Rural STEM Preservice Teachers’ Acceptance of Virtual Learning
Abstract
Teaching and learning of Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) to preservice teachers in rural universities has always been a challenge, resulting in poor student performance. The outbreak of COVID-19 has made it exacerbated this owing to lockdown restrictions in most institutions including universities. Consequently, universities switched to virtual learning (VL), even though most of them (especially rural universities) were not ready for it. This worsened the plight of struggling rural STEM students who had to make do with this new VL. Hence, this study focussed on rural STEM preservice teachers’ acceptance of virtual learning. Prior studies have shown that adoption of a new information system depends on its acceptance by users; however, very little is known about the acceptance of VL by rural STEM preservice teachers. Based on the technology acceptance model, the study proposed and used the STEM preservice teacher acceptance virtual learning model to investigate factors that predict rural STEM preservice teachers' actual use of VL. Partial least squares structural equation modelling was used to analyse data from 250 valid questionnaires. The model explained 74.6% of the variance in rural STEM pre-service teachers' actual use of VL. Latent variables, facilitating conditions, attitude towards use, and perceived ease of use had a direct impact on the actual use of VL. Attitude to use also played a mediating role between actual use and predictors, perceived enjoyment, perceived social influence, computer self-efficacy, and perceived usefulness. It was concluded that rural STEM pre-service teachers embrace VL given the desperate pandemic situation.
https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.21.2.9
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
Al Kurdi, B., Alshurideh, M., Salloum, S., Obeidat, Z., & Al-Dweeri, R. (2020). An empirical investigation into examination of factors influencing university students’ behavior towards elearning acceptance using SEM approach. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijim.v14i02.11115
Belgheis, S., & Kamalludeen, R. (2018). The intention to use GeoGebra in the teaching of Mathematics among Malaysian teachers. Malaysian Online Journal of Educational Technology, 6(1), 109-115. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1165486
Benadé, T., & Liebenberg, J. (2017). Investigating the acceptance of digital technologies in an Excel course. https://uir.unisa.ac.za/bitstream/handle/10500/23416/Trudie%20Benad%c3%a9,%20Janet%20Liebenberg.pdf?sequence=1
Bhattarai, S., & Maharjan, S. (2020). Determining the factors affecting on digital learning adoption among the students in Kathmandu Valley: An application of technology acceptance model (TAM). International Journal of Engineering and Management Research, 10. https://doi.org/10.31033/ijemr.10.3.20
Bradshaw, L., & Mundia, L. (2006). Attitudes to and concerns about inclusive education: Bruneian inservice and preservice teachers. International Journal of Special Education, 21(1), 35-41. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Lori-Bradshaw/publication/289831066_Attitudes_to_and_concerns_about_inclusive_education_Bruneian_inservice_and_preservice_teachers/links/5bf73a4c458515a69e34add4/Attitudes-to-and-concerns-about-inclusive-education-Bruneian-inservice-and-preservice-teachers.pdf
Chen, C.-L. (2020). Predicting the Determinants of dynamic geometry software acceptance: A two-staged structural equation modeling-neural network approach. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 10(6). https://doi.org/10.18178/ijiet.2020.10.6.1403
Chen, R.-J. (2010). Investigating models for preservice teachers’ use of technology to support student-centered learning. Computers & Education, 55(1), 32-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.11.015
Chibisa, A., Tshabalala, M. G., & Maphalala, M. C. (2021). Pre-service teachers’ computer self-efficacy and the use of computers. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 20(11).https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.20.11.18
Chin, W. W. (1998). The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. Modern Methods for Business Research, 295(2), 295-336.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches. Sage.
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. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.35.8.982
Eksail, F. A. A., & Afari, E. (2019). Factors affecting trainee teachers’ intention to use technology: A structural equation modeling approach. Education and Information Technologies, 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-019-10086-2
Fang, C., Kayad, F., & Misieng, J. (2019a). Malaysian undergraduates’ behavioural intention to use LMS for online English learning: An extended self-directed learning technology acceptance model. Journal of ELT Research, 4(1), 8-25. https://doi.org/10.22236/JER_Vol4Issue1pp8-25
Fang, C., Kayad, F., & Misieng, J. (2019b). Malaysian undergraduates’ behavioural intention to use LMS for online English learning: An extended self-directed learning technology acceptance model (SDLTAM). Journal of ELT Research, 4(1), 8-25. https://doi.org/10.22236/JER_Vol4Issue1pp8-25
Garson, G. D. (2016). Partial least squares: Regression and structural equation models (2nd ed.). Statistical Associates Publishers.
Govender, D. W. (2010). Attitudes of students towards the use of a learning management system (LMS) in a face-to-face learning mode of instruction. Africa Education Review, 7(2), 244-262. https://doi.org/10.1080/18146627.2010.515394
Govindarajan, V., & Srivastava, A. (2020). What the shift to virtual learning could mean for the future of higher education. Harvard Business Review, 31.
Greenstone, M., & Nigam, V. (2020). Does social distancing matter? University of Chicago, Becker Friedman Institute for Economics Working Paper(2020-26). https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3561244
Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., Sarstedt, M., & Thiele, K. O. (2017). Mirror, mirror on the wall: A comparative evaluation of composite-based structural equation modeling methods. 45(5), 616-632. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-017-0517-x
Hair Jr., J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C., & Sarstedt, M. (2014). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Sage Publications.
Hair Jr., J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C., & Sarstedt, M. (2016). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Sage Publications.
Joo, Y. J., Park, S., & Lim, E. (2018). Factors influencing preservice teachers’ intention to use technology: TPACK, teacher self-efficacy, and technology acceptance model. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 21(3), 48-59. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26458506?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents
Lim, W. M. (2018a). Dialectic antidotes to critics of the technology acceptance model: Conceptual, methodological, and replication treatments for behavioural modelling in technology-mediated environments. Australasian Journal of Information Systems, 22. https://doi.org/10.3127/ajis.v22i0.1651
Lim, W. M. (2018b). Revisiting concepts and theories in information systems and technology. Australasian Journal of Information Systems, 22. https://doi.org/10.3127/ajis.v22i0.1733
Maphalala, M. C., & Adigun, O. T. (2021). Academics' experience of implementing e-learning in a South African higher education institution. International Journal of Higher Education, 10(1), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v10n1p1
Mulenga, E. M., & Marbán, J. M. (2020). Is COVID-19 the gateway for digital learning in mathematics education? Contemporary Educational Technology, 12(2), ep269. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/7949
Mutambara, D., & Bayaga, A. (2020). Predicting rural STEM teachers' acceptance of mobile learning in the fourth industrial revolution. Journal of Construction Project Management and Innovation, 10(2), 14-29. https://doi.org/10.36615/jcpmi.v10i2.404
Mutambara, D., & Bayaga, A. (2021). Determinants of mobile learning acceptance for STEM education in rural areas. Computers & Education, 160, 104010. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.104010
Pittalis, M. (2020). Extending the technology acceptance model to evaluate teachers’ intention to use dynamic geometry software in geometry teaching. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2020.1766139
Raman, A., & Don, Y. (2013). Preservice teachers' acceptance of learning management software: An application of the UTAUT2 model. International Education Studies, 6(7), 157-164. https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v6n7p157
Sánchez-Prieto, J. C., Hernández-García, Á., García-Peñalvo, F. J., Chaparro-Peláez, J., & Olmos-Migueláñez, S. (2019). Break the walls! Second-order barriers and the acceptance of m-learning by first-year pre-service teachers. Computers in Human Behavior, 95, 158-167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.01.019
Sánchez-Prieto, J. C., Olmos-Migueláñez, S., & García-Peñalvo, F. J. (2017). M-learning and pre-service teachers: An assessment of the behavioral intention using an expanded TAM model. Computers in Human Behavior, 72, 644-654. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.09.061
Scherer, R., Siddiq, F., & Tondeur, J. (2019). The technology acceptance model (TAM): A meta-analytic structural equation modeling approach to explaining teachers’ adoption of digital technology in education. Computers & Education, 128, 13-35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.09.009
Shmueli, G., Sarstedt, M., Hair, J. F., Cheah, J.-H., Ting, H., Vaithilingam, S., & Ringle, C. M. (2019). Predictive model assessment in PLS-SEM: Guidelines for using PLSpredict. European Journal of Marketing. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-02-2019-0189
Sivo, S. A., Ku, C.-H., & Acharya, P. (2018). Understanding how university student perceptions of resources affect technology acceptance in online learning courses. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 34(4). https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.2806
Teo, T., Fan, X., & Du, J. (2015). Technology acceptance among pre-service teachers: Does gender matter? Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 31(3). https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.1672
Teo, T., Ursava?, Ö. F., & Bahçekapili, E. (2012). An assessment of pre-service teachers' technology acceptance in Turkey: A structural equation modeling approach. Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 21(1), 191-202. https://researchrepository.murdoch.edu.au/id/eprint/48415/
Van Raaij, E. M., & Schepers, J. J. (2008). The acceptance and use of a virtual learning environment in China. Computers & Education, 50(3), 838-852. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2006.09.001
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G., B, & Davis, F. D. (2003a). User acceptance of information technology: Towards a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27, 425 -478. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540
Wu, B., & Chen, X. (2017). Continuance intention to use MOOCs: Integrating the technology acceptance model (TAM) and task technology fit (TTF) model. Computers in Human Behavior, 67, 221-232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.10.028
Zarafshani, K., Solaymani, A., D’Itri, M., Helms, M. M., & Sanjabi, S. (2020). Evaluating technology acceptance in agricultural education in Iran: A study of vocational agriculture teachers. Social Sciences & Humanities Open, 2(1), 100041. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2020.100041
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
e-ISSN: 1694-2116
p-ISSN: 1694-2493