Testing the Technology Acceptance Model 3 (TAM 3) with the Inclusion of Change Fatigue and Overload, in the Context of Faculty from Seventh-day Adventist Universities: A Revised Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Problem. In recent years, the use of technology in institutions of higher learning has grown significantly. The use of Learning Management Systems (LMSs) is central to this growth. LMSs assist in the ease, consistency, and effectiveness of delivering instruction to students. The challenges involved in implementing an LMS, and the time pressures placed on faculty make decisions concerning LMSs particularly crucial. Since the goal of administration is to encourage adoption and optimal usage of the LMS by as many faculty members as possible, the focus of this study is the dynamic of factors that predict usage of Learning Management Systems. Method. Two hundred randomly selected faculty members responded to a 40-item SurveyMonkey questionnaire based on the TAM 3 variables plus Change Fatigue, Overload, and demographics. This questionnaire evaluated factors that influence their use of the LMS employed by their university. Correlations, regressions, and path analysis were employed to test critical links between key variables in the model. Results. Analysis found substantial differences from links in the TAM 3 model. Specifically, factors including Subjective Norm, Image, Computer Self-Efficacy, Computer Anxiety, Computer Playfulness, Perceived Enjoyment, Objective Usability, and Experience did not significantly impact the present model. The consistent dynamic on all of these variables is that with greater fluency, more extensive use of computers, and the effect of digital wisdom, each of these factors fades in importance. Whereas Overload did not impact the model, Change Fatigue was a significant predictor of lower LMS usage. A more parsimonious revised model of factors that reflect these changes was constructed. Conclusions. The proposed design appears to be a simpler and more streamlined model for use by administrators in understanding the factors that lead to effective and increased use of Learning Management Systems. The core elements of the TAM 3 remain intact. This suggests that administrators should pay close attention to perceived usefulness of the LMS, perceived ease of use, voluntariness, and change fatigue in selecting and implementing any new system and in seeking to increase adoption of the current system.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".