Advertisement

Education and Information Technologies

, Volume 24, Issue 5, pp 2653–2675 | Cite as

Applying the technology acceptance model to understand maths teachers’ perceptions towards an augmented reality tutoring system

  • Emin IbiliEmail author
  • Dmitry Resnyansky
  • Mark Billinghurst
Article

Abstract

This paper examines mathematics teachers’ level of acceptance and intention to use the Augmented Reality Geometry Tutorial System (ARGTS), a mobile Augmented Reality (AR) application developed to enhance students’ 3D geometric thinking skills. ARGTS was shared with mathematics teachers, who were then surveyed using the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) to understand their acceptance of the technology. We also examined the external variables of Anxiety, Social Norms and Satisfaction. The effect of the teacher’s gender, degree of graduate status and number of years of teaching experience on the subscales of the TAM model were examined. We found that the Perceived Ease of Use (PEU) had a direct effect on the Perceived Usefulness (PU) in accordance with the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM). Both variables together affect Satisfaction (SF), however PEU had no direct effect on Attitude (AT). In addition, while Social Norms (SN) had a direct effect on PU and PEU, there was no direct effect on Behavioural Intention (BI). Anxiety (ANX) had a direct effect on PEU, but no effect on PU and SF. While there was a direct effect of SF on PEU, no direct effect was found on BI. We explain how the results of this study could help improve the understanding of AR acceptance by teachers and provide important guidelines for AR researchers, developers and practitioners.

Keywords

Augmented reality 3D geometric thinking skills Mathematics teachers Technology acceptance model 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

This research was supported by the postdoctoral research programme (BİDEB 2219) of The Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK).

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Abdullah, F., & Ward, R. (2016). Developing a general extended technology acceptance model for E-learning (GETAMEL) by analysing commonly used external factors. Computers in Human Behavior, 56, 238–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abdullah, F., Ward, R., & Ahmed, E. (2016). Investigating the influence of the most commonly used external variables of TAM on students’ perceived ease of use (PEOU) and perceived usefulness (PU) of e-portfolios. Computers in Human Behavior, 63, 75–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Agarwal, R., & Karahanna, E. (2000). Time flies when you're having fun: Cognitive absorption and beliefs about information technology usage. MIS Quarterly, 24, 665–694.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Al-Azawei, A., & Lundqvist, K. (2015). Learner differences in perceived satisfaction of an online learning: An extension to the technology acceptance model in an Arabic sample. Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 13(5), 408–426.Google Scholar
  5. Arvanitis, T. N., Williams, D. D., Knight, J. F., Baber, C., Gargalakos, M., Sotiriou, S., & Bogner, F. X. (2011). A human factors study of technology acceptance of a prototype mobile augmented reality system for science education. Advanced Science Letters, 4(11–12), 3342–3352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bagozzi, R. P., Gopinath, M., & Nyer, P. U. (1999). The role of emotions in marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 27(2), 184–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Balog, A., & Pribeanu, C. (2010). The role of perceived enjoyment in the students’ acceptance of an augmented reality teaching platform: A structural equation modelling approach. Studies in Informatics and Control, 19(3), 319–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bellone, L. M., & Czerniak, C. M. (2001). Teachers’ beliefs about accommodating students’ learning styles in science classes. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 6(2), 4–29.Google Scholar
  9. Bhattacherjee, A. (2001). An empirical analysis of the antecedents of electronic commerce service continuance. Decision Support Systems, 32(2), 201–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bonsón, E., Escobar, T., & Ratkai, M. (2014). Testing the inter-relations of factors that may support continued use intention: The case of Facebook. Social Science Information, 53(3), 293–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Briz-Ponce, L., Pereira, A., Carvalho, L., Juanes-Méndez, J. A., & García-Peñalvo, F. J. (2017). Learning with mobile technologies–students’ behavior. Computers in Human Behavior, 72, 612–620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bujak, K. R., Radu, I., Catrambone, R., Macintyre, B., Zheng, R., & Golubski, G. (2013). A psychological perspective on augmented reality in the mathematics classroom. Computers & Education, 68, 536–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Byrne, B. M. (2001). Structural equation modeling with AMOS, EQS, and LISREL: Comparative approaches to testing for the factorial validity of a measuring instrument. International Journal of Testing, 1(1), 55–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chang, C. T., Hajiyev, J., & Su, C. R. (2017). Examining the students’ behavioral intention to use e-learning in Azerbaijan? The general extended technology acceptance model for e-learning approach. Computers & Education, 111, 128–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cheng, M., & Yuen, A. H. K. (2018). Student continuance of learning management system use: A longitudinal exploration. Computers & Education, 120, 241–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cheon, J., Lee, S., Crooks, S. M., & Song, J. (2012). An investigation of mobile learning readiness in higher education based on the theory of planned behavior. Computers & Education, 59(3), 1054–1064.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13, 319–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35(8), 982–1003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Drennan, J., Kennedy, J., & Pisarski, A. (2005). Factors affecting student attitudes toward flexible online learning in management education. The Journal of Educational Research, 98(6), 331–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dunleavy, M., Dede, C., & Mitchell, R. (2009). Affordances and limitations of immersive participatory augmented reality simulations for teaching and learning. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18(1), 7–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 382–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gürbüz, R., & Gülburnu, M. (2013). Effect of teaching geometry with use Cabri 3D in eighth grade on conceptual learning. Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education (TURCOMAT), 4(3), 224–241.Google Scholar
  23. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2006). Multivariate data analysis (6th ed.). New York: Pearson.Google Scholar
  24. Haugstvedt, A. C. Krogstie, J. (2017). Mobile augmented reality for cultural heritage: A technology acceptance study. In 2012 IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality (ISMAR), Georgia Tech, Atlanta, USA, 5–8 November 2012. Washington: IEEE Computer Society.Google Scholar
  25. Huang, Y. M. (2016). The factors that predispose students to continuously use cloud services: Social and technological perspectives. Computers & Education, 97, 86–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hunt, H. K. (1977). CS/D - Overview and future research directions. In H. K. Hunt (Ed.), Conceptualizion and measurement of consumer satisfaction and dissatisfaction (pp. 77-103). Cambridge, MA: Marketing Science Institute.Google Scholar
  27. Ibáñez, M.B., Di Serio, Á., Villarán, D., Delgado-Kloos, C. (2016) The acceptance of learning augmented reality environments: a case study. In: 2016 IEEE 16th International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT), (pp. 307–311). IEEE.Google Scholar
  28. İbili, E., Çat, M., Resnyansky, D., Şahin, S., & Billinghurst, M. (2019). An assessment of geometry teaching supported with augmented reality teaching materials to enhance students’ 3D geometry thinking skills. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 1–23.Google Scholar
  29. Igbaria, M., & Parasuraman, S. (1989). A path analytic study of individual characteristics, computer anxiety and attitudes toward microcomputers. Journal of Management, 15(3), 373–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Islam, A. N. (2011). Understanding the continued usage intention of educators toward an e-learning system. International Journal of E-Adoption (IJEA), 3(2), 54–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Joo, Y. J., Park, S., & Shin, E. K. (2017). Students' expectation, satisfaction, and continuance intention to use digital textbooks. Computers in Human Behavior, 69, 83–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Karakırık, E. (2011). Geometry teaching with Dynamic geometry and Sketchpad. In E. Karakırık (Ed.), Technology use in mathematics education (pp. 67–96). Ankara: Nobel Publishing.Google Scholar
  33. Kim, K., Hwang, J., Zo, H., & Lee, H. (2016). Understanding users’ continuance intention toward smartphone augmented reality applications. Information Development, 32(2), 161–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lai, V. S., & Li, H. (2005). Technology acceptance model for internet banking: An invariance analysis. Information & Management, 42(2), 373–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lave, J., Wenger, E., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation (Vol. 521423740). Cambridge: Cambridge university press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lee, M. C. (2010). Explaining and predicting users’ continuance intention toward e-learning: An extension of the expectation–confirmation model. Computers & Education, 54(2), 506–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lee, M. K., Cheung, C. M., & Chen, Z. (2005). Acceptance of internet-based learning medium: The role of extrinsic and intrinsic motivation. Information & Management, 42(8), 1095–1104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lee, G., Teo, T., Kim, S. and M. Billinghurst (2017). Mixed reality collaboration through sharing a live panorama. In SIGGRAPH Asia 2017 Mobile Graphics Interactive Applications (p. 14). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  39. Lin, H. F., & Chen, C. H. (2017). Combining the technology acceptance model and uses and gratifications theory to examine the usage behavior of an augmented reality tour-sharing application. Symmetry, 9(7), 113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lin, H. C., Chiu, Y. H., Chen, Y. J., Wuang, Y. P., Chen, C. P., Wang, C. C., Huang, C. L., Wu, T. M., & Ho, W. H. (2017). Continued use of an interactive computer game-based visual perception learning system in children with developmental delay. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 107, 76–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. M.E.B - T. C. Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı (Republic of Turkey, Ministry of National Education), (2018) Elementary-Secondary Mathematics Lesson Curriculum (1–8. Grade), Ankara.Google Scholar
  42. M.E.B - T. C. Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı (Republic of Turkey, Ministry of National Education), Board of Education (2009). Secondary Mathematics Lesson Curriculum (6–8 Grade), Ankara.Google Scholar
  43. Mathieson, K. (1991). Predicting user intentions: Comparing the technology acceptance model with the theory of planned behavior. Information Systems Research, 2(3), 173–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Mlaiki, A., Kailka, M., & Kefi, H. (2011). Facebook… encore, encore…! Rôle de l’affect, de l’habitude et de la surcharge informationnelle dans la continuité d’utilisation des réseaux sociaux numériques. Disponible sur: https://basepub.dauphine.fr/bitstream/handle/123456789/7963/Kalika_aim2011.PDF?sequence=1. Accessed 01 Apr 2019.
  45. Nikou, S. A., & Economides, A. A. (2017a). Mobile-based assessment: Investigating the factors that influence behavioral intention to use. Computers & Education, 109, 56–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Nikou, S. A., & Economides, A. A. (2017b). Mobile-based assessment: Integrating acceptance and motivational factors into a combined model of self-determination theory and technology acceptance. Computers in Human Behavior, 68, 83–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Osman N. B. (2013). Extending the technology acceptance model for mobile government systems, The international Arab conference on information technology (ACIT’2013). https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/e7f4/bd830907d2b7d86a0d0a0ea578433de80ad0.pdf. Accessed 01 Apr 2019.
  48. Prieto, J. C. S., Migueláñez, S. O., & García-Peñalvo, F. J. (2017). Utilizarán los futuros docentes las tecnologías móviles? Validación de una propuesta de modelo TAM extendido. Revista de Educación a Distancia, (52).Google Scholar
  49. Quintero, E., Salinas, P., González-Mendívil, E., & Ramírez, H. (2015). Augmented reality app for calculus: A proposal for the development of spatial visualization. Procedia Computer Science, 75, 301–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Revythi, A., & Tselios, N. (2017). Extension of technology acceptance model by using system usability scale to assess behavioral intention to use e-learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1704.06127.Google Scholar
  51. Roberts, P., & Henderson, R. (2000). Information technology acceptance in a sample of government employees: a test of the technology acceptance model. Interacting with Computers, 12(5), 427–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Saadé, R., & 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 & Management, 42(2), 317–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Saadé, R. G., & Kira, D. (2009). Computer anxiety in e-learning: The effect of computer self-efficacy. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 8, 177–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Šebjan, U., & Tominc, P. (2015). Impact of support of teacher and compatibility with needs of study on usefulness of SPSS by students. Computers in Human Behavior, 53, 354–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Tarhini, A., Arachchilage, N. A. G., & Abbasi, M. S. (2015). A critical review of theories and models of technology adoption and acceptance in information system research. International Journal of Technology Diffusion (IJTD), 6(4), 58–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Teo, T., & Zhou, M. (2014). Explaining the intention to use technology among university students: a structural equation modeling approach. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 26(2), 124–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Thong, J. Y., Hong, S. J., & Tam, K. Y. (2006). The effects of post-adoption beliefs on the expectation-confirmation model for information technology continuance. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 64(9), 799–810.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Tsai, C. H., & Yen, J. C. (2014). The augmented reality application of multimedia technology in aquatic organisms instruction. Journal of Software Engineering and Applications, 7(9), 745–755.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Valtonen, T., Kukkonen, J., Kontkanen, S., Sormunen, K., Dillon, P., & 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, 49–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Venkatesh, V. (2000). Determinants of perceived ease of use: Integrating control, intrinsic motivation, and emotion into the technology acceptance model. Information Systems Research, 11(4), 342–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (1996). A model of the antecedents of perceived ease of use: Development and test. Decision Sciences, 27(3), 451–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27, 425–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Verma, P., & Sinha, N. (2018). Integrating perceived economic wellbeing to technology acceptance model: The case of mobile based agricultural extension service. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 126, 207–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Wiest, L. R. (2001). The role of computers in mathematics teaching and learning. Computers in the Schools, 17(1–2), 41–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Wojciechowski, R., & Cellary, W. (2013). Evaluation of learners’ attitude toward learning in ARIES augmented reality environments. Computers & Education, 68, 570–585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Xie, B. (2003). Older adults, computers, and the Internet: future directions. Gerontechnology, 2(4), 289–305.  https://doi.org/10.4017/gt.2003.02.04.002.00.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Xu, F., & Du, J. T. (2018). Factors influencing users’ satisfaction and loyalty to digital libraries in Chinese universities. Computers in Human Behavior, 83, 64–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Yousef, D. A. (2017). Organizational commitment, job satisfaction and attitudes toward organizational change: a study in the local government. International Journal of Public Administration, 40(1), 77–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Health Sciences, Department of Healthcare ManagementAfyonkarahisar Health Sciences UniversityAfyonkarahisarTurkey
  2. 2.School of Information Technology & Mathematical SciencesThe University of South AustraliaAdelaideAustralia

Personalised recommendations