Education and Information Technologies

, Volume 20, Issue 3, pp 559–578 | Cite as

Student and in-service teachers’ acceptance of spatial hypermedia in their teaching: The case of HyperSea

  • George Koutromanos
  • Georgios Styliaras
  • Sotiris Christodoulou
Article
First Online:

Abstract

The aim of this study was to use the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) in order to investigate the factors that influence student and in-service teachers’ intention to use a spatial hypermedia application, the HyperSea, in their teaching. HyperSea is a modern hypermedia environment that takes advantage of space in order to display content nodes and social media pages that can be dragged from the Internet. In total, 257 student and in-service teachers completed a survey questionnaire, measuring their responses to four constructs in the TAM. The results of student teachers’ regression analysis showed that all components of the TAM were found to predict their intention to use HyperSea in their teaching. Perceived usefulness was the most important predictor in their attitude and intention. On the other hand, only attitude towards use had direct influence on teachers’ intention. In addition, perceived usefulness influenced teachers’ intention. Perceived ease of use in this study failed to emerge as a significant predictor of teachers’ attitude and perceived usefulness. The results showed that the TAM in general is useful model for predicting and exploring the factors that influence student and in-service teachers’ intention to use spatial hypermedia such as the HyperSea in their teaching in future. Results of the study are discussed in terms of increasing the intention of student and in service teachers to use spatial hypermedia in their teaching.

Keywords

Spatial hypermedia Student and in-service teachers TAM Technology acceptance 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Agarwal, R., & Prasad, J. (1998). A conceptual and operational definition of personal innovativeness in the domain of information technology. Information Systems Research, 9, 204–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behaviour. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ajzen, I. (2006). Constructing a TpB questionnaire: Conceptual and methodological considerations. <http://www-unix.oit.umass.edu/~aizen/pdf/tpb.measurement.pdf> Retrieved 01.09.12.
  4. Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall Inc.Google Scholar
  5. Al-Gahtani, S., & King, M. (1999). Attitudes, satisfaction and usage: factors contributing to each in the acceptance of information technology. Behaviour & Information Technology, 18(4), 277–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Angeli, C. (2004). The effects of case-based learning on early childhood pre-service teachers’ beliefs about the pedagogical uses of ICT. Journal of Educational Media, 29(2), 139–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Armitage, C. J., & Conner, M. (2001). Efficacy of the theory of planned behaviour: a meta-analytic review. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 471–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Buchanan, G., & Owen, T. (2008). Improving navigation interaction in digital documents. In R. Larsen, A. Paepcke, J. Borbinha, & M. Naaman (Eds.), Proceedings of the 8th ACM/IEEE-CS Joint Conference on Digital Libraries (pp. 389–392). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  9. Chau, P. Y. K., & Tam, K. Y. (1997). Factors affecting the adoption of open systems: an exploratory study. MIS Quarterly, 21(1), 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Conti, G., Piffer, S., Girardi, G., De Amicis, R., & Ucelli, G. (2006). DentroTrento – a virtual walk across history. In A. Celentano (Ed.), Proceedings of the working conference on advanced visual interfaces (pp. 318–321). New York: ACM.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Czerniak, C., Lumpe, A., Haney, J., & Beck, J. (1999). Teachers’ beliefs about using educational technology in the science classroom. International Journal of Educational Technology, 1(2), 1–18.Google Scholar
  12. Davis, F. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Davis, F. D. (1993). User acceptance of information technology: system characteristics, user perceptions and behavioural impact. International Journal of Man Machine Studies, 38, 475–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Davis, F., Bagozzi, R., & Warshaw, P. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35(8), 982–1003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. DiPaola, S., & Akai, C. (2006). Designing an adaptive multimedia interactive to support shared learning experiences. In M. Barr (Ed.), ACM SIGGRAPH 2006 Educators program, (Article 14). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  16. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behaviour: An introduction to theory and research. Reading: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  17. Fullan, M. (2007). The new meaning of educational change (4th ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  18. Gao, Y. (2005). Applying the technology acceptance model (TAM) to educational hypermedia: a field study. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 14(3), 237–247.Google Scholar
  19. Gefen, D., Karahanna, E., & Straub, D. W. (2003). Inexperience and experience with online stores: the importance of TAM and trust. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 50, 307–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Heinrich, M., Lehmann, F., Springer, T., & Gaedke, M. (2012). Exploiting single-user web applications for shared editing: A generic transformation approach. In M. Rabinovich & S. Staab (Eds.), Proceedings of the 21st international conference on world wide web (pp. 1057–1066). New York: ACM.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hsiao, C. H., & Yang, C. (2011). The intellectual development of the technology acceptance model: a co-citation analysis. International Journal of Information Management, 31, 128–136.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  22. Hu, P. J. H., Clark, T. H. K., & Ma, W. W. (2003). Examining technology acceptance by school teachers: a longitudinal study. Information & Management, 41, 227–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Huang, Y.-M., Huang, Y.-M., Huang, S.-H., & Lin, Y.-T. (2012). A ubiquitous English vocabulary learning system: evidence of active/passive attitudes vs. usefulness/ease-of-use. Computers & Education, 58, 273–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hung, S.-W., & Cheng, M.-J. (2013). Are you ready for knowledge sharing? An empirical study of virtual communities. Computers & Education, 62, 8–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Igbaria, M., Guimaraes, T., & Davis, G. B. (1995). Testing the determinants of microcomputer usage via a structural equation model. Journal of Management Information Systems, 11(4), 87–114.Google Scholar
  26. Jankowski, J., & Decker, S. (2012). A dual-mode user interface for accessing 3D content on the world wide web. In M. Rabinovich & S. Staab (Eds.), Proceedings of the 21st international conference on world wide web (pp. 1047–1056). New York: ACM.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jones, A. (2004). A review of the research literature on barriers to the uptake of ICT by teachers. Coventry: Becta/London: DfES.Google Scholar
  28. Karahanna, E., & Straub, D. W. (1999). The psychological origins of perceived usefulness and perceived ease-of-use. Information & Management, 35, 237–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. King, W. R., & He, J. (2006). A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model. Information & Management, 43, 740–755.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lay, J.-G., Chi, Y.-L., Hsieh, Y.-S., & Chen, Y.-W. (2013). What influences geography teachers’ usage of geographic information systems? A structural equation analysis. Computers & Education, 62, 191–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lee, D. Y., & Lehto, M. R. (2013). User acceptance of YouTube for procedural learning: an extension of the technology acceptance model. Computers & Education, 61, 193–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lee, Y., Kozar, K. A., & Larsen, K. R. T. (2003). The technology acceptance model past, present and future. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 12, 752–780.Google Scholar
  33. Lee, J., Cerreto, F. A., & Lee, J. (2010). Theory of planned behavior and teachers’ decisions regarding use of educational technology. Educational Technology & Society, 13(1), 152–164.Google Scholar
  34. Legris, P., Ingham, J., & Collerette, P. (2003). Why do people use information technology? A critical review of the technology acceptance model. Information & Management, 40(3), 191–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lei, J. (2009). Digital natives as preservice teachers: what technology preparation is needed? Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 25(3), 87–97.Google Scholar
  36. Li, Y. Q., Qi, J. Y., & Shu, H. Y. (2008). Review of relationships among variables in TAM. Tsinghua Science & Technology, 13(3), 273–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Ma, Q., & Liu, L. (2004). The technology acceptance model: a meta-analysis of empirical findings. Journal of Organizational and End User Computing, 16(1), 59–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Matias, J. (2005). Philadelphia fullerine: A case study in three-dimensional hypermedia. In S. Reich & M. Tzagarakis (Eds.), Proceedings of the Sixteenth ACM Conference on Hypertext and Hypermedia (pp. 7–14). New York: ACM.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Moon, J. W., & Kim, Y. G. (2001). Extending the TAM for a world–wide–web context. Information & Management, 38(4), 217–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Ngai, E. W. T., Poon, J. K. L., & Chan, Y. H. C. (2007). Empirical examination of the adoption of WebCT using TAM. Computers & Education, 48, 250–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  42. Pavlou, P. A. (2003). Consumer acceptance of electronic commerce: integrated trust and risk with the technology acceptance model. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 7(3), 101–134.Google Scholar
  43. Preston, C., Cox, M., & Cox, K. (2000). Teachers as innovators. London: Miranda Net.Google Scholar
  44. Russell, M., Bebell, D., O’Dwyer, L., & O’Connor, K. (2013). Examining teacher technology use: implications for preservice and inservice teacher preparation. Journal of Teacher Education, 54(4), 297–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Salleh, S., & Albion, P. (2004). Using the theory of planned behaviour to predict Bruneian teachers’ intentions to use ICT in teaching. In C. Crawford et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of society for information technology and teacher education international conference 2004 (pp. 1389–1396). Chesapeake: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.Google Scholar
  46. Sánchez, R. A., & Hueros, A. D. (2010). Motivational factors that influence the acceptance of Moodle using TAM. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(6), 1632–1640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Sánchez, R. A., Cortijo, V., & Javed, U. (2014). Students’ perceptions of Facebook for academic purposes. Computers & Education, 70, 138–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Schepers, J., & Wetzels, M. (2007). A meta-analysis of technology acceptance model: investigating subjective norm and moderation effect. Information & Management, 44, 90–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Shipman, F. & P., Marshall, M. (1999). Spatial hypertext: an alternative to navigational and semantic links. ACM Comput. Surv. 31(4), Article 14.Google Scholar
  50. Shipman, F., Hsieh, H., Maloor, P., & Moore, J. (2001). The visual knowledge builder: A second generation spatial hypertext. In K. Grønbæk, H. Davis, & Y. Douglas (Eds.), Proceedings of the Twelfth ACM Conference on Hypertext and Hypermedia (pp. 113–122). New York: ACM.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Shipman, F., Hsieh, H., Moore, J., & Zacchi, A. (2004). Supporting personal collections across digital libraries in spatial hypertext. In H. Chen, H. Wactlar, C. Chen, E. Lim, & M. Christel (Eds.), Proceedings of the 4th ACM/IEEE-CS joint conference on Digital libraries (pp. 358–367). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  52. Shiue, Y. (2007). Investigating the sources of teachers’ instructional technology use through the decomposed theory of planned behaviour. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 36(4), 425–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Shroff, R. H., Deneen, C. C., & Ng, E. M. W. (2011). Analysis of the technology acceptance model in examining students’ behavioural intention to use an e-portfolio system. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 27(4), 600–618.Google Scholar
  54. Smarkola, C. (2008). Efficacy of a planned behavior model: beliefs that contribute to computer usage intentions of student teachers and experienced teachers. Computers in Human Behavior, 24, 1196–1215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Styliaras, G., & Christodoulou, S. (2009). HyperSea: towards a spatial hypertext environment for web 2.0 content. In Menczer, F. (Ed.), Proceedings of the 20th ACM conference on Hypertext and hypermedia (pp. 35–44). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  56. Šumak, B., Hericko, M., & Pušnik, M. (2011). A meta-analysis of e-learning technology acceptance: the role of user types and e-learning technology types. Computers in Human Behavior, 27, 2067–2077.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Teo, T. (2009). Modelling technology acceptance in education: a study of pre-service teachers. Computers and Education, 52(1), 302–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Teo, T. (2011). Factors influencing teachers’ intention to use technology: model development and test. Computers & Education, 57(4), 2432–2440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Teo, T., & Lee, C. B. (2010). Explaining the intention to use technology among student teachers: an application of the theory of planned behavior (TPB). Campus-Wide Information Systems, 27(2), 60–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Teo, T., & 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, 1645–1653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Teo, T., Lee, C. B., & Chai, C. S. (2008). Understanding pre-service teachers’ computer attitudes: applying and extending the technology acceptance model (TAM). Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24(2), 128–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Teo, T., Lee, C. B., Chai, C. S., & 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 and Education, 53, 1000–1009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Tselios, N., Daskalakis, S., & Papadopoulou, M. (2011). Assessing the acceptance of a blended learning university course. Educational Technology & Society, 14(2), 224–235.Google Scholar
  64. Turner, M., Kitchenham, B., Brereton, P., Charters, S., & Budgen, D. (2010). Does the technology acceptance model predict actual use? A systematic literature review. Information and Software Technology, 52, 463–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Venkatesh, V., & Bala, H. (2008). Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on interventions. Decision Sciences, 39(2), 273–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478.Google Scholar
  68. Wong, K.-T., Osman, R.-B. T., Goh, P. S. C., & Rahmat, M. K. (2013). Understanding student teachers’ behavioural intention to use technology: technology acceptance model (TAM) validation and testing. International Journal of Instruction, 6(1), 89–104.Google Scholar
  69. Wu, J., & Lederer, A. (2009). A meta-analysis of the role of environment-based voluntariness in information technology acceptance. MIS Quarterly, 33(2), 419–432.Google Scholar
  70. Wu, K., Zhao, Y., Zhu, Q., Tan, X., & Zheng, H. (2011). A meta-analysis of the impact of trust on technology acceptance model: investigation of moderating influence of subject and context type. International Journal of Information Management, 31(6), 572–581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Yousafzai, S. Y., Foxall, G. R., & Pallister, J. G. (2007a). Technology acceptance: a meta-analysis of the TAM (part 1). Journal of Modeling in Management, 2(3), 251–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Yousafzai, S. Y., Foxall, G. R., & Pallister, J. G. (2007b). Technology acceptance. A meta-analysis of the TAM: part 2. Journal of Modelling in Management, 2(3), 281–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Zhang, L., Zhu, J., & Liu, Q. (2012). A meta-analysis of mobile commerce adoption and the moderating effect of culture. Computers in Human Behavior, 28, 1902–1911.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • George Koutromanos
    • 1
  • Georgios Styliaras
    • 2
  • Sotiris Christodoulou
    • 3
  1. 1.Faculty of Primary EducationNational and Kapodistrian University of AthensAthensGreece
  2. 2.Department of Cultural Heritage Environment and New TechnologiesUniversity of PatrasAgrinioGreece
  3. 3.Technological Educational Institute of MessolonghiMessolonghiGreece

Personalised recommendations