José Carlos Sánchez Prieto, Susana Olmos Migueláñez and Francisco J. García-Peñalvo. Research Group in InterAction and eLearning (GRIAL) IUCE University of Salamanca

1. ICTS INTEGRATION IN
EDUCATION: MOBILE LEARNING
AND THE TECHNOLOGY
ACCEPTANCE MODEL (TAM)
JOSÉ CARLOS SÁNCHEZ PRIETO
SUSANA OLMOS MIGUELÁÑEZ
FRANCISCO J. GARCÍA PEÑALVO
GRIAL RESEARCH GROUP
EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE
UNIVERSITY OF SALAMANCA

2. CONTEXT AND
MOTIVATION
mLearning • Personalization
• Mobility
• Multimedia
• Flexibility
• Growing number of investigations
• Wide range of contexts
• Primary stage
• Isolated experiences not always successful
[4, 35, 40]
[37, 38]

3. CONTEXT AND
MOTIVATION
Didactic quality
Administration and social partners
Teaching body
[9, 25, 30, 42]

4. CONTEXT AND
MOTIVATION
Attitude Towards
Using
Perceived
Usefulness
Perceived Ease
of Use
Behavioral
Intention
Actual Use
TAM MODEL (Davis, 1989)
• Perceived usefulness: The degree to which a person believes that
using a particular system would enhance his or her job
performance.
• Perceived ease of use: The degree to which a person believes that
using a particular system would be free of effort.
[8,11, 26]

5. CONTEXT AND
MOTIVATION
+
Theoretical strength and adaptability
Spread model
Relatively high percentage of the variance
-
Lack of deepening in the external variables
Data gathering through self-report
[18, 23, 29]

6. CONTEXT AND
MOTIVATION
Inclusion of external precursors
Incorporation of factors suggested
by other theories
Introduction of contextual factors
Measurement of final elements
[16]

7. STATE OF THE ART
Particularly widespread
Commerce, ICTs…
Educational field
eLearning, lifelong learning and higher
education
Spain
Few significant experiences of its use

8. PROBLEM STATEMENT
OBJECTIVES AND
HYPOTHESIS
Research Problem: Teachers’ acceptance of mobile devices
as tools for the formal educational process.
Objectives
• To analyze the different models of technological
adoption and the features that determine the process of
acceptance of the informational systems.
• To develop a model of technological adoption that
allows to delimit the factors that determine the use of
the mobile technologies by the primary education
teachers.
• To evaluate the acceptance of mobile technologies
among the primary education teaching body of Castilla
y León.

9. PROBLEM STATEMENT
OBJECTIVES AND
HYPOTHESIS
Hypotheses
• The teachers that perceive a higher ease of use and usefulness
in the mobile devices will present a more positive attitude
towards the use.
• The attitude towards the use of the teachers is positively related
to their intention of using the technology. And this, in turn, is
positively related to the actual use of such technology.
• The teachers with more experience in the use of the mobile
devices will present a more positive attitude towards their use.
• The level of enjoyment with the use of the technologies is
positively related to the attitude towards their use.
• The social factors (social norm, critical mass) positively affect
the attitude toward the use of mobile resources by the teaching
body.

10. METHODOLOGY
• Literature Review
• Validation of an Expanded TAM model
• Quantitative study of the acceptance of mobile technologies
by primary education teachers of Castilla y León
• Qualitative study of the acceptance of mobile technologies
by primary education teachers

11. DISERTATION STATUS
Theoretical model and instrument
Validation status
Samplering process

12. MAIN CONTRIBUTIONS
Instrument
• Diagnose and
predict
• Facilitate the
integration of
ICT
Research
• Quantitative
• Qualitative

13. CONCLUSIONS
• The integration of ICTs in education opens new
methodological options.
• The teacher constitutes a key factor in the adoption
process.
• A tool based on the TAM model can be useful in
order to study the technology acceptance.

14. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATENTION

15. REFERENCES
1. Aguilar-Luzón, M. C., Berrios-Martos, M. and López-Zafra, E. 2012. The use of computer systems in the study of university subjects: Applying the theory of planned
behavior and the theory of technology acceptance. Estudios de Psicología, 33, 2 (May. 2012), 179-190. DOI=10.1174/021093912800676448.
2. Ajzen, I. and Fishbein, M. 1980. Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
3. Alenezi, A. R., Abdul Karim, A. M. and Veloo, A. 2010. An Empirical Investigation into the Role of Enjoyment, Computer Anxiety, Computer Self-Efficacy and Internet
Experience in Influencing the Students' Intention to Use E-Learning: A Case Study from Saudi Arabian Governmental Universities. Turkish Online Journal of
Educational Technology - TOJET, 9, 4 (Oct. 2010), 22-34.
4. Alonso de Castro, M. G. Educational projects based on mobile learning. 2014. Teoría de la Educación. Educación y Cultura en la Sociedad de la Información, 15, 1
(Feb. 2014), 10-19.
5. Álvarez Rosado, N., Bravo Martín, S., García Peñalvo, F. J. and Álvarez Rosado, S. 2013. Join the Board. In Proceedings of the First International Conference on
Technological Ecosystem for Enhancing Multiculturality. (Salamanca, Spain, November 3-15, 2013). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 231-236.
6. Arenas-Gaitán, J., Ramírez-Correa, P. E. and Javier Rondán-Cataluña, F. 2011. Cross cultural analysis of the use and perceptions of web Based learning systems.
Comput. Educ., 57, 2 (Sep. 2011), 1762-1774. DOI=http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.03.016.
7. Arnal, J., Del Rincón, D. and Latorre, A. 1992. Investigación educativa. Fundamentos y Metodología. Labor, Barcelona.
8. Asensio Brouard, M. and Asenjo Vergara, E. 2011. Lazos de Luz Azul: Museos y Tecnologías 1, 2 y 3.0. Editorial UOC, Barcelona.
9. Chen, F., Looi, C. and Chen, W. 2009 Integrating technology in the classroom: a visual conceptualization of teachers' knowledge, goals and beliefs. J. Comput.
Assisted Learn., 25, 5 (Jul. 2009), 470-488. DOI=10.1111/j.1365-2729.2009.00323.x.
10. Chen, L., Gillenson, M. L. and Sherrell, D. L. 2002. Enticing online consumers: an extended technology acceptance perspective. Information & Management, 39, 8
(Sep. 2002), 705-719. DOI=http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0378-7206(01)00127-6.
11. Davis, F. D. 1989. Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology. MIS Quarterly, 13, 3 (Sep. 1989), 319-340.
12. Edmunds, R., Thorpe, M. and 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 (Jan. 2012), 71-84. DOI=10.1111/j.1467-8535.2010.01142.x.
13. Farahat, T. 2012. Applying the Technology Acceptance Model to Online Learning in the Egyptian Universities. Procedia - Social and Behavioural Sciences, 64, 0
(Sep. 2012), 95-104. DOI=http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.11.012.
14. Fernández-López, Á, Rodríguez-Fórtiz, M. J., Rodríguez-Almendros, M. L. and Martínez-Segura, M. J. 2013. Mobile learning technology based on iOS devices to
support students with special education needs. Comput. Educ., 61, 0 (Feb. 2013), 77-90. DOI=http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.09.014.
15. Gao, Y. 2005. Applying the Technology Acceptance Model to Educational Hypermedia: A Field Study. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 14, 3 (Jul.
2005), 237-247.

16. REFERENCES
16. Gefen, D., Karahanna, E. and Straub, D. W. 2003. Trust and TAM in Online Shopping: An Integrated Model. MIS Quarterly, 27, 1 (Mar. 2003), 51-90.
17. Heijden, H. 2000. E-Tam: a revision of the Technology Acceptance Model to explain website revisits. Research memoranda. VU University Amsterdam, Faculty of
Economics, Business Administration and Econometrics.
18. Hernández García, Á. 2008. Desarrollo de un modelo unificado de adopción del comercio electrónico entre empresas y consumidores finales. Aplicación al mercado
español. Doctoral Thesis. E.T.S.I. Telecomunicación (UPM).
19. Hesser, T. L. and Schwartz, P. M. 2013. iPads in the Science Laboratory: Experience in Designing and Implementing a Paperless Chemistry Laboratory Course.
Journal of STEM Education: Innovations & Research, 14, 2 (Apr. 2013), 5-9.
20. Holden, H. and Rada, R. 2011. Understanding the Influence of Perceived Usability and Technology Self-Efficacy on Teachers' Technology Acceptance. Journal of
Research on Technology in Education, 43, 4 (Jun. 2011), 343-367.
21. Hsu, C. and Lu, H. 2004. Why Do People Play On-line Games? An Extended TAM with Social Influences and Flow Experience. Inf. Manage., 41, 7 (Sep. 2004), 853-868.
DOI=10.1016/j.im.2003.08.014.
22. Karaman, S. 2011. Nurses' perceptions of online continuing education. BMC Medical Education, 11, 1 (Oct. 2011), 1-6. DOI=10.1186/1472-6920-11-86.
23. King, W. R. and He, J. 2006. A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model. Information & Management, 43, 6 (Sep. 2006), 740-755.
DOI=http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2006.05.003.
24. Kitchenham, B. and Charters, S. 2007. Guidelines for performing systematic literature reviews in software engineering (version 2.3). Technical Report. Software
Engineering Group School of, (EBSE 2007-001), 1051.
25. Kucirkova, N., Messer, D., Sheehy, K. and Fernández Panadero, C. 2014. Children's engagement with educational iPad apps: Insights from a Spanish classroom.
Comput. Educ., 71, 0 (Feb. 2014), 175-184. DOI=http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.10.003.
26. Lederer, A. L., Maupin, D. J., Sena, M. P. and Zhuang, Y. 2000. The technology acceptance model and the World Wide Web. Decis. Support Syst., 29, 3 (Oct. 2000),
269-282. DOI=http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0167-9236(00)00076-2.
27. Lee, B., Yoon, J. and Lee, I. 2009. Learners’ acceptance of e-learning in South Korea: Theories and results. Comput. Educ., 53, 4 (Dec. 2009), 1320-1329.
DOI=http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.06.014.
28. Lee, M. K. O., Cheung, C. M. K. and Chen, Z. 2005. Acceptance of Internet-based learning medium: the role of extrinsic and intrinsic motivation. Information &
Management, 42, 8 (Dec. 2005), 1095-1104. DOI=http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2003.10.007.
29. Legris, P., Ingham, J. and Collerette, P. 2003. Why do people use information technology? A critical review of the technology acceptance model. Information &
Management, 40, 3 (Jan. 2003), 191-204. DOI=http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0378-7206(01)00143-4.
30. Montrieux, H., Vanderlinde, R., Courtois, C., Schellens, T. and De Marez, L. A. 2014. Qualitative Study about the Implementation of Tablet Computers in Secondary
Education: The Teachers’ Role in this Process. Procedia - Social and Behavioural Sciences, 112, 0 (Feb. 2014), 481-488.
DOI=http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.1192.

17. REFERENCES
31. Padilla-Meléndez, A., del Aguila-Obra, A. R. and Garrido-Moreno, A. 2013. Perceived playfulness, gender differences and technology acceptance model in a blended
learning scenario. Comput. Educ., 63, 0 (Apr. 2013), 306-317. DOI=http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.12.014.
32. Parra-Meroño, M. C. and Carmona-Martínez, M. M. 2011. Las tecnologías de la información y las comunicaciones en la enseñanza superior española. Factores
explicativos del uso del campus virtual. Estudios Sobre Educacion, 20 (Jun 2011), 73-98.
33. Roca, J. C., Chiu, C. and Martínez, F. J. 2006. Understanding e-learning continuance intention: An extension of the Technology Acceptance Model. International
Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 64, 8 (Aug. 2006), 683-696. DOI=http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2006.01.003.
34. Roca, J. C. and Gagné, M. 2008. Understanding e-learning continuance intention in the workplace: A self-determination theory perspective. Comput. Hum. Behav.,
24, 4 (Jul. 2008), 1585-1604. DOI=http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2007.06.001.
35. Rossing, J. P., Miller, W. M., Cecil, A. K. and Stamper, S. E. 2012. iLearning: The Future of Higher Education? Student Perceptions on Learning with Mobile Tablets.
Journal of Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 12, 2 (Jun. 2012), 1-26.
36. Saadé, R. and 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 and Management, 42, 2 (Jan. 2005), 317-327.
37. Sánchez Prieto, J. C., Olmos Migueláñez, S., García Peñalvo, F. J. and Torrecilla Sánchez, E. M. 2014. Las tabletas digitales en educación formal: características
principales y posibilidades pedagógicas. In IV Congreso Internacional de Competencias Básicas: Competencia digital y tratamiento de la información. Aprender en
el siglo XXI. (Ciudad Real, España, April 9-11, 2014).
38. Sánchez Prieto, J. C., Olmos Migueláñez, S. and García-Peñalvo, F. J. 2014. Understanding mobile learning: devices, pedagogical implications and research lines.
Revista Teoría de la Educación: Educación y Cultura en la Sociedad de la Información, 15, 1 (Feb. 2014), 20-42.
39. Sánchez, R. A. and Hueros, A. D. 2010. Motivational factors that influence the acceptance of Moodle using TAM. Comput. Hum. Behav., 26, 6 (Nov. 2010), 1632-1640.
DOI=http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.06.011.
40. SCOPEO. 2011. M-Learning en España, Portugal y América Latina. Retrieved June 04, 2014 from http://scopeo.usal.es/sites/all/files/scopeom003.pdf
41. Sharma, S. 1996. Applied Multivariate Techniques. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Nueva York.
42. Valverde, J., Garrido, M. and Sosa, M. J. 2010. Políticas educativas para la integración de las TIC en Extremadura y sus efectos sobre la innovación didáctica y el
proceso enseñanza-aprendizaje: la percepción del profesorado. Revista de educación, 0, 325 (May 2010), 99-124.
43. Wu, I. and Chen, J. 2005. An extension of Trust and TAM model with TPB in the initial adoption of on-line tax: An empirical study. International Journal of Human-
Computer Studies, 62, 6 (Jun. 2005), 784-808. DOI=http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2005.03.003.
44. Yang, Z., Cai, S., Zhou, Z. and Zhou, N. 2005. Development and validation of an instrument to measure user perceived service quality of information presenting Web
portals. Information & Management, 42, 4 (May 2005), 575-589. DOI=http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2004.03.001.
45. Zhang, S., Zhao, J. and Tan, W. 2008. Extending TAM for online learning systems: An intrinsic motivation perspective. Tsinghua Science and Technology, 13, 3 (Jun.
2008), 312-317. DOI=10.1016/S1007-0214(08)70050-6