| Literature DB >> 33398606 |
Hind Abdulaziz Alfadda1, Hassan Saleh Mahdi2.
Abstract
The study uses technology acceptance model (TAM) to gain insights into user reactions to the technology adopted for language learning. The study aims to analyze the correlation between the variables of TAM on using Zoom application in language learning, in addition to examining how gender and experience influence the use of technology. The participants of this study comprise of 75 undergraduate English-as-Foreign-Language learners who have studied for their courses online during the COVID-19 pandemic. The results of the study reveal a strong positive correlation between the actual use of Zoom and the students' attitudes and behavioral intention. In addition, there is a positive correlation between computer self-efficacy and other variables (i.e. PU, actual use, PEU, attitude and behavioral intention). Further, while the results reveal that there is no correlation between the gender and any variables of the model, it has been found that experience is positively correlated with the variables of TAM.Entities:
Keywords: Attitudes; Experience; Gender; Language learning; Technology acceptance model; Zoom
Year: 2021 PMID: 33398606 PMCID: PMC7781650 DOI: 10.1007/s10936-020-09752-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Psycholinguist Res ISSN: 0090-6905
TAM variables and definitions
| Variable | Definition |
|---|---|
| Subjective norm | The social pressure exerted by family and friends to engage in a particular behavior (Agudo-Peregrina et al. |
| Computer self-efficacy | The belief in one’s ability to successfully complete a task using a computer (Holden and Rada |
| Facilitating conditions | The belief that adequate infrastructure exists to support the use of the technology. Infrastructure may include knowledge, administration, organization, or technical support (Nikou and Economides |
| Perceived ease of use | The belief that effort will not be required (Scherer et al. |
| Perceived usefulness | The belief that the technology enhances job performance (Scherer et al. |
| Attitude towards technology | A personal evaluation regarding the use of the technology (Lee and Lehto |
| Behavioral intention | An individual’s intention to use a piece of technology (Turner et al. |
| Actual use | An individual’s use of technology (Scherer et al. |
Fig. 1The technology acceptance model (Turner et al. 2010)
Demographic background of study participants
| N | Percent | |
|---|---|---|
| Male | 35 | 46.6 |
| Female | 40 | 57.14 |
| Fair | 5 | 6.7 |
| Good | 19 | 25.3 |
| Very good | 35 | 46.7 |
| Excellent | 16 | 21.3 |
The questionnaire reliability
| Cronbach’s alpha | No. of items |
|---|---|
| .933 | 26 |
The correlation between the constructs
| Construct | Computer self-efficacy | PU | Actual use | PEU | Attitude | Behavioral intention |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Computer self-efficacy | 1 | .519** | .286* | .341** | .421** | .494** |
| .000 | .013 | .003 | .000 | .000 | ||
| PU | 75 | 75 | 75 | 75 | 75 | 75 |
| .519** | 1 | .444** | .677** | . | . | |
| Actual use | .000 | .000 | .000 | .000 | .000 | |
| 75 | 75 | 75 | 75 | 75 | 75 | |
| PEU | .286* | .444** | 1 | .539** | .459** | .606** |
| .013 | .000 | .000 | .000 | .000 | ||
| Attitude | 75 | 75 | 75 | 75 | 75 | 75 |
| .341** | .677** | .539** | 1 | . | .757** | |
| Behavioral intention | .003 | .000 | .000 | .000 | .000 | |
| 75 | 75 | 75 | 75 | 75 | 75 |
**Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed)
*Correlation is significant at the .05 level (2-tailed)
The correlation between gender and the other variable
| Variable | Computer self-efficacy | PU | Actual use | PEU | Attitude | Behavioral intention |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | − .348** | − 301** | − .175 | − .127 | − .262* | − .167 |
| .002 | .009 | .134 | .278 | .023 | .151 | |
| 75 | 75 | 75 | 75 | 75 | 75 |
**Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed)
*Correlation is significant at the .05 level (2-tailed)
The correlation between students’ experience and the other variable
| Variable | Computer self-efficacy | PU | Actual use | PEU | Attitude | Behavioral intention |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Experience | .100 | .259* | .101 | .346** | .332** | .310** |
| .393 | .025 | .389 | .002 | .004 | .007 | |
| 75 | 75 | 75 | 75 | 75 | 75 |
**Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed)
*Correlation is significant at the .05 level (2-tailed)