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

INTRODUCTION

Introduction

INFORMAL FORMAL

• Contextual

• Individualized

• Situated

• Autonomy

• Communication

• Anytime/Anywhere

• All levels

• PLEs, zero-

paper, AR

[12, 59, 64, 65]

Introduction

SUCCESS TEACHERS TAM

[8, 15, 56]

THE TAM MODELANTECEDENTS, EVOLUTION AND FUTURE LINES

Antecedents: TRA

Propposed by Ajzen and Fishbane

Attitude

Subjective

Norm

Behavioral

IntentionBehavior

• 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]

Antecedents: TPB

Attitude

Perceived

Behavioral

Control

Behavioral

IntentionBehavior

• Limitations with voluntariness

• Perceived behavioral control: The organizational or social

pressure towards performing a determined behavior perceived by

the individual

Subjective

Norm

[2]

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]

Characteristics and evolution

Theoretical strength

High percentageof the variance

Simplicity

No external variables

Use of self-reports

Exploratory studies

[25, 34, 40]

Characteristics and evolution

• Such as the working experience or the self-efficacy

Inclusion of external precursors

• In order to increment the predictive capacity

Incorporation of factors from other theories

• Such as gender, culture or features of the device.

Introduction of contextual factors

Measurement of final elements

[34]

Characteristics and evolution

TAM 2

• Subjective norm

• Previous experience

• Voluntariness

TAM 3

• Anchor

• Adjustment

[67, 68]

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]

TAM AND EDUCATION

TAM applied to students

Classroom-basedformal education

• Secondary and primary

• Highereducation

eLearning and mLearning

• Highereducation

• Lifelong learning

TAM applied to teachers

• Try to estimate the future acceptance

• TAM and extended TAM

Pre-service

• Becoming more important due to the fundamental role that they play in the process of the integration of IS

In service

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-Obraand Garrido-Moreno

Lifelong learning

• Roca and Cagné

AN EXTENDED TAM MODEL

TO MEASURE MOBILE

ACCEPTANCE

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]

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]

Relationships

Perceived

Usefulness

Preceived

Enjoyment

Self-efficacy

Facilitating

Conditions

Subjective

Norm

Previous

Experience

Perceived

Ease of Use

Attitude Towards

Using

Behavioral

Intention

Relationships

Perceived

Usefulness

Preceived

Enjoyment

Self-efficacy

Facilitating

Conditions

Subjective

Norm

Previous

Experience

Perceived

Ease of Use

Behavioral

Intention

Instrument

• Identification data and a Likert-type scale

Divided in two sections

Currently on validation

• By the primary education teachers of Castilla y León

Study on the acceptance of mobile technologies

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.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION

References1. 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

References16. 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.

References31. 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 collegestudents 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.

References46. 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 eneducación 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.

References61. 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.

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.