Understanding Parents' Intention to Use a Learning Community Management System in K-12 Schools
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Information systems that facilitate communication among faculty, staff, and parents are increasingly being adopted by K–12 schools. Despite their promise, schools are resisting these systems. The Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) has been rarely tested to explain behavioral intention, acceptance, and sustained use of technology in the context of developing nations. We apply the UTAUT model to examine behavioral intention to use a learning community management system at a K-12 school in the Bahamas. Data were collected from 162 parents through a survey questionnaire. Results showed that facilitating conditions (FC), performance expectancy (PE), and effort expectancy (EE) are significantly related to behavioral intention. In addition, Age has a moderating role in PE and FC with respect to their effects on behavioral intention. Our findings extend the validation of the UTAUT model in different environments and may help educators, administrators, and policymakers implement meaningful ICT policies in line with their community's educational aspirations.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".