migueláñez, S., García Peñalvo, F. J. and Torrecilla Sánchez, E. M. 2014. Las tabletas digitales en
educación formal: características principales y posibilidades pedagógicas. In IV Congreso Internacional de Competencias Básicas:
Competencia digital y tratamiento de la información. Aprender en el siglo XXI. (Ciudad Real, España, April 9-11, 2014).
57. Sánchez, R. A. and Hueros, A. D. 2010. Motivational factors that influence the acceptance of Moodle using TAM. Comput. Hum.
Behav., 26, 6 (Nov. 2010), 1632-1640. DOI=http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.06.011..
58. Sek, Y., Lau, S., Teoh, K., Law, C. and Parumo, S. B. 2010. Prediction of user acceptance and adoption of smart phone for learning
with Technology Acceptance Model. Journal of Applied Sciences, 10, 20 (Aug. 2010), 2395-2402.
59. Sharples, M., Amedillo Sanchez, I., Milrad, M. and Vavoula, G. 2009. Mobile learning: small devices, big issues. In Technology
Enhanced Learning: Principles and Products, Balacheff, N., Ludvigsen, S., Jong, T. d. and Barnes, S. eds.. Springer, Heidelberg, 2009,
233-249.
60. Stantchev, V., Colomo-Palacios, R., Soto-Acosta, P. and Misra, S. 2014. Learning management systems and cloud file hosting
services: A study on students' acceptance. Comput. Hum. Behav., 31, 1 (Feb. 2014), 612-619.

29. References
61. Teo, T. 2012. Examining the intention to use technology among pre-service teachers: an integration of the Technology Acceptance
Model and Theory of Planned Behavior. Interactive Learning Environments, 20, 1 (Jan. 2012), 3-18.
DOI=10.1080/10494821003714632.
62. Teo, T. 2011. Factors influencing teachers’ intention to use technology: Model development and test. Comput. Educ., 57, 4 (Dec. 2011),
2432-2440. DOI=http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.06.008.
63. 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. Comput. Educ., 57, 2 (Sep. 2011), 1645-1653.
DOI=http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.03.002.
64. Terras, M. M. and Ramsay, J. 2012. The five central psychological challenges facing effective mobile learning. British Journal of
Educational Technology, 43, 5 (Sep. 2012), 820-832. DOI=10.1111/j.1467-8535.2012.01362.x.
65. Traxler, J. 2009. Current state of mobile learning. In Mobile learning: Transforming the Delivery of Education and Training Ally, M. ed..
AU Press, Edmonton, 9-25.
66. van Dinther, M., Dochy, F., Segers, M. and Braeken, J. 2013. The construct validity and predictive validity of a self-efficacy measure for
student teachers in competence-based education. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 39, 3 (Sep. 2013), 169-179.
DOI=http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2013.05.001.
67. Venkatesh, V. and Davis, F. D. 2000. A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies.
Management Science, 46, 2 (Feb. 2000), 186-204.
68. Venkatesh, V. and Bala, H. 2008. Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions. Decision Sciences, 39, 2
(May 2008), 273-315. DOI=10.1111/j.1540-5915.2008.00192.x.
69. 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.
70. Wilkins, M. A. 2009. Factors influencing acceptance of electronic health records in hospitals. Perspectives in health information
management, 6, 5, (Apr. 2009).
71. 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, (Oct. 2013), 1-21. DOI=10.1007/s10639-013-9290-8.
72. Wu, I. and Chen, J. 2005. An extension of Trust and TAM model with TPB in the initial adoption of on-line tax: An empirical study.
International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 62, 6 (Jun. 2005), 784-808. DOI=http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2005.03.003.
73. Yadegaridehkordi, E., Iahad, N. A. and Baloch, H. Z. 2013. Success factors influencing the adoption of M-learning. Int. J. Contin. Eng.
Educ. Life-Long Learn., 23, 2 (2013), 167-178.
74. 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
(2013), 24-38.
75. Yang, Z., Cai, S., Zhou, Z. and Zhou, N. 2005. Development and validation of an instrument to measure user perceived service quality
of information presenting Web portals. Information & Management, 42, 4 (May 2005), 575-589.
DOI=http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2004.03.001.

30. References
76. Yu, K., Lin, K., Han, F. and Hsu, I. 2012. A model of
junior high school students' attitudes toward technology.
International Journal of Technology and Design
Education, 22, 4 (Jan 2012), 423-436.
DOI=10.1007/s10798-011-9154-8.
77. Yuen, A. H. K. and Ma, W. W. K. 2008. Exploring
teacher acceptance of e-learning technology. Asia-
Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 36, 3 (Jul. 2008),
229-243.