Skip to main content

Conceptualising a Framework in Evaluating a Collaboration Model Using Technology for Developing Lesson Contents

  • Conference paper
Taylor’s 7th Teaching and Learning Conference 2014 Proceedings

Abstract

Technology adoption in collaborative teaching is a subject area that has been gaining popularity among researchers lately. The factors that influence the acceptance in using collaboration technology to perform a task are closely related to the factors that have the potential to influence adoption. These acceptances to use technology correspond directly to core underpinnings of perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and attitude towards using technology, respectively. Hence, this study aims to use the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) as the basis to test the community acceptance of TEGpedia collaboration model for developing lesson contents. TEGpedia collaboration model is a proposed model that can be adopted by institution of higher learning in managing lesson plan and materials more efficiently by collaborating effectively.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Calderheada, J. (1988). Learning from introductory school experience. Journal of Education for Teaching: International Research and Pedagogy, 14(1), 75–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, E. G. (1981). Sociology looks at team teaching. Research in Sociology of Education and Socialization, 2, 163–193.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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), 982–1002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dedea, C. (1996). The evolution of distance education: Emerging technologies and distributed learning. American Journal of Distance Education, 10(2), 4–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dennis, A. R., & Gallupe, R. B. (1993). In L. M. Jessup & J. S. Valacich (Eds.), A history of GSS empirical research. Lessons learned and future directions in group support systems: New perspectives (pp. 59–77). New York: MacMillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dennis, A. R., George, J. F., Jessup, L. M., Nunamaker, J. F., & Vogel, D. R. (1988). Information technology to support electronic meetings. MIS Quarterly, 12(4), 591–624.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dennis, A. R., Wixom, B. J., & Vandenberg, R. J. (2001). Understanding fit and appropriation effects in group support systems via meta-analysis. MIS Quarterly, 25(2), 167–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dennis, A. R., Venkatesh, V., & Ramesh, V. (2003). Adoption of collaboration technologies: Integrating technology acceptance and collaboration technology research. Sprouts: Working Papers on Information Systems, 3(8), 1–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeSanctis, G., & Gallupe, R. B. (1987). A foundation for the study of group decision support systems. Management Science, 33(5), 589–609.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eden, C., & Ackerman, F. (2001). Group decision and negotiation in strategy making. Group Decision and Negotiation, 10(2), 119–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karahanna, E., Agarwal, R., & Angst, C. (2006). Reconceptualizing compatibility beliefs in technology acceptance research. MIS Quarterly, 30(4), 781–804.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nilsson, P., & Driel. (2010). Teaching together and learning together – Primary science student teachers’ and their mentors’ joint teaching and learning in the primary classroom. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(6), 1309–1318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nunamaker, J. F., Jr., Dennis, A. R., Valacich, J. S., Vogel, D. R., & George, J. F. (1991). Electronic meeting systems to support group work. Communications of the ACM, 34(7), 40–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olson, G. M., & Olson, J. R. (1991). User-centered design of collaboration technology. Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce, 1(1), 61–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Persico, D., Manca, S., & Pozzi, F. (2014). Adapting the technology acceptance model to evaluate the innovative potential of e-learning systems. Computers in Human Behavior, 30(2014), 614–622.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Presseisen, B. (2008). Teaching for intelligence (2nd ed.). London: Corwin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rhoads, M., Hou, J., Lee, K. M., & Park, N. (2014). Understanding the acceptance of teleconferencing systems among employees: An extension of the technology acceptance model. Computers in Human Behavior, 39(2014), 118–127.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roger, T., & David, W. J. (1988, Winter). Cooperative learning. Two heads learn better than one. Transforming Education (IC#18), 34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, S., & Todd, P. (1995). Understanding information technology usage: A test of competing models. Information Systems Research, 6(2), 144–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thousand, J. S., Villa, R. A., & Nevin, A. I. (2006). The many faces of collaborative planning and teaching. Theory Into Practice, 45(3), 239–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Venkatesh, V., & Brown, S. A. (2001). A longitudinal investigation of personal computer adoption in homes: Adoption determinants and emerging challenges. MIS Quarterly, 25(1), 71–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 45(2), 186–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Venkatesh, V., & Morris, M. G. (2000). Why don’t men ever stop to ask for directions? Gender, social influence, and their role in technology acceptance and usage behavior. MIS Quarterly, 24(1), 115–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vessey, I., Ramesh, V., & Glass, R. L. (2002). Research in information systems: An empirical study of diversity in the discipline and its journals. Journal of Management Information Systems, 19(2), 129–174.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallace, L. G., & Sheetz, S. D. (2014). The adoption of software measures: A technology acceptance model (TAM) perspective. Information & Management, 51(2), 249–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zigurs, I., & Buckland, B. K. (1998). A theory of task/technology fit and group support systems effectiveness. MIS Quarterly, 22(3), 313–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Vikneswaran Nair .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer Science+Business Media Singapore

About this paper

Cite this paper

Nair, V., Nathan, J., Ramchand, T.G. (2015). Conceptualising a Framework in Evaluating a Collaboration Model Using Technology for Developing Lesson Contents. In: Tang, S., Logonnathan, L. (eds) Taylor’s 7th Teaching and Learning Conference 2014 Proceedings. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-399-6_49

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics