MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3194345283 · doi:10.5539/ies.v14n9p15

Factors That Influence English Teachers’ Acceptance and Use of E-Learning Technologies

2021· article· en· W3194345283 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yousif Hadi Alanezi, Salem M. Alajmi

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Education Studies · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicTechnology Adoption and User Behaviour
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDistance educationContext (archaeology)Educational technologyGlobeHigher educationTechnology integrationUnified theory of acceptance and use of technologyPsychologyTechnology acceptance modelMathematics educationEmerging technologiesSociologyPedagogyPublic relationsSocial influencePolitical scienceSocial psychologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The world has witnessed a major pandemic that has threatened the status of education across the globe. Such a crisis highlights the importance of education technology, which has not been an influential part of Kuwait’s education until the onset of COVID-19. Delays and interruptions of the academic year disrupted the lives of many students around the world, including Kuwait. Since e-learning technologies are not traditionally used in Kuwaiti higher education, this study aims to investigate the acceptance of technology and whether that has changed with the pandemic. It seeks to find useful strategies that could assist teachers in effectively using electronic distance-learning digital resources. The Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) has been developed to investigate the degrees of usage and acceptance of technology. This paper adopts an improved model that also includes the educational experience of teachers, in an attempt to understand the context of Kuwaiti higher education. Therefore, this quantitative study examines the use and acceptance of educational technologies of English language instructors in higher education. The study uses an online survey among 33 English language instructors at the Public Authority for Applied Education and Training (PAAET) to also account for the perceptions and experiences of the teachers. The results revealed an overall high acceptance level of educational technology, with varying degrees of implementation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.030
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.163
Threshold uncertainty score0.978

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.030
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.236
GPT teacher head0.452
Teacher spread0.216 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations21
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Education StudiesSame topicTechnology Adoption and User BehaviourFrench-language works237,207