Mobile Acceptance among Pre-Service Teachers: A Descriptive Study Using a TAM-Based ModelJosé Carlos Sánchez PrietoSusana Olmos MigueláñezFrancisco J. García PeñalvoGRIAL Research GroupEducational Research InstituteUniversity of salamanca

INTRODUCTION

INTRODUCTION: mlEARNING

Individualisation

Flexibility

Comunication

mLearning has become more and more relevant supported both by:• The growing presence of mobile devices in all aspects

of our life.• The technologycal improvement.

Three main advantges:

INTRODUCTION: TEACHERSThe teachers are key agents in the process of educational innovation.

• New Workload

• Intimidated by the devices

• Unsure about the capability

INTRODUCTION: TAM ModelThe 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

METHODOLOGY

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

METHODOLOGY: Variables

Exogenous• Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of

use, self-efficacy and mobile device anxiety.Endogenous

• Behavioural intention.

Other explanatory variables• Age, gender, year.

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

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

RESULTS

RESULTS: Averages

AVG

STD

% Valid N 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

PEU_04 4,55 1,222 ,6 1,9 4,3 9,2 25,7 35,7 22,6 676 PEU_01 4,49 1,282 ,6 2,8 3,2 13,9 22,9 33,3 23,3 678 PEU_02 4,45 1,213 1,2 1,2 3,6 12,0 27,8 35,2 18,9 665 SE_01 4,43 1,212 ,6 1,8 4,4 12,4 27,0 35,2 18,6 662 SE_03 4,39 1,422 1,7 2,6 6,9 12,0 22,4 30,0 24,4 664 PU_04 4,32 1,290 1,3 3,4 4,3 11,5 25,3 40,4 13,6 668 SE_02 4,28 1,297 1,6 3,1 4,7 11,1 27,7 38,3 13,4 674 PU_01 4,20 1,328 1,2 2,8 7,2 14,0 28,5 30,7 15,6 678 BI_01 4,15 1,450 2,1 3,9 6,1 17,8 23,9 27,7 18,7 675 PU_03 4,10 1,300 1,2 3 7,2 17,1 27,4 32,8 11,2 667 PU_02 4,08 1,272 1,6 2,8 5,2 18,4 30,0 32,1 9,7 669

PEU_03 4,06 1,221 1,4 2,4 6,1 17,6 32,2 32,6 7,7 659 MA_01 4,04 1,629 1,9 5,7 13,5 13,8 18,1 24,3 22,6 667 BI_02 4,03 1,418 2,1 4,7 6,3 18,1 25,2 31,0 12,7 664

MA_03 3,97 1,654 3,4 5,7 11,6 18,2 16,7 25,7 18,7 668 MA_02 3,91 1,645 2,7 6,6 9,4 21,9 12,9 25,0 21,6 670

a. Dimensions ordered by value of average.

RESULTS: Year Year

First Fourth AVG STD N AVG STD N

BI_01 4,15 1,399 200 4,19 1,539 154 BI_02 4,05 1,431 198 3,92 1,566 154

MA_01 3,92 1,602 199 4,05 1,681 152 MA_02 3,94 1,593 200 3,66 1,780 154 MA_03 3,92 1,667 200 3,90 1,704 154 PEU_01 4,53 1,316 202 4,38 1,364 155 PEU_02 4,46 1,246 199 4,37 1,292 153 PEU_03 4,11 1,120 195 4,01 1,386 152 PEU_04 4,60 1,231 202 4,41 1,293 155 PU_01 4,01 1,369 202 4,28 1,417 155 PU_02 4,04 1,235 200 4,11 1,346 154 PU_03 4,05 1,324 201 4,13 1,289 151 PU_04 4,27 1,365 199 4,28 1,331 154 SE_01 4,36 1,274 198 4,51 1,166 149 SE_02 4,15 1,363 201 4,29 1,361 154 SE_03 4,41 1,310 198 4,42 1,440 151

a. Dimensions ordered alphabetically by construct.

Kolmogorov-Smirnov Shapiro-Wilk Statistic df Sig. Statistic df Sig.

BI_01 ,194 562 ,000 ,899 562 ,000 BI_02 ,198 562 ,000 ,906 562 ,000

MA_01 ,196 562 ,000 ,906 562 ,000 MA_02 ,192 562 ,000 ,912 562 ,000 MA_03 ,202 562 ,000 ,906 562 ,000 PEU_01 ,223 562 ,000 ,876 562 ,000 PEU_02 ,207 562 ,000 ,880 562 ,000 PEU_03 ,206 562 ,000 ,897 562 ,000 PEU_04 ,226 562 ,000 ,871 562 ,000 PU_01 ,203 562 ,000 ,897 562 ,000 PU_02 ,200 562 ,000 ,901 562 ,000 PU_03 ,200 562 ,000 ,905 562 ,000 PU_04 ,248 562 ,000 ,864 562 ,000 SE_01 ,220 562 ,000 ,889 562 ,000 SE_02 ,227 562 ,000 ,860 562 ,000 SE_03 ,211 562 ,000 ,884 562 ,000

a. Liliefors significance correction.

RESULTS: Year Mann-

Whitney’s U W de

Wilcoxon Z Asymptot.

sig. (bilateral)

BI_01 14807,000 34907,000 -,637 ,524 BI_02 14753,000 26688,000 -,535 ,593

MA_01 14284,500 34184,500 -,907 ,364 MA_02 14023,500 25958,500 -1,467 ,142 MA_03 15254,500 27189,500 -,156 ,876 PEU_01 14717,500 26807,500 -1,000 ,318 PEU_02 14768,000 26549,000 -,498 ,618 PEU_03 14713,000 26341,000 -,120 ,905 PEU_04 14315,500 26405,500 -1,437 ,151 PU_01 13915,000 34418,000 -1,849 ,064 PU_02 14614,000 34714,000 -,852 ,394 PU_03 14587,000 34888,000 -,643 ,520 PU_04 15279,500 35179,500 -,048 ,962 SE_01 13917,000 33618,000 -,933 ,351 SE_02 14255,000 34556,000 -1,326 ,185 SE_03 14489,000 34190,000 -,507 ,612

RESULTS: Gender Gender of students

Female Male AVG STD N AVG STD N

BI_01 4,10 1,486 438 4,28 1,361 234 BI_02 3,98 1,411 433 4,14 1,427 228

MA_01 3,99 1,654 431 4,14 1,581 233 MA_02 3,81 1,666 434 4,10 1,591 233 MA_03 4,01 1,577 432 3,91 1,778 233 PEU_01 4,39 1,337 440 4,69 1,148 235 PEU_02 4,40 1,247 434 4,59 1,101 228 PEU_03 4,00 1,246 428 4,19 1,155 228 PEU_04 4,52 1,241 440 4,62 1,180 233 PU_01 4,15 1,354 440 4,34 1,258 235 PU_02 3,98 1,259 432 4,28 1,252 234 PU_03 4,03 1,325 431 4,25 1,242 233 PU_04 4,26 1,307 432 4,43 1,252 234 SE_01 4,43 1,218 429 4,47 1,170 230 SE_02 4,28 1,314 438 4,31 1,262 233 SE_03 4,39 1,407 432 4,41 1,423 229

Mann-Whitney’s U

W de Wilcoxon

Z Asymptot. sig.

(bilateral) BI_01 48154,000 144295,000 -1,322 ,186 BI_02 45640,000 139601,000 -1,640 ,101

MA_01 47758,500 140854,500 -1,060 ,289 MA_02 45427,000 139822,000 -2,204 ,028 MA_03 49549,500 76810,500 -,336 ,737 PEU_01 45605,000 142625,000 -2,611 ,009 PEU_02 45713,500 140108,500 -1,672 ,094 PEU_03 44369,000 136175,000 -1,990 ,047 PEU_04 49210,500 146230,500 -,888 ,375 PU_01 47886,000 144906,000 -1,630 ,103 PU_02 43153,500 136681,500 -3,230 ,001 PU_03 45589,500 138685,500 -2,024 ,043 PU_04 46338,000 139866,000 -1,857 ,063 SE_01 48426,500 140661,500 -,405 ,686 SE_02 50896,500 147037,500 -,057 ,955 SE_03 49042,500 142570,500 -,186 ,853

Significant differences in 5 items: MA_02, PEU_01, PEU_03, PU_02 y PU_03.

DISCUSSION

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.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATENTION

REFERENCES

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.