Advertisement

Assessing the Adoption of Virtual Learning Environments in Primary Schools: An Activity Oriented Study of Teacher’s Acceptance

  • Elena CodreanuEmail author
  • Christine MichelEmail author
  • Marc-Eric Bobillier-Chaumon
  • Olivier Vigneau
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 739)

Abstract

This article studies the conditions of use of a VLE (Virtual Learning Environment) by primary school teachers. It first presents a triangulated model to explore Virtual Learning Environments’ adoption in primary schools. The theoretical models cover three approaches: the social acceptance, the practical acceptance and the situated acceptance. The situated acceptance of teachers is studied according to the model by using activity theory and qualitative methods (individual and collective interviews). Our study describes how teachers (8 participants) perceived the role of the VLE in the evolution of their working practices (maintaining, transforming or restricting existent practices), in their relationship with parents and in the follow-up of their students.

Keywords

VLE Acceptance Activity theory Primary school Professional practices 

References

  1. 1.
    Stiles, M.J.: Effective Learning and the Virtual Learning Environment. The Learning Development Centre, Staffordshire University, UK (2000)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    OECD: Student, Computers and Learning. Making the Connection. PISA. OECD Publishing (2015). http://www.oecd.org/edu/students-computers-and-learning-9789264239555-en.htm
  3. 3.
    Kolias, V., Mamalougos, N., Vamvakoussi, X., Lakkala, M., Vosniadou, S.: Teachers’ attitudes to and beliefs about web-based collaborative learning environments in the context of an international implementation. Comput. Educ. 45(3), 295–315 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Prieur, M., Steck, P.: L’ENT: un levier de transformation des pratiques pédagogiques pour accompagner les apprentissages du socle commun, Colloque International INRP 2011 (2011)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Poyet, F., Genevois, S.: Intégration des ENT dans les pratiques enseignantes: entre ruptures et continuités. In: Rinaudo, J.-L., Poyet, F. (ed.) Environnements numériques en milieu scolaire. Quels usages et quelles pratiques?, Lyon, INRP, pp. 23–46 (2010)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Pacurar, E., Abbas, N.: Analyse des intentions d’usage d’un ENT chez les enseignants de lycées professionnels. In: STICEF, vol. 21 (2014). http://sticef.org
  7. 7.
    Firmin, M., Genesi, D.: History and implementation of classroom technology. Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci. 93, 1603–1617 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Blin, F., Munro, M.: Why hasn’t technology disrupted academics’ teaching practices? Understanding resistance to change through the lens of activity theory. Comput. Educ. 50(2), 475–490 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bruillard, E.: Le déploiement des ENT dans l’enseignement secondaire: entre acteurs multiples, dénis et illusions. Revue française de pédagogie, vol. 177, pp. 101–130 (2011)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Missonier, S.: Analyse réticulaire de projets de mise en œuvre d’une technologie de l’information: le cas des espaces numériques de travail. Ph.D. Thesis (2008)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Voulgre, E.: Une approche systémique des TICE dans le système scolaire français: entre finalités prescrites, ressources et usages par les enseignants. Ph.D. Thesis (2011)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Keller, C.: Technology acceptance in academic organisations: implementation of virtual learning environments. In: Proceeding of the 14th European Conference on Information Systems, Gothenburg (2006)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Keller, C.: User acceptance of virtual learning environments: a case study from three northern european universities. Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 25(1), 38 (2009). http://aisel.aisnet.org/cais/vol25/iss1/38
  14. 14.
    Osika, E., Johnson, R., Buteau, R.: Factors influencing faculty use of technology in online instruction: A case study. Online J. Distance Learn. Adm. 12(1) (2009)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Babic, S.: Factors that influence academic teacher’s acceptance of e-learning technology in blended learning environment. In: E-Learning-Organizational Infrastructure and Tools for Specific Areas, pp. 3–18 (2012)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Karasavvidis, I.: Activity theory as a conceptual framework for understanding teacher approaches to information and communication technologies. Comput. Educ. 53(2), 436–444 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Berry, M.: An investigation of the effectiveness of virtual learning environment implementation in primary school. Thesis University of Leicester (2005)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Davis, F.D.: Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q. 13, 319–340 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ajzen, I.: The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 50, 179–211 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Blackwell, C.K., Lauricelle, A., Wartella, E., Robb, M., Schomburg, R.: Adoption and use of technology in early education: The interplay of extrinsic barriers and teachers attitudes. Comput. Educ. 69, 310–319 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Pynoo, B., Devolder, P., Tondeur, J., Braak, J.V., Duyck, W., Duyck, P.: Predicting secondary school teachers’ acceptance and use of a digital learning environment: A cross-sectional study. Comput. Hum. Behav. 27, 568–575 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Pynoo, B., Devolder, P., Tondeur, J., Braak, J.V., Duyck, W., Sijnave, B., Duyck, P.: Teachers’ acceptance and use of an educational portal. Comput. Educ. 58, 1308–1317 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ertmer, P.A.: Teacher pedagogical beliefs: the final frontier in our quest for technology information? Educ. Technol. Res. Dev. 53(4), 25–39 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Inan, F., Lowther, D.: Laptops in K12 classrooms: exploring factors impacting use. Comput. Educ. 55, 937–944 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Chen, J., Chang, C.: Using computers in early childhood classrooms: Teachers’ attitudes, skills and practices. J. Early Child. Res. 4(2), 169–188 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Faurie, I., van de Leemput, C.: Influence du Sentiment d’Efficacité informatique sur les Usages d’Internet des étudiants. L’orientation scolaire et professionnelle 36(4) (2007)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Giamalas, V., Nikolopulus, K.: In-service and pre-service early childhood teacher’s views and intentions about ICT use in early childhood setting: A comparative study. Comput. Educ. 55, 333–341 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Tsytouridou, M., Vryzas, K.: The prospect of integrating ICT into the education of young children: The views of Greek early childhood teachers. Eur. J. Teach. Educ. 27(1), 29–45 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Codreanu, E., Michel, C., Bobillier-Chaumon, M.E., Vigneau, O.: Acceptation des Environnements Numériques de Travail par les Enseignants du Primaire. In: Conference Paper, EIAH 2015, 1–2 June, Agadir (2015)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Brangier, E., Dufresne, A., Hammes-Adele, S.: Approche symbiotique de la relation humain-technologie: perspectives pour l’ergonomie informatique. Le Travail Humain 72(4), 333–353 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Barcenilla, J., Bastien, J.M.: L’acceptabilité des nouvelles technologies: quelles relations avec l’ergonomie, l’utilisabilité et l’expérience utilisateur? Le Travail Humain 72, 311–331 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Nielsen, J.: Usability Engineering. Morgan Kaufman Publishers, New York (1994)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Bastien, J.M., Scapin, D.L.: Ergonomic Criteria for the evaluation of Human-Computer Interfaces. Institut National de recherche en Informatique et en Automatique (1993)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Hourcade, J.P.: Interaction Design and Children. Now Publishers Inc., Hanover (2007)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Lueder, R., Rice, V.J.: Ergonomics for Children: Designing Products and Places for Toddlers to Teens. Taylor & Francis, New York (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Budiu, R., Nielsen, J.: Children (Ages 3–12) on the Web (2nd edition). NN Group (2010)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Carroll, J.M., Rosson, M.B.: Participatory design in community informatics. Des. Stud. 28, 243–261 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Carroll, J.M.: Building educational technology partnerships through participatory design. In: Khosrow-Pour, M. (eds.) Encyclopedia on information Science and Technology, Second Edition (2008)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Baek, J.S., Lee, K.P.: A participatory design approach to information architecture design for children. In: CoDesign: International CoCreation in Design and the Arts 4(3), 173–191 (2008)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Sucupura-Furtado, M.E.: Improving the usability of interactive learning systems: the best practices of requirements engineering. In: Khosrow-Pour, M. (eds.) Encyclopedia of Information Science and Technology, Second Edition (2008)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Konings, K., Seidel, T., Van Merrienboer, J.: Participatory design of learning environments: integrating perspectives of student, teachers, and designers. Instr. Sci. 42(1) (2014). doi: 10.1007/s11251-013-9305-2
  42. 42.
    Konings, K., van Zundert, M., Bran-Gruwel, S., van Merrienboer, J.: Participatory design in secondary education: its desirability and feasibility according to teachers and students. Educ. Stud. 33, 445–465 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Chin, G.: A case study in the Participatory Design of a Collaborative Science Based Learning Environment. Blacksburg, Virginia (2004)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Jonsson, L.E.: Appropriating Technologies in Educational Practices. Goteburg Studies in Educational sciences 215. Ph.D. Thesis (2007)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Bobillier-Chaumon, M.E.: Acceptation située des TIC dans et par l’activité: Premiers étayages pour une clinique de l’usage. Psychologie du Travail et des Organisations (2016, in press)Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Bobillier-Chaumon, M.E., Dubois, M.: L’adoption des technologies en situation professionnelle: quelles articulations possibles entre acceptabilité et acceptation? Le Travail Humain 72, 355–382 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Engeström, Y., Miettinen, R., Punamaki, R.L.: Perspectives on Activity Theory. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Kuutti, K.: Activity theory as a potential framework for human-computer interaction research. In: Nardi, B. (ed.) Context and Consciousness. Activity Theory and Human Computer Interaction. The MIT Press, Cambridge (1996)Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Rabardel, P., Bourmaud, G.: From computer to instrument system: a developmental perspective. Interact. Comput. 15(5), 665–691 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Denzin, N.K.: Sociological Methods. McGraw-Hill, New York (1978)Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Flanagan, J.C.: The critical incident technique. Psychol. Bull. 51, 327–358 (1954)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Bardin, L.: L’analyse de contenu. PUF, Paris (1996)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Université de LyonLyonFrance
  2. 2.Université Lyon2, GRePS, EA 4163BronFrance
  3. 3.INSA-Lyon, LIRIS, UMR5205VilleurbanneFrance
  4. 4.WebServices pour l’EducationParisFrance

Personalised recommendations