You are here:

Student acceptance of virtual laboratory and practical work: An extension of the technology acceptance model
ARTICLE

, Computer Engineering Department, Spain ; , , Computer Science Department, Spain

Computers & Education Volume 135, Number 1, ISSN 0360-1315 Publisher: Elsevier Ltd

Abstract

The development of Internet technologies and new ways of sharing information has facilitated the emergence of a variety of elearning scenarios. However, in technological areas such as engineering, where students must carry out hands-on exercises and laboratory work essential for their learning, it is not so easy to design online environments for practicals. The aim of this experimental study was to examine students' acceptance of technology and the process of adopting an online learning environment incorporating web-based resources, such as virtual laboratories, interactive activities, and educational videos, and a game-based learning methodology. To this end, their responses to an online questionnaire (n = 223) were analyzed using structural equation modeling. The study was based on the technology acceptance model (TAM), but included and assessed other factors such as perceived efficiency, playfulness, and satisfaction, which are not explained by the TAM. Our results confirm that this extension of the TAM provides a useful theoretical model to help understand and explain users' acceptance of an online learning environment incorporating virtual laboratory and practical work. Our results also indicate that efficiency, playfulness, and students' degree of satisfaction are factors that positively influence the original TAM variables and students' acceptance of this technology. Here, we also discuss the significant theoretical and spractical implications for educational use of these web-based resources.

Citation

Estriegana, R., Medina-Merodio, J.A. & Barchino, R. (2019). Student acceptance of virtual laboratory and practical work: An extension of the technology acceptance model. Computers & Education, 135(1), 1-14. Elsevier Ltd. Retrieved March 23, 2023 from .

This record was imported from Computers & Education on April 7, 2019. Computers & Education is a publication of Elsevier.

Full text is availabe on Science Direct: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.02.010

Keywords

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. de-Marcos, L., Garcia-Lopez, E., & Garcia-Cabot, A. (2016). On the effectiveness of game-like and social approaches in learning: Comparing educational gaming, gamification & social networking. Computers & Education, 95, pp. 99-113.
  2. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), pp. 179-211.
  3. Al-Azawei, A., Parslow, P., & Lundqvist, K. (2017). Investigating the effect of learning styles in a blended e-learning system: An extension of the technology acceptance model (TAM). Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 33(2).
  4. Arpaci, I. (2017). Antecedents and consequences of cloud computing adoption in education to achieve knowledge management. Computers in Human Behavior, 70, pp. 382-390. Available online: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.01.024.
  5. Auvinen, T., Hakulinen, L., & Malmi, L. (2015). Increasing students' awareness of their behavior in online learning environments with visualizations and achievement badges. Ieee Transactions on Learning Technologies, 8(3), pp. 261-273. Available online: https://doi.org/10.1109/TLT.2015.2441718.
  6. Bagozzi, R.P. (2007). The legacy of the technology acceptance model and a proposal for a paradigm shift. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 8(4), p. 3.
  7. Barclay, D., Higgins, C., & Thompson, R. (1995). The partial least squares (pls) approach to casual modeling: Personal computer adoption and use as an illustration.
  8. Brinson, J.R. (2015). Learning outcome achievement in non-traditional (virtual and remote) versus traditional (hands-on) laboratories: A review of the empirical research. Computers & Education, 87, pp. 218-237. Available online: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.07.003.
  9. 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, pp. 612-620. Available online: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.05.027.
  10. Buckley, P., & Doyle, E. (2017). Individualising gamification: An investigation of the impact of learning styles and personality traits on the efficacy of gamification using a prediction market. Computers & Education, 106, pp. 43-55.
  11. Carmines, E.G., & Zeller, R.A. (1979). Reliability and validity assessment.
  12. Chan, Y.M. (2010). Video instructions as support for beyond classroom learning. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 9, pp. 1313-1318.
  13. Chang, V., & Fisher, D. (2003). The validation and application of a new learning environment instrument for online learning in higher education. Technology-rich learning environments: A future perspective.
  14. Chin, W.W. (1998). The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. Modern Methods for Business Research, 295(2), pp. 295-336.
  15. Chiu, C., Hsu, M., Sun, S., Lin, T., & Sun, P. (2005). Usability, quality, value and e-learning continuance decisions. Computers & Education, 45(4), pp. 399-416. Available online: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2004.06.001.
  16. Chu, E.T.-., & Fang, C. (2015). CALEE: A computer-assisted learning system for embedded OS laboratory exercises. Computers & Education, 84(0), pp. 36-48. Available online: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.01.006.
  17. Chuttur, M.Y. (2009). Overview of the technology acceptance model: Origins, developments and future directions. Working Papers on Information Systems, 9(37), pp. 9-37.
  18. Cohen, J. (1994). The earth is round (P-less-than.05). American Psychologist, 49(12), pp. 997-1003. Available online: https://doi.org/10.1037//0003-066X.49.12.997.
  19. Cohen, J., Rothstein, H., & Borenstein, M. (2001). Power and precision.
  20. Davis, F.D. (1986). A technology acceptance Model for empirically testing new end-user information systems: Theory and results. Cambridge, MA: MIT Sloan School of Management. Available online: http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/15192.
  21. Davis, F. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), pp. 319-340. Available online: https://doi.org/10.2307/249008.
  22. Dominguez, A., Saenz-de-Navarrete, J., de-Marcos, L., Fernandez-Sanz, L., Pages, C., & Martinez-Herraiz, J. (2013). Gamifying learning experiences: Practical implications and outcomes. Computers & Education, 63, pp. 380-392. Available online: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.12.020.
  23. Donkor, F. (2010). The comparative instructional effectiveness of print-based and video-based instructional materials for teaching practical skills at a distance. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 11(1), pp. 96-115.
  24. Duan, B., Ling, K., Mir, H., Hosseini, M., & Gay, R. (2005). An online laboratory framework for control engineering courses. International Journal of Engineering Education, 21(6), pp. 1068-1075.
  25. Edmunds, R., Thorpe, M., & Conole, G. (2012). Student attitudes towards and use of ICT in course study, work and social activity: A technology acceptance model approach. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(1), pp. 71-84. Available online: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2010.01142.x.
  26. Ejsing-Duun, S., & Karoff, H.S. (2014). Gamification of a higher education course: What's the fun in that?. Proceedings of the 8th European conference on games based learning (Ecgbl 2014), Vols. 1 and 2, pp. 92-98.
  27. Ekmekci, A., & Gulacar, O. (2015). A case study for comparing the effectiveness of a computer simulation and a hands-on activity on learning electric circuits. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 11(4), pp. 765-775.
  28. Estriegana-Valdehita, R., Barchino-Plata, R., & Medina-Merodio, J.A. (2016). Information and communications technology in a blended course: "the best of two worlds". 9th International Conference of Education, Research and Innovation, pp. 3223-3231.
  29. Estriegana, R., Medina-Merodio, J., & Barchino, R. (2019). Analysis of competence acquisition in a flipped classroom approach. Computer Applications in Engineering Education., 27(1), pp. 49-64. Available online: https://doi.org/10.1002/cae.22056.
  30. Falk, R.F., & Miller, N.B. (1992). A primer for soft modeling.
  31. Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), pp. 175-191. Available online: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146.
  32. Filsecker, M., & Hickey, D.T. (2014). A multilevel analysis of the effects of external rewards on elementary students' motivation, engagement and learning in an educational game. Computers & Education, 75, pp. 136-148. Available online: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.02.008.
  33. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), pp. 39-50. Available online: https://doi.org/10.2307/3151312.
  34. Giannakos, M.N. (2013). Exploring the video‐based learning research: A review of the literature. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(6), pp. E191-E195.
  35. Hair, J.F., Hult, G.T.M., Ringle, C., & Sarstedt, M. (2016). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM).
  36. Hair, J.F., Ringle, C.M., & Sarstedt, M. (2013). Partial least squares structural equation modeling: Rigorous applications, better results and higher acceptance. Long Range Planning, 46(1–2), pp. 1-12. Available online: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2013.01.001.
  37. Henseler, J., Ringle, C.M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), pp. 115-135.
  38. Holden, R.J., & Karsh, B. (2010). The technology acceptance model: Its past and its future in health care. Journal of Biomedical Informatics, 43(1), pp. 159-172.
  39. Huang, J., Lin, Y., & Chuang, S. (2007). Elucidating user behavior of mobile learning - a perspective of the extended technology acceptance model. The Electronic Library, 25(5), pp. 585-598. Available online: https://doi.org/10.1108/02640470710829569.
  40. Hulland, J. (1999). Use of partial least squares (PLS) in strategic management research: A review of four recent studies. Strategic Management Journal, 20(2), pp. 195-204. Available online: https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199902)20:2%3c195::AID-SMJ13%3e3.3.CO;2-Z.
  41. Hwang, G., Wu, P., & Chen, C. (2012). An online game approach for improving students' learning performance in web-based problem-solving activities. Computers & Education, 59(4), pp. 1246-1256. Available online: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.05.009.
  42. Kay, R., & Kletskin, I. (2012). Evaluating the use of problem-based video podcasts to teach mathematics in higher education. Computers & Education, 59(2), pp. 619-627. Available online: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.03.007.
  43. Kim-Soon, N., Ibrahim, M.A., Ahmad, A.R., & Sirisa, N.M.X. (2015). Factors influencing intention to use mobile technologies for learning among technical universities students. Factors influencing intention to use mobile technologies for learning among technical universities students.
  44. Kolloffel, B., & de Jong, T. (2013). Conceptual understanding of electrical circuits in secondary vocational engineering education: Combining traditional instruction with inquiry learning in a virtual lab. Journal of Engineering Education, 102(3), pp. 375-393. Available online: https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20022.
  45. Lai, K., & Hong, K. (2015). Technology use and learning characteristics of students in higher education: Do generational differences exist?. British Journal of Educational Technology, 46(4), pp. 725-738. Available online: https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12161.
  46. Lee, D.Y., & Lehto, M.R. (2013). User acceptance of YouTube for procedural learning: An extension of the technology acceptance model. Computers \& Education, 61, pp. 193-208.
  47. 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), pp. 191-204. Available online: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-7206(01)00143-4.
  48. Liao, Y., Huang, Y., & Wang, Y. (2015). Factors affecting students' continued usage intention toward business simulation games: An empirical study. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 53(2), pp. 260-283. Available online: https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633115598751.
  49. Liaw, S. (2008). Investigating students' perceived satisfaction, behavioral intention, and effectiveness of e-learning: A case study of the blackboard system. Computers & Education, 51(2), pp. 864-873. Available online: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2007.09.005.
  50. Likert, R. (1932). A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of Psychology, 22, p. 140.
  51. Livingstone, S. (2012). Critical reflections on the benefits of ICT in education. Oxford Review of Education, 38(1), pp. 9-24. Available online: https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2011.577938.
  52. Moon, J., & Kim, Y. (2001). Extending the TAM for a world-wide-web context. Information & Management, 38(4), pp. 217-230. Available online: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-7206(00)00061-6.
  53. Nunnally, J.C., & Bernstein, I. (1994). Psychometric theory.
  54. O'Leary, Z. (2017). The essential guide to doing your research project.
  55. Ooi, K., & Tan, G.W. (2016). Mobile technology acceptance model: An investigation using mobile users to explore smartphone credit card. Expert Systems with Applications, 59, pp. 33-46. Available online: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2016.04.015.
  56. Osipov, I.V., Nikulchev, E., Volinsky, A.A., & Prasikova, A.Y. (2015). Study of gamification effectiveness in online e-learning systems. International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications, 6(2), pp. 71-77.
  57. Ozkok, G.A. (2013). Reliability and validity of the Turkish version of the web-based learning environment instrument (WEBLEI). Hacettepe Universitesi Egitim Fakultesi Dergisi-Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 28(2), pp. 335-347.
  58. Padilla-Meléndez, A., del Aguila-Obra, A.R., & Garrido-Moreno, A. (2013). Perceived playfulness, gender differences and technology acceptance model in a blended learning scenario. Computers & Education, 63, pp. 306-317. Available online: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.12.014.
  59. Park, S.Y. (2009). An analysis of the technology acceptance model in understanding university students' behavioral intention to use e-learning. Educational Technology & Society, 12(3), pp. 150-162.
  60. Potkonjak, V., Gardner, M., Callaghan, V., Mattila, P., Guetl, C., & Petrovic, V.M. (2016). Virtual laboratories for education in science, technology, and engineering: A review. Computers & Education, 95, pp. 309-327. Available online: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.02.002.
  61. Radif, M., Fan, I., & McLaughlin, P. (2016). Employment of technology acceptance model (tam) to adopt learning management system (lms) in iraqi universities. Inted2016. 10th international technology, education and development conference, pp. 7120-7130.
  62. Reinartz, W., Haenlein, M., & Henseler, J. (2009). An empirical comparison of the efficacy of covariance-based and variance-based SEM. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 26(4), pp. 332-344. Available online: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2009.08.001.
  63. Roldán, J., & Cepeda, G. (2016). Modelos de ecuaciones estructurales basados en la varianza: Partial least squares (PLS) para investigadores en ciencias sociales. España: Universidad De Sevilla.
  64. Roldán, J.L., & Sánchez-Franco, M.J. (2012). Variance-based structural equation modeling: Guidelines for using partial least squares in information systems research. Research methodologies, innovations and philosophies in software systems engineering and information systems., pp. 193-221.
  65. Saenz, J., Chacon, J., De La Torre, L., Visioli, A., & Dormido, S. (2015). Open and low-cost virtual and remote labs on control engineering. Ieee Access, 3, pp. 805-814. Available online: https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2015.2442613.
  66. Sell, R., & Seiler, S. (2012). Improvements of multi-disciplinary engineering study by exploiting design-centric approach, supported by remote and virtual labs. International Journal of Engineering Education, 28(4), pp. 759-766.
  67. Sheorey, T. (2014). Empirical evidence of relationship between virtual lab development and students learning through field trials on vlab on mechatronics. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 4(1), pp. 97-102. Available online: https://doi.org/10.7763/IJIET.2014.V4.377.
  68. So, H., & Brush, T.A. (2008). Student perceptions of collaborative learning, social presence and satisfaction in a blended learning environment: Relationships and critical factors. Computers & Education, 51(1), pp. 318-336. Available online: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2007.05.009.
  69. Sousa, N., Alves, G.R., & Gericota, M.G. (2010). An integrated reusable remote laboratory to complement electronics teaching. Ieee Transactions on Learning Technologies, 3(3), pp. 265-271. Available online: https://doi.org/10.1109/TLT.2009.51.
  70. Tajuddin, N., Mustapha, M., Zaini, A.A., & Abd Aziz, M.N. (2012). Investigating students' acceptance towards blog. 3rd international conference on E-learning (Icel 2011), Vol. 67, pp. 444-453. Available online: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.11.349.
  71. Tanyildizi, E., & Orhan, A. (2009). A virtual electric machine laboratory for synchronous machine application. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 17(2), pp. 187-195. Available online: https://doi.org/10.1002/cae.20133.
  72. Thompson, P. (2013). The digital natives as learners: Technology use patterns and approaches to learning. Computers & Education, 65, pp. 12-33. Available online: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.12.022.
  73. Tobin, K. (1998). Qualitative perceptions of learning environments on the world wide web. Learning Environments Research, 1(2), p. 139. Available online: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009953715583.
  74. de la Torre, L., Heradio, R., Jara, C.A., Sanchez, J., Dormido, S., & Torres, F. (2013). Providing collaborative support to virtual and remote laboratories. Ieee Transactions on Learning Technologies, 6(4), pp. 312-323. Available online: https://doi.org/10.1109/TLT.2013.20.
  75. Vargas, H., Sanchez, J., Jara, C.A., Candelas, F.A., Torres, F., & Dormido, S. (2011). A network of automatic control web-based laboratories. Ieee Transactions on Learning Technologies, 4(3), pp. 197-208. Available online: https://doi.org/10.1109/TLT.2010.35.
  76. Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F.D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2), pp. 186-204.
  77. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M., Davis, G., & Davis, F. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. Mis Quarterly, 27(3), pp. 425-478.
  78. Weiss, R., Knowlton, D., & Morrison, G. (2002). Principles for using animation in computer-based instruction: Theoretical heuristics for effective design. Computers in Human Behavior, 18(4), pp. 465-477. Available online: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0747-5632(01)00049-8.
  79. Wells, J., Barry, R.M., & Spence, A. (2012). Using video tutorials as a carrot-and-stick approach to learning. IEEE Transactions on Education, 25(4), pp. 453-458. Available online: https://doi.org/10.1109/TE.2012.2187451.
  80. Werts, C.E., Linn, R.L., & Jöreskog, K.G. (1974). Intraclass reliability estimates: Testing structural assumptions. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 34(1), pp. 25-33.
  81. Wieling, M.B., & Hofman, W.H.A. (2010). The impact of online video lecture recordings and automated feedback on student performance. Computers & Education, 54(4), pp. 992-998. Available online: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.10.002.
  82. Wu, H., Chang, F.M., Hsu, H., & Chen, M. (2010). Using technology acceptance model and innovation diffusion theory to investigate elementary school student learning intention based on moodle learning platform. Edulearn10: International conference on education and new learning technologies.
  83. Wu, J., Tennyson, R.D., & Hsia, T. (2010). A study of student satisfaction in a blended e-learning system environment. Computers & Education, 55(1), pp. 155-164. Available online: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.12.012.
  84. Yousafzai, S.Y., Foxall, G.R., & Pallister, J.G. (2007). Technology acceptance: A meta-analysis of the TAM: Part 1. Journal of Modelling in Management, 2(3), pp. 251-280.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.

Suggest Corrections to References