Why some teachers easily learn to use a new virtual learning environment: a technology acceptance perspective

After a decade of Virtual Learning Environments (VLE) in higher education, many teachers still use only a minimum of its affordances. This study looked at how academic staff interacted with a new and unknown VLE in order to understand how technology acceptance and support materials influence (perceived and actual) task performance. In an experimental design, 36 participants were split into a control (online help) and experimental (instructor video) condition and completed five common teaching tasks in a new VLE. In contrast to most Technology Acceptance (TAM) research, this study found that perceived usefulness of the VLE was not related to (perceived) task performance. Perceived ease of use was related to intentions and actual behaviour in the VLE. Furthermore, no significant difference was found between the two conditions, although the experimental condition led to a (marginal) increase in time to complete the tasks. Introduction Almost all Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) in the Western world, and in the UK in particular, have some form of Virtual Learning Environment (VLE) or Learning Management System (LMS) in place, whether it is based on a commercial package such as Blackboard or Desire2Learn, or an open-source one such as Moodle. However, many teachers use these VLEs as a simple repository for providing students with access to materials, such as PowerPoint files and reading lists. The consequence is that although there is clearly increased usage of VLEs, there is not widespread evidence of a change in pedagogic practice (Brown, 2008; Browne, Jenkins, & Walker, 2006; Kinchin, 2012). A large body of research has demonstrated that many teachers use only a minimum of the affordances of VLEs (Browne et al., 2006; Jenkins, Browne, Walker, & Hewitt, 2010; Jimoyiannis & Komis, 2007; Rienties et al., 2012; Sanchez-Franco, 2010). Despite this evidence, some authors (Brown, 2008; Watson, Watson, & Reigeluth, 2013) have suggested moving away from VLEs to Web 2.0 technologies, which are personalised, flexible and user-centred, and recognise students’ extra 2 institutional experiences, notably communication through social software (e.g. Facebook, Twitter). Two important factors stand out in research on teachers’ usage of educational technology, namely technology acceptance and role of training. A first important predictor as to whether teachers start and continue to (actively) use technology in their classroom is their acceptance of technology (Sørebø, Halvari, Gulli, & Kristiansen, 2009; Šumak, Heričko, & Pušnik, 2011). Technology acceptance research originates from the information systems (IS) domain, and developed models have successfully been applied to educational settings (Author Z, In Press; Gong, Xu, & Yu, 2004; Pynoo et al., 2011; Sanchez-Franco, 2010; Sørebø et al., 2009; Šumak et al., 2011). Of the available models, the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), which was developed by Davis and colleagues (1989; Davis, Bagozzi, & Warshaw, 1989), is the most widely used and proved to be highly useful in explaining teachers’ uptake of educational technology (Šumak et al., 2011). Although an increasing number of studies are now available using TAM in educational settings, to the best of our knowledge no previous study has investigated the factors that influence the uptake by higher education teachers of a new VLE in an experimental, controlled environment. The second important factor relates to the role of training. Several studies examining why the uptake of VLEs was below expectations indicated that teachers might be insufficiently trained and equipped with appropriate technological and pedagogical skills (Jenkins et al., 2010; Jimoyiannis & Komis, 2007; Lawless & Pellegrino, 2007; Mishra & Koehler, 2006; Rienties & Townsend, 2012). A recent study amongst 74 UK HEIs by Jenkins et al. (2010) indicated that after “availability of time”, academic staff’s knowledge of technology-enhanced learning tools is the second highest barrier for technology-adoption. Furthermore, although training and support have been identified as important complementary factors regarding the uptake and continuation of e-learning technology (Sørebø et al., 2009),