Acceptance of virtual worlds as learning space

Innovations in Education and Teaching International

Volumn 52, Issue 3, 2015, Pages 254-264

  Tokel, Saniye Tugba ^a   İsler, Veysi ^a  

^a MIDDLE EAST TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY   (Turkey)

Author keywords

interactive learning environments; media in education; simulations; technology acceptance; virtual worlds

Indexed keywords

EID: 84928705023     PISSN: 14703297     EISSN: 14703300     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/14703297.2013.820139     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Agarwal, R. & Karahanna, E. (2000). Time flies when you’re having fun: Cognitive absorption and beliefs about information technology usage. MIS Quarterly, 24, 665–694.
2. Chow, M., Herold, D. K., Choo, T., & Chan, K. (2012). Extending the technology acceptance model to explore the intention to use second life for enhancing healthcare education. Computers & Education, 59, 1136–1144.
3. Courville, T. & Thompson, B. (2001). Use of structure coefficients in published multiple regression articles: Is no enough. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 61, 229–248.
4. Cronbach, L. J. & Snow, R. E. (1977). Aptitudes and instructional methods: A handbook for research on interactions. New York, NY: Irvington.
5. Dalgarno, B. & Lee, M. J. W. (2010). What are the learning affordances of 3-D virtual environments? British Journal of Educational Technology, 41, 10–32.
6. Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use interface and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13, 319–340.
7. Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1992). Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation to use computers in the workplace. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22, 1111–1132.
8. Dickey, M. D. (2005). Three-dimensional virtual worlds and distance learning: Two case studies of active worlds as a medium for distance education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36, 439–451.
9. Fetscherin, M. & Lattemann, C. (2008). User acceptance of virtual worlds. Journal of Electronic Commerce Research, 9, 231–242.
10. Gefen, D. & Straub, D. W. (2000). The relative importance of perceived ease of use in IS adoption: A study of e-commerce adoption. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 1, 1–28.
11. Hua, G., Haughton, D. M., & Sun, Y. (2009). Virtual worlds adoption: A research framework and empirical study. Online Information Review, 33, 889–900.
12. Igbaria, M., Iivari, J., & Maragahh, H. (1995). Why do individuals use computer technology? A finnish case study. Information & Management, 29, 227–238.
13. King, W. R. & He, J. (2006). A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model. Information & Management, 43, 740–755.
14. Li, D., Chau, P. Y. K., & Lou, H. (2005). Understanding individual adoption of instant messaging: An empirical investigation. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 6, 102–129.
15. Linden Research. (2013). Second life grid survey region database. Retrieved March 15, 2013, from http://www.gridsurvey.com/
16. Moon, J. W. & Kim, Y. G. (2001). Extending the TAM for the World-Wide-Web context. Information and Management, 38, 217–230.
17. Saeed, N., Yang, Y., & Sinnappan, S. (2008). Media richness and user acceptance of second life. Proceedings of the Ascilite’s 25th Annual Conference (pp. 851–860) Melbourne, Australia.
18. Sharp, J. H. (2007). Development, extension, and application: A review of the technology acceptance model. Information Systems Education Journal, 5, 1–11.
19. Shen, J. & Eder, L. B. (2009). Intentions to use virtual worlds for education. Journal of Information Systems Education, 20, 225–233.
20. Shin, D. H. (2009). The evaluation of user experience of the virtual world in relation to extrinsic and intrinsic motivation. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 25, 530–553.
21. Sun, H. & Zhang, P. (2006). Causal relationships between perceived enjoyment and perceived ease of use: An alternative approach. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 7, 618–645.
22. Thompson, B. & Borrello, G. M. (1985). The importance of structure coefficients in regression research. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 45, 203–209.
23. Van der Heijden, H. (2003). Factors influencing the usage of websites: The case of a generic portal in the Netherlands. Information & Management, 40, 541–549.
24. Van der Heijden, H. (2004). User acceptance of hedonic information systems. MIS Quarterly, 28, 695–704.
25. van Raaij, E. M. & Schepers, J. J. L. (2008). The acceptance and use of a virtual learning environment in China. Computers & Education, 50, 838–852.
26. Venkatesh, V. (2000). Determinants of perceived ease of use: Integrating control, intrinsic motivation, and emotion into the technology acceptance model. Information Systems Research, 11, 342–365.
27. Venkatesh, V. & Bala, H. (2008). Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on interventions. Decision Sciences, 39, 273–315.
28. Venkatesh, V. & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46, 186–204.
29. Venkatesh, V., Speier, C., & Morris, M. G. (2002). User acceptance enablers in individual decision making about technology: Toward an integrated model. Decision Sciences, 33, 297–316.
30. Warshaw, P. R. & Davis, F. D. (1985). Disentangling behavioral intention and behavioral expectation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 21, 213–228.
31. Yi, M. Y. & Hwang, Y. (2003). Predicting the use of web-based information systems: Self-efficacy, enjoyment, learning goal orientation, and the technology acceptance model. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 59, 431–449.