Vol. 29 (2019)
Artículos de investigación

Validación de un instrumento para medir la aceptación tecnológica de un entorno virtual de aprendizaje

HTML (inglés) PDF XML
  • Pedro César Santana-Mancilla,
  • Osval Antonio Montesinos-López,
  • Miguel Angel Garcia-Ruiz,
  • Juan José Contreras-Castillo,
  • Laura Sanely Gaytan-Lugo
Pedro César Santana-Mancilla Universidad de Colima

Biografía
Osval Antonio Montesinos-López Universidad de Colima
Miguel Angel Garcia-Ruiz Algoma University
Juan José Contreras-Castillo Universidad de Colima
Laura Sanely Gaytan-Lugo Universidad de Colima

Publicado 2019-04-08

Aviso de derechos de autor/a

Cómo citar

Validación de un instrumento para medir la aceptación tecnológica de un entorno virtual de aprendizaje. (2019). Acta Universitaria, 29, 1-15. https://doi.org/10.15174/au.2019.1796

Resumen

Los Entornos Virtuales de Aprendizaje (EVA) proveen una plataforma para lograr que la educación a distancia sea más conveniente y accesible para los estudiantes. Aunque los EVA actualmente cuentan con gran demanda, su aceptación necesita ser evaluada. En esta investigación, se validó un instrumento que mide la aceptación tecnológica de un EVA. Aplicando un análisis factorial confirmatorio, se validó un instrumento compuesto por 15 ítems y cinco factores. Los resultados muestran que el ajuste general del modelo fue satisfactorio y que todas las correlaciones entre los factores latentes fueron mayores de 0.48. Se encontró que la evaluación de la aceptación tecnológica es muy importante porque el éxito depende en gran medida de la acogida favorable de profesores, investigadores y líderes educativos.

HTML (inglés) PDF XML

Referencias

  1. Atkinson, T. M., Rosenfeld, B. D., Sit, L., Mendoza, T. R., Fruscione, M., Lavene, D., and Basch, E. (2011). Using Confirmatory Factor Analysis to Evaluate Construct Validity of the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI). Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, 41(3), 558–565. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2010.05.008
  2. Bender, K., Donohue, S. & Heywood, J. (2005). Job satisfaction and gender segregation. Oxford Economic Papers, 57(3), 479-496. doi: 10.1093/oep/gpi015
  3. Bennell, P., and Pearce, T. (2003). The internationalisation of higher education: exporting education to developing and transitional economies. International Journal of Educational Development, 23(2), 215–232. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0738-0593(02)00024-X
  4. Boelen, P. A., van den Hout, M. A., and van den Bout, J. (2008). The factor structure of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder symptoms among bereaved individuals: A confirmatory factor analysis study. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 22(8), 1377–1383. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.janxdis.2008.01.018
  5. Bosch, T. Mathiassen, S.E., Visser, B., de Looze, M.P., and van Dieën, J.H. (2011). The effect of work pace on workload, motor variability and fatigue during simulated light assembly work. Ergonomics 54(2), 154-168. doi: 10.1080/00140139.2010.538723.
  6. Bovaird, J.A., and Koziol, N.A. (2012). Measurement models for ordered categorical indicators in structural equation modeling. In R.H. Hoyle, D. Kaplan, Marcoulides, & S. West (Eds.), Handbook of structural equation modeling. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
  7. Britto, M. (2005). Frameworks for CMS Design and Evaluation. In Carmean, C. & Jafari, A. (eds.) (2005). Course Management Systems for Learning: Beyond Accidental Pedagogy. Hershey, Penn.: Idea Group.
  8. Browne, M. W., and Cudeck, R. (1992). Alternative Ways of Assessing Model Fit. Sociological Methods & Research, 21(2), 230–258. http://doi.org/10.1177/0049124192021002005
  9. Clark, J. M., and Paivio, A. (1991). Dual coding theory and education. Educational Psychology Review, 3(3), 149–210. http://doi.org/10.1007/BF01320076
  10. Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319. http://doi.org/10.2307/249008
  11. DeVellis, R. F. (2016). Scale development: theory and applications (Fourth edition). Los Angeles: SAGE.
  12. Garrison, D. R. (2011). E-learning in the 21st century: A framework for research and practice. New York: Routledge.
  13. Garrison, D. R., and Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 7(2), 95–105. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2004.02.001
  14. Gisbert, M. (2005). Evaluación de la calidad de la formación on-line. In TEL 2005 I Jornadas: Tendencias sobre eLearning 2005 (pp. 101–107). Madrid.
  15. Govindasamy, T. (2001). Successful implementation of e-Learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 4(3–4), 287–299. http://doi.org/10.1016/S1096-7516(01)00071-9
  16. Hu, L., and Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. http://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
  17. Kahai, S. S., and Cooper, R. B. (2003). Exploring the Core Concepts of Media Richness Theory: The Impact of Cue Multiplicity and Feedback Immediacy on Decision Quality. Journal of Management Information Systems, 20(1), 263–299. JOUR. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/40398623
  18. Kimberlin, C. L., and Winterstein, A. G. (2008). Validity and reliability of measurement instruments used in research. American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy, 65(23), 2276–2284. http://doi.org/10.2146/ajhp070364
  19. Kismiantini, -, Montesinos Lopez, O. A., García Martínez, J. J., and Franco Pérez, E. (2014). Analyzing the Factors of Job Satisfaction in a Mexican Hospital with Binary Indicators by Confirmatory Factor Analysis, 9(8), 61–83. http://doi.org/10.5539/ijbm.v9n8p61
  20. Kline, R.B. (2011). Principles and practice structural equation modeling. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
  21. MacCallum, R. C., and Browne, M. W. (1993). The use of causal indicators in covariance structure models: Some practical issues. Psychological Bulletin, 114(3), 533–541. http://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.114.3.533
  22. Malhotra, N. K. (1997). Investigación de mercados. Un enfoque práctico. México: Prentice Halll.
  23. Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia learning. NY: Cambridge university press.
  24. McArdle, J. J. (1996). Current Directions in Structural Factor Analysis. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 5(1), 11–18. http://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.ep10772681
  25. Moore, J. L., Dickson-Deane, C., and Galyen, K. (2011). e-Learning, online learning, and distance learning environments: Are they the same? The Internet and Higher Education, 14(2), 129–135. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2010.10.001
  26. Moore, M. G., and Kearsley, G. (2011). Distance education: A systems view of online learning. California: Wadsworth.
  27. MPLUS (Version 6.11). [Computer Software]. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
  28. Mueller, D., and Strohmeier, S. (2011). Design characteristics of virtual learning environments: state of research. Computers & Education, 57(4), 2505–2516. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.06.017
  29. Newsom, J. T. (2012). Some clarifications and recommendations on fit indices. USP, 655, 123-133. Retrieved from http://web.pdx.edu/~newsomj/semclass/ho_fit.pdf
  30. Li, Y., and Baser, R. (2012). Using R and WinBUGS to fit a generalized partial credit model for developing and evaluating patient-reported outcomes assessments. Statistics in Medicine, 31(18), 2010–2026. http://doi.org/10.1002/sim.4475
  31. Liaw, S. S., Huang, H. M., and Chen, G. D. (2007). Surveying instructor and learner attitudes toward e-learning. Computers and Education, 49(4), 1066–1080. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2006.01.001
  32. Lin, S.-C., Persada, S. F., and Nadlifatin, R. (2014). A study of student behavior in accepting the Blackboard Learning System: A Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) approach. In Proceedings of the 2014 IEEE 18th International Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work in Design (CSCWD) (pp. 457–462). IEEE. http://doi.org/10.1109/CSCWD.2014.6846888
  33. Padilla-Meléndez, A., Del Ãguila-Obra, A. R., y Garrido-Moreno, A. (2014). Empleo de moodle en los procesos de enseñanza-aprendizaje de dirección de empresas: nuevo perfil del estudiante en el EEES. Educación XX1, 18(1). http://doi.org/10.5944/educxx1.18.1.12314
  34. Paechter, M., Maier, B., and Macher, D. (2010). Students’ expectations of, and experiences in e-learning: Their relation to learning achievements and course satisfaction. Computers & Education, 54(1), 222–229. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.08.005
  35. Pituch, K. A., and Lee, Y. (2006). The influence of system characteristics on e-learning use. Computers & Education, 47(2), 222–244. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2004.10.007
  36. Richardson, J. C., and Swan, K. (2003). Examining social presence in online courses in relation to students’ perceived learning and satisfaction. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Network, 7(1), 68–88. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2009.03.021
  37. Salmerón-Pérez, H., Rodríguez-Fernández, S., and Gutiérrez-Braojos, C. (2010). Methodologies to Improve Communication in Virtual Learning Environments. Comunicar, 23(45), 163–171. http://doi.org/10.3916/C34-2010-03-16
  38. Sánchez, R. A., and Hueros, A. D. (2010). Motivational Factors That Influence the Acceptance of Moodle Using TAM. Comput. Hum. Behav., 26(6), 1632–1640. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.06.011
  39. Simonson, M., Smaldino, S., Albright, M., and Zvacek, S. (2000). Teaching and Learning at a Distance: Foundations of Distance Education. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.
  40. Strauss, M. E., and Smith, G. T. (2009). Construct Validity: Advances in Theory and Methodology. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 5(1), 1–25. http://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.032408.153639
  41. Šumak, B., Polancic, G., and Hericko, M. (2010). An Empirical Study of Virtual Learning Environment Adoption Using UTAUT. In 2010 Second International Conference on Mobile, Hybrid, and On-Line Learning (pp. 17–22). IEEE. http://doi.org/10.1109/eLmL.2010.11
  42. Tavakol, M., and Dennick, R. (2011). Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha. International Journal of Medical Education, 2, 53–55. http://doi.org/10.5116/ijme.4dfb.8dfd
  43. Tiene, D. (2000). Online Discussions: A Survey of Advantages and Disadvantages Compared to Face-to-face Discussions. J. Educ. Multimedia Hypermedia, 9(4), 371–384. Retrieved from http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=374674.374866
  44. Tuckman, B. W. (2007). The effect of motivational scaffolding on procrastinators’ distance learning outcomes. Computers & Education, 49(2), 414–422. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2005.10.002
  45. van Raaij, E. M., and Schepers, J. J. L. (2008). The acceptance and use of a virtual learning environment in China. Computers & Education, 50(3), 838–852. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2006.09.001
  46. Venkatesh, V., and Davis, F. D. (2000). A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies. Manage. Sci., 46(2), 186–204. article. http://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926
  47. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., and Davis, F. D. (2003). User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward a Unified View. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478. JOUR. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/30036540
  48. Yu, C.Y. and Muthen, B. (2002). Evaluation of model fit indices for latent variable models with categorical and continuous outcomes (Technical report). Los Angeles, CA: University of California at Los Angeles, Graduate School of Education & Information Studies.
  49. Zubieta García, J. y Rama Vilate, C. (2015). La Educación Superior a Distancia en México. Una propuesta para su análisis histórico. La Educación a Distancia en México: Una nueva realidad universitaria. UNAM. Retrieved from http://web.cuaed.unam.mx/