Validation of Theoretical Constructs Toward Suitability of Educational Software for Chemistry Education: Differences Between Users and Nonusers

Abstract

The aim of this research was to empirically validate constructs for evaluation of teachers' attitudes toward usage of educational software in chemistry teaching. Questionnaire with items transformed from UTAUT (Unified theory of acceptance and use of technology) and other technology acceptance theories were filled in by 556 Czech chemistry teachers. All constructs passed recommended .7 thresholds of Cronbach’s alpha so they can be used in acceptability researches before and after introduction of educational software or building models. However, analyses of effect sizes show that there are not only differences between users and all nonusers generally, but also prove differences between various types of nonusers. Nonusers were established as a) those who had used educational software and abandoned it; b) those who do not use educational software, but are planning to use it in the future, and c) those who do not use educational software and have no intentions to use it. An unexpected finding reveals that differences among subgroups of nonusers can be even larger than between users and nonusers, especially the group c) is an outstanding group. Consequently, factors and their influence on the acceptance and use of educational software in chemistry teaching should be explored for each group separately. Keywords: chemistry education, education software, technology acceptance.

Differences in Chemistry Teachers’ Acceptance of Educational Software According to Their User Type: An Application of Extended Utaut Model

“…• Performance Expectancy (PE) -the belief that using technology (innovation/software/system) will help the user to achieve improved performance (Chroustová et al, 2017;Šumak & Šorgo, 2016;Venkatesh et al, 2003), • Effort Expectancy (EE) -the degree of simplicity associated with the use of technology (Chroustová et al, 2017;Venkatesh et al, 2003), • Social Influence (SI) -the degree of conviction that people who are important to users (family, friends or colleagues, learners, their parents, management, etc.) believe that they should use this technology (Chroustová et al, 2017;Rogers, 2003;Venkatesh et al, 2003) and • Facilitating Conditions (FC) -the degree users believe there is an organizational and technical infrastructure to support the use of technology (Chroustová et al, 2017;Venkatesh et al, 2003). In the original UTAUT model, the effects of moderators: gender, age, experience, and voluntariness of use was stressed (Venkatesh et al, 2003).…”

“…Extended UTAUT Model for Acceptance and Use of Interactive Whiteboards among Teachers (Šumak & Šorgo, 2016) Note. PE = Performance Expectancy; EE = Effort Expectancy; SI = Social Influence; FC = Facilitating Conditions; ATU = Attitude Towards Using; BI = Behavioural Intention; USE = Use The first, called Attitude towards Using Technology (ATU) as a user's overall affective reaction to using technology, in this research to using EduSW in chemistry education includes favourable or unavoidable feelings towards this behaviour (Ajzen, 1991;Chroustová et al, 2017). In an attempt to evaluate as complex a model as possible, the theory of reasoned action (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1977) and technology acceptance model (Davis et al, 1989) were also revisited in this research.…”

“…With respect to Rogers' ( 2003) theory, as well as known differences between EduSW users and nonusers considered in the previous research (Chroustová et al, 2017), the following teacher groups were distinguished based on their answer to the question if they use(d) EduSW. The teachers identified as current users answered "Yes", former users had used EduSW and abandoned it, non-planning nonusers do not use EduSW and have no intention to do so in the future and planning nonusers do not use EduSW but are planning to do so in the future (Šumak et al, 2017; Šumak & Šorgo, 2016).…”

“…With respect to previous research in this field (e.g., Davis et al, 1989;Rusek et al, 2017;Šumak & Šorgo, 2016), a questionnaire was used. The questionnaire's development and validation were described by Chroustová et al (2017) in more detail, it is therefore introduced only briefly. The questionnaire items were divided into three categories:…”

Perspectives on Lessons From the COVID-19 Outbreak for Post-pandemic Higher Education: Continuance Intention Model of Forced Online Distance Teaching

“…The Perceived Pedagogical Impact (PEDIM) was included after the finding by Šumak et al (2017) that PEDIM influences all phases of technology acceptance, as established in studies of differences between technology acceptance among users and nonusers of i-whiteboards and educational software (Chroustová et al, 2017). The importance of beliefs about the perceived or actual pedagogical impact of technology was discussed in studies such as those by Ertmer (2005) and Tondeur et al (2017).…”