Research Article

The effects of TPACK and facility condition on preservice teachers’ acceptance of virtual reality in science education course

M. Anas Thohir 1 * , Erif Ahdhianto 1 , Siti Mas’ula 1 , Fitri April Yanti 2 , Moh Irma Sukarelawan 3
More Detail
1 Department of Elementary and Preschool Education, Universitas Negeri Malang, Malang, INDONESIA2 Faculty of Education, Universitas Bengkulu, Bengkulu, INDONESIA3 Department of Physics Education, Universitas Ahmad Dahlan, Yogyakarta, INDONESIA* Corresponding Author
Contemporary Educational Technology, 15(2), April 2023, ep407, https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/12918
Published Online: 31 January 2023, Published: 01 April 2023
OPEN ACCESS   3230 Views   1838 Downloads
Download Full Text (PDF)

ABSTRACT

Virtual reality (VR) is developing in line with the establishment of the learning metaverse, although the relationship between its acceptance and technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) is very unclear. Therefore, this study aims to determine the effects of facility condition (FC), technological acceptance model (TAM), and TPACK on pre-service teachers’ use of VR in Indonesian science education courses. This condition emphasizes the description of these teachers’ readiness in designing VR for learning and teaching integration. The survey was conducted using 406 preservice teachers from 12 Indonesian universities, with confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and partial least square-structural equation model (PLS-SEM) subsequently utilized. The results showed that PU (perceived usefulness), PEOU (perceived ease of use), behavior Intention (BI), TPACK, and FC were significantly and positively related. However, two hypotheses emphasizing the relationship between FC and TPACK to PEOU were rejected. These results are expected to facilitate preservice teachers in easily adopting VR learning in courses.
Keywords: virtual reality, TPACK, TAM, PLS-SEM, pre-service teacher

CITATION (APA)

Thohir, M. A., Ahdhianto, E., Mas’ula, S., April Yanti, F., & Sukarelawan, M. I. (2023). The effects of TPACK and facility condition on preservice teachers’ acceptance of virtual reality in science education course. Contemporary Educational Technology, 15(2), ep407. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/12918

REFERENCES

  1. Alalwan, N., Cheng, L., Al-Samarraie, H., Yousef, R., Ibrahim Alzahrani, A., & Sarsam, S. M. (2020). Challenges and prospects of virtual reality and augmented reality utilization among primary school teachers: A developing country perspective. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 66, 100876. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2020.100876
  2. Alshurafat, H., Al Shbail, M. O., Masadeh, W. M., Dahmash, F., & Al-Msiedeen, J. M. (2021). Factors affecting online accounting education during the COVID-19 pandemic: An integrated perspective of social capital theory, the theory of reasoned action and the technology acceptance model. Education and Information Technologies, 26(6), 6995-7013. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10550-y
  3. Altarteer, S., & Charissis, V. (2019). Technology acceptance model for 3D virtual reality system in luxury brands online stores. IEEE Access, 7, 64053-64062. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2916353
  4. Araiza-Alba, P., Keane, T., & Kaufman, J. (2022). Are we ready for virtual reality in K-12 classrooms? Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 31(4), 471-491. https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2022.2033307
  5. Barrera-Algarín, E., Sarasola-Sánchez-Serrano, J. L., & Sarasola-Fernández, A. (2021). Social work in the face of emerging technologies: A technological acceptance study in 13 countries. International Social Work. https://doi.org/10.1177/00208728211041672
  6. Barrett, A., Pack, A., Guo, Y., & Wang, N. (2020). Technology acceptance model and multi-user virtual reality learning environments for Chinese language education. Interactive Learning Environments. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2020.1855209
  7. Beauducel, A., & Herzberg, P. Y. (2006). On the performance of maximum likelihood versus means and variance adjusted weighted least squares estimation in CFA. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 13(2), 186-203. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328007sem1302_2
  8. Beldad, A. D., & Hegner, S. M. (2018). Expanding the technology acceptance model with the inclusion of trust, social influence, and health valuation to determine the predictors of German users’ willingness to continue using a fitness app: A structural equation modeling approach. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 34(9), 882-893. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2017.1403220
  9. Brooks, F. P. (1999). What’s real about virtual reality? IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, 19(6), 16-27. https://doi.org/10.1109/38.799723
  10. Creswell, J. W. (2020). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Pearson Higher Ed.
  11. Davis, F. D. (1985). A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-user information systems: Theory and results [PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology].
  12. Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly: Management Information Systems, 13(3), 319-339. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008
  13. Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., &Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35(8), 982-1003. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.35.8.982
  14. Dong, Y., Xu, C., Chai, C. S., & Zhai, X. (2020). Exploring the structural relationship among teachers’ technostress, technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK), computer self-efficacy and school support. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 29(2), 147-157. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-019-00461-5
  15. Doolani, S., Wessels, C., Kanal, V., Sevastopoulos, C., Jaiswal, A., Nambiappan, H., & Makedon, F. (2020). A Review of extended reality (XR) technologies for manufacturing training. Technologies, 8(4), 77. https://doi.org/10.3390/technologies8040077
  16. Eraslan Yalcin, M., & Kutlu, B. (2019). Examination of students’ acceptance of and intention to use learning management systems using extended TAM. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(5), 2414-2432. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12798
  17. Eutsler, L., & Long, C. S. (2022). Preservice teachers’ acceptance of virtual reality to plan science instruction. International Forum of Educational Technology & Society, 24(2), 24-48.
  18. Fagan, M., Kilmon, C., & Pandey, V. (2012). Exploring the adoption of a virtual reality simulation: The role of perceived ease of use, perceived usefulness and personal innovativeness. Campus-Wide Information Systems, 29(2), 117-127. https://doi.org/10.1108/10650741211212368
  19. Farrell, R., Cowan, P., Brown, M., Roulston, S., Taggart, S., Donlon, E., & Baldwin, M. (2022). Virtual reality in initial teacher education (VRITE): A reverse mentoring model of professional learning for learning leaders. Irish Educational Studies, 41(1), 245-256. https://doi.org/10.1080/03323315.2021.2021102
  20. Fussell, S. G., & Truong, D. (2021). Accepting virtual reality for dynamic learning: An extension of the technology acceptance model. Interactive Learning Environments, 0(0), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2021.2009880
  21. Granić, A., & Marangunić, N. (2019). Technology acceptance model in educational context: A systematic literature review. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(5), 2572-2593. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12864
  22. Grassini, S., & Laumann, K. (2020). Are modern head-mounted displays sexist? A systematic review on gender differences in HMD-mediated virtual reality. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 1604. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01604
  23. Gurer, M. D. (2021). Examining technology acceptance of pre-service mathematics teachers in Turkey: A structural equation modeling approach. Education and Information Technologies, 26(4), 4709-4729. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10493-4
  24. Hamilton, D., McKechnie, J., Edgerton, E., & Wilson, C. (2021). Immersive virtual reality as a pedagogical tool in education: A systematic literature review of quantitative learning outcomes and experimental design. Journal of Computers in Education, 8(1), 1-32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-020-00169-2
  25. Han, D.-I. D., Bergs, Y., & Moorhouse, N. (2022). Virtual reality consumer experience escapes: Preparing for the metaverse. Virtual Reality, 26, 1443-1458. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10055-022-00641-7
  26. Hayes, A., Daughrity, L. A., & Meng, N. (2021). Approaches to integrate virtual reality into K-16 lesson plans: An introduction for teachers. TechTrends, 65(3), 394-401. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-020-00572-7
  27. Hernández-de-Menéndez, M., Vallejo Guevara, A., & Morales-Menendez, R. (2019). Virtual reality laboratories: A review of experiences. International Journal on Interactive Design and Manufacturing, 13(3), 947-966. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12008-019-00558-7
  28. Hsu, C.-L., & Lu, H.-P. (2004). Why do people play on-line games? An extended TAM with social influences and flow experience. Information & Management, 41(7), 853-868. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2003.08.014
  29. Hwang, G.-J., & Chien, S.-Y. (2022). Definition, roles, and potential research issues of the metaverse in education: An artificial intelligence perspective. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 3, 100082. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2022.100082
  30. Ibili, E., Resnyansky, D., & Billinghurst, M. (2019). Applying the technology acceptance model to understand maths teachers’ perceptions towards an augmented reality tutoring system. Education and Information Technologies, 24(5), 2653-2675. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-019-09925-z
  31. Iqbal, S., & Ahmed Bhatti, Z. (2015). An investigation of university student readiness towards m-learning using technology acceptance model. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 16(4). https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v16i4.2351
  32. Jang, J., Ko, Y., Shin, W. S., & Han, I. (2021). Augmented reality and virtual reality for learning: An examination using an extended technology acceptance model. IEEE Access, 9, 6798-6809. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3048708
  33. Joo, Y. J., Park, S., & Lim, E. (2018). Factors influencing preservice teachers’ intention to use technology: TPACK, teacher self-efficacy, and technology acceptance model. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 21(3), 48-59.
  34. Kamal, S. A., Shafiq, M., & Kakria, P. (2020). Investigating acceptance of telemedicine services through an extended technology acceptance model (TAM). Technology in Society, 60, 101212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2019.101212
  35. Kaushik, M. K., & Agrawal, D. (2021). Influence of technology readiness in adoption of e-learning. International Journal of Educational Management, 35(2), 483-495. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-04-2020-0216
  36. Kemp, A., Palmer, E., Strelan, P., & Thompson, H. (2022). Exploring the specification of educational compatibility of virtual reality within a technology acceptance model. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 38(2), 15-34. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.7388
  37. Kraus, S., Kanbach, D. K., Krysta, P. M., Steinhoff, M. M., & Tomini, N. (2022). Facebook and the creation of the metaverse: Radical business model innovation or incremental transformation? International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 28(9), 52-77. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEBR-12-2021-0984
  38. Laurell, C., Sandström, C., Berthold, A., & Larsson, D. (2019). Exploring barriers to adoption of virtual reality through social media analytics and machine learning–An assessment of technology, network, price and trialability. Journal of Business Research, 100, 469-474. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.01.017
  39. Lee, J., Kim, J., & Choi, J. Y. (2019). The adoption of virtual reality devices: The technology acceptance model integrating enjoyment, social interaction, and strength of the social ties. Telematics and Informatics, 39, 37-48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2018.12.006
  40. 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), 191-204. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-7206(01)00143-4
  41. Lin, C.-H., Shih, H.-Y., & Sher, P. J. (2007). Integrating technology readiness into technology acceptance: The TRAM model. Psychology and Marketing, 24(7), 641-657. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20177
  42. Liu, R., Wang, L., Lei, J., Wang, Q., & Ren, Y. (2020). Effects of an immersive virtual reality‐based classroom on students’ learning performance in science lessons. British Journal of Educational Technology, 51(6), 2034-2049. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13028
  43. Mahalil, I., Yusof, A. M., & Ibrahim, N. (2020). A literature review on the usage of technology acceptance model for analyzing a virtual reality’s cycling sport applications with enhanced realism fidelity. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Information Technology and Multimedia (pp. 237-242). https://doi.org/10.1109/ICIMU49871.2020.9243571
  44. Mailizar, M., Burg, D., & Maulina, S. (2021). Examining university students’ behavioral intention to use e-learning during the COVID-19 pandemic: An extended TAM model. Education and Information Technologies, 26(6), 7057-7077. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10557-5
  45. Manis, K. T., & Choi, D. (2019). The virtual reality hardware acceptance model (VR-HAM): Extending and individuating the technology acceptance model (TAM) for virtual reality hardware. Journal of Business Research, 100, 503-513. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.10.021
  46. Marks, B., & Thomas, J. (2022). Adoption of virtual reality technology in higher education: An evaluation of five teaching semesters in a purpose-designed laboratory. Education and Information Technologies, 27(1), 1287-1305. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10653-6
  47. Matovu, H., Ungu, D. A. K., Won, M., Tsai, C.-C., Treagust, D. F., Mocerino, M., & Tasker, R. (2022). Immersive virtual reality for science learning: Design, implementation, and evaluation. Studies in Science Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2022.2082680
  48. Mayer, P., & Girwidz, R. (2019). Physics teachers’ acceptance of multimedia applications–Adaptation of the technology acceptance model to investigate the influence of TPACK on physics teachers’ acceptance behavior of multimedia applications. Frontiers in Education, 4, 73. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2019.00073
  49. Meyer, O. A., Omdahl, M. K., & Makransky, G. (2019). Investigating the effect of pre-training when learning through immersive virtual reality and video: A media and methods experiment. Computers & Education, 140, 103603. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103603
  50. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x
  51. Murgu, C. (2021). “A modern disease of adaptation …”?: Technostress and academic librarians working in digital scholarship at ARL institutions. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 47(5), 102400. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2021.102400
  52. Mystakidis, S. (2022). Metaverse. Encyclopedia, 2(1), 486-497. https://doi.org/10.3390/encyclopedia2010031
  53. Natasia, S. R., Wiranti, Y. T., & Parastika, A. (2022). Acceptance analysis of NUADU as e-learning platform using the technology acceptance model (TAM) approach. Procedia Computer Science, 197, 512-520. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2021.12.168
  54. Ozgur, H. (2020). Relationships between teachers’ technostress, technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK), school support and demographic variables: A structural equation modeling. Computers in Human Behavior, 112, 106468. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106468
  55. Page, R. L. (2000). Brief history of flight simulation. In SimTecT 2000 Proceedings (pp. 11-17).
  56. Pal, D., & Vanijja, V. (2020). Perceived usability evaluation of Microsoft Teams as an online learning platform during COVID-19 using system usability scale and technology acceptance model in India. Children and Youth Services Review, 119, 105535. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105535
  57. 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), 150-161.
  58. Parong, J., & Mayer, R. E. (2018). Learning science in immersive virtual reality. Journal of Educational Psychology, 110(6), 785-797. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000241
  59. Parong, J., & Mayer, R. E. (2021). Cognitive and affective processes for learning science in immersive virtual reality. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 37(1), 226-241. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12482
  60. Perret, J., & Vander Poorten, E. (2018). Touching virtual reality: A review of haptic gloves. In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on New Actuators ACTUATOR 2018 (pp. 1-5).
  61. Rahimi, B., Nadri, H., Afshar, H. L., & Timpka, T. (2018). A systematic review of the technology acceptance model in health informatics. Applied Clinical Informatics, 09(3), 604-634. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0038-1668091
  62. Ranellucci, J., Rosenberg, J. M., & Poitras, E. G. (2020). Exploring pre‐service teachers’ use of technology: The technology acceptance model and expectancy–value theory. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 36(6), 810-824. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12459
  63. Rospigliosi, P. (2022). Metaverse or simulacra? Roblox, Minecraft, Meta and the turn to virtual reality for education, socialization and work. Interactive Learning Environments, 30(1), 1-3. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2022.2022899
  64. Safikhani, S., Keller, S., Schweiger, G., & Pirker, J. (2022). Immersive virtual reality for extending the potential of building information modeling in architecture, engineering, and construction sector: Systematic review. International Journal of Digital Earth, 15(1), 503-526. https://doi.org/10.1080/17538947.2022.2038291
  65. Sagnier, C., Loup-Escande, E., Lourdeaux, D., Thouvenin, I., & Valléry, G. (2020). User acceptance of virtual reality: An extended technology acceptance model. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 36(11), 993-1007. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2019.1708612
  66. Salloum, S. A., Qasim Mohammad Alhamad, A., Al-Emran, M., Abdel Monem, A., & Shaalan, K. (2019). Exploring students’ acceptance of e-Learning through the development of a comprehensive technology acceptance model. IEEE Access, 7, 128445-128462. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2939467
  67. Scherer, R., Siddiq, F., & Tondeur, J. (2019). The technology acceptance model (TAM): A meta-analytic structural equation modeling approach to explaining teachers’ adoption of digital technology in education. Computers & Education, 128, 13-35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.09.009
  68. Schmid, M., Brianza, E., & Petko, D. (2021). Self-reported technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) of pre-service teachers in relation to digital technology use in lesson plans. Computers in Human Behavior, 115, 106586. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106586
  69. Schmidt, D. A., Baran, E., Thompson, A. D., Mishra, P., Koehler, M. J., & Shin, T. S. (2009). Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK): The development and validation of an assessment instrument for preservice teachers. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(2), 27. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2009.10782544
  70. Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1-21. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.57.1.j463w79r56455411
  71. Solmaz, S., & Van Gerven, T. (2022). Interactive CFD simulations with virtual reality to support learning in mixing. Computers & Chemical Engineering, 156, 107570. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compchemeng.2021.107570
  72. Sukendro, S., Habibi, A., Khaeruddin, K., Indrayana, B., Syahruddin, S., Makadada, F. A., & Hakim, H. (2020). Using an extended technology acceptance model to understand students’ use of e-learning during COVID-19: Indonesian sport science education context. Heliyon, 6(11), e05410. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e05410
  73. Sukotjo, C., Schreiber, S., Li, J., Zhang, M., Chia-Chun Yuan, J., & Santoso, M. (2021). Development and student perception of virtual reality for implant surgery. Education Sciences, 11(4), 176. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11040176
  74. Taber, K. S. (2018). The use of Cronbach’s alpha when developing and reporting research instruments in science education. Research in Science Education, 48(6), 1273-1296. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9602-2
  75. Thohir, M. A., Jumadi, J., & Warsono, W. (2022). Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) of pre-service science teachers: A Delphi study. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 54(1), 127-142. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2020.1814908
  76. Thohir, M. A., Yuliati, L., Ahdhianto, E., Untari, E., & Yanti, F. A. (2021). Exploring the relationship between personality traits and TPACK-web of pre-service teacher. Contemporary Educational Technology, 13(4), 16. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/11128
  77. To, W. M., & Tang, M. N. F. (2019). Computer-based course evaluation: An extended technology acceptance model. Educational Studies, 45(2), 131-144. https://doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2018.1443797
  78. Tsivitanidou, O. E., Georgiou, Y., & Ioannou, A. (2021). A learning experience in inquiry-based physics with immersive virtual reality: Student perceptions and an interaction effect between conceptual gains and attitudinal profiles. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 30(6), 841-861. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-021-09924-1
  79. Vallade, J. I., Kaufmann, R., Frisby, B. N., & Martin, J. C. (2021). Technology acceptance model: Investigating students’ intentions toward adoption of immersive 360° videos for public speaking rehearsals. Communication Education, 70(2), 127-145. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2020.1791351
  80. Valtonen, T., Sointu, E., Kukkonen, J., Mäkitalo, K., Hoang, N., Häkkinen, P., Järvelä, S., Näykki, P., Virtanen, A., Pöntinen, S., Kostiainen, E., & Tondeur, J. (2019). Examining pre‐service teachers’ technological pedagogical content knowledge as evolving knowledge domains: A longitudinal approach. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 35(4), 491-502. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12353
  81. Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186-204. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926
  82. Xi, N., Chen, J., Gama, F., Riar, M., & Hamari, J. (2022). The challenges of entering the metaverse: An experiment on the effect of extended reality on workload. Information Systems Frontiers. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-022-10244-x
  83. Xiong, J., Hsiang, E.-L., He, Z., Zhan, T., & Wu, S.-T. (2021). Augmented reality and virtual reality displays: Emerging technologies and future perspectives. Light: Science & Applications, 10(1), 216. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41377-021-00658-8
  84. Yang, J., Wang, Q., Wang, J., Huang, M., & Ma, Y. (2021). A study of K-12 teachers’ TPACK on the technology acceptance of e-schoolbag. Interactive Learning Environments, 29(7), 1062-1075. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2019.1627560
  85. Yang, Y., & Wang, X. (2019). Modeling the intention to use machine translation for student translators: An extension of technology acceptance model. Computers & Education, 133, 116-126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.01.015