Major Takeaways on Technology Acceptance
Hoot Hoot
Fellow Night Owls!
As I
write to the void of the internet, I can’t help but ask… is anyone out there? My
blog is eerily quiet and I’m beginning to wonder how I’ve set my preferences,
ha!
Regardless,
I found this week’s reading fortuitous. As a psychology teacher, I couldn’t help
but create parallels between Davis’ (1985) TAM featured in the reading, and
Clark’s (1998) Commitment and Necessary Effort (CANE) model of knowledge and
motivation systems – which I taught on Monday. In both models, there’s an aspect
of necessary effort, which I love, because it almost portrays motivation as
this derivative of having to do something… to face life.
In this
sense, I’m not sure how TAM captures technology acceptance as a function of time.
Perhaps there’s a linkage to Rogers’ (1962) Diffusion of Innovation, where
folks decide to accept technology in lieu of becoming a laggard, or because market
conditions favored technological acceptance.
Additionally,
as I progressed in the reading, I couldn’t help but wonder if there’s an
oversimplification in how technology-enabled learning benefits the learner. I
read studies on perceived outcomes (Kuo et al., 2017), digital literacy (Sharp,
2017), and certainly technology adoption and motivation, but I wondered on the quality
of learning, did the student actually learn?
It’s an
interesting question. I’m teaching a class of adult learners, with a myriad of technology-enabled
capabilities, but I still wonder if they’re learning behavior and grade outcomes
reflect the learning capability given my tech-centric learning pedagogy?
Hope all
is well in the week – stay awesome learners.
References:
Clark,
E. (1998). Motivating Performance: Part 1 – Diagnosing and Solving Motivation
Problems. Performance Improvement, 37(8), 39-46.
Davis
(1985). A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new
end-user information systems: Theory and results. [Unpublished doctoral
dissertation]. MIT Sloan School of Management, Cambridge, MA.
Kuo,
Y.-C., Belland, B. R., & Kuo, Y.-T. (2017). Learning through blogging:
students’ perspectives in collaborative blog-enhanced learning
communities. Journal of Educational Technology & Society,
20(2), 37–50.
Rogers,
E. (1962). Diffusion of innovations. New York: The Free Press
Sharp,
L. (2017). Enhancing digital literacy and learning among adults with
blogs. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 2017-09-01,
Vol.61 (2), p.191-202.
Hi Steven! Great post! The point you bring up about an adults learning behavior and grade outcomes reflect the learning capability is an interesting one. I think with TAM Davis (1985) makes the assumption that the learner is adopting the new technology for a purpose. An example would be for us adopting Canvas for our masters program. But what about adults accepting and using things like facebook or even email? Does that change their percieved usefulness and then perceived ease of use?
ReplyDeleteReference:
Davis (1985). A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-user information systems: Theory and results. [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. MIT Sloan School of Management, Cambridge, MA.
Hoot Hoot!
ReplyDeleteTechnology usage as a "function of time", I could see how data on voluntariness and mandatory usage could somehow capture this understanding. I don't see TAM as model that promotes technology as a tool for better quality learning. I see it as a model as intended to explore the understanding behind our predispositions towards accepting and using new technology. It's a model that helps designers, instructors, and organisations to implement new systems that encourage usage and a positive reception to new technologies.
I love that you brought up quality learning because there is that perception that technology equates to quality. The addition of technology like most other learning tools have the potential to stimulate or inhibit learning depending on how and in what context it is used.
Along with the right motivating factors! I would add in that if someone sees a peer using the software successfully they might be more willing to give it a try! Kind of is so and so can use it why can't I?
DeleteYou raise a good point about the quality of learning. I think learning technology would be similar to any other type of learning, with many factors contributing to the effectiveness of understanding (Heryanto et al., 2023). If the teaching style does not match the learner’s stage of self-directed learning, this could negatively impact the quality of learning (Grow, 1991/1996). Also, what is the reason for learning the technology? Is the learner just trying to obtain surface-level knowledge to get through a class assignment, or is the technology something they genuinely want/need to know, and deep learning is needed? If deep learning is needed, then an approach that involves presenting content and support would produce a higher level of deep learning (Ke & Xie, 2009).
ReplyDeleteReferences:
Grow, Gerald O. (1991/1996). Teaching learners to be self-directed. Adult Education Quarterly, 41 (3),125-149. Expanded version available online at: http://www.famu.edu/sjmga/ggrow
Heryanto, H., Tambun, S., Pramono, R., Priyanti, D., & Siregar, I. C. (2023). E-learning quality: The role of learning technology utilization effectiveness teacher leadership and curriculum during the pandemic season in indonesia. International Journal of Data and Network Science, 7(4), 1451–1462. https://doi.org/10.5267/j.ijdns.2023.8.017
Ke, F., & Xie, K. (2009). Toward deep learning for adult students in online courses. The Internet and Higher Education, 12(3–4), 136–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.08.001
Hi Steven. Your question about the quality of the learning is interesting. I wonder if the quality of learning is different in voluntary vs mandatory learning.
DeleteHoot Hoot Evening Owls [from Chicago]
ReplyDeleteHope everyone is doing well on this fine, festive, fall day... PSLs for everyone!
Takeaway #1
Whenever I do a reading that talks about generations, I can’t help but return to stage theories of adult development. To me, an understanding of adult development informs the complexity of technology integration within adult learning. Especially in the chronological or sequential space, akin to Erikson (1963) or Kegan (1982), I can conceptualize an argument where learning becomes more difficult due to factors beyond the generation of adults, relating to how adults create meaning.
Question from Takeaway #1 – Do we think there’s a component of identity formation, built over life stages, that would better inform how adults progress towards digital wisdom?
Takeaway #2
I was surprised to see neuroplasticity brought into this week’s discussion. Perhaps there’s an ancillary argument regarding the cultivation of digital wisdom as an outcome of brain plasticity over a prolonged period of time. My thought is, though novel, it’d be hard to demonstrate how a brain’s plasticity would inform adult learning outcomes – I just can’t conceptualize a test that would test this hypothesis. Additionally, I’m not confident it’d inform TD theory, or create context for a learning outcome – though I’d have to think about this over more coffee.
Question from Takeaway #2 – Lets assume brain plasticity would inform adult learning outcomes from technology integration, how would we test this? I’m a little stuck on the Research Methods component of this…
Appreciate the assistance, looking forward to the discussion.
Hoot,
Max
References
Erikson, E. H. (1963). Childhood and society. New York: Norton.
Kegan, R. (1982). The evolving self. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.