Episode 3.
In schools just like in all organizations, we install and maintain IT systems to promote
efficient operations and effective operations so that we can achieve the strategic goals
for whatever they happen to be for the organization.
I assume that if you're an IT professional working in a school, then you want students
and teachers and staff to see the systems that you manage as something that benefits
them and their work, be it teaching or learning or supporting school.
If this is your goal, then having a framework to understand IT and users and how users and
IT get along with each other is an important support.
In a previous episode, I proposed a technology acceptance model as one such framework.
In this episode, I dig a little deeper into the technology acceptance model, specifically
the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology, the UT-AUT, which is the version
that I have used the most over the last 15 years or so when I want to understand the
systems I manage.
Check out the episode description for a full reference to the original paper.
I see the UT-AUT paper was written by four authors.
Viswanath Venkatesh, Michael G. Morris, Gordon B. Davis, and Fred D. Davis in 2003.
What were they trying to do?
IT leaders in schools must realize that for many purposes, the use of IT is actually a
choice.
Sure, a teacher may not have a choice about whether or not they're going to read email.
I mean, they're expected to send it and read it and they're expected to use a system that
the school manages.
For instruction, however, teachers often have the choice about whether or not to use IT.
By answering the question, what factors affect the decision to use technology, UT-AUT researchers
clarified what we should focus on when assessing our IT systems.
So it isn't enough for IT to just build it and keep it running?
No, technology acceptance researchers are very clear that the decisions that we make
when we're designing our technology systems directly affect our users' ability and willingness
to use them.
If we design with technology acceptance in mind and redesign when necessary, then folks
are going to be more likely to use our systems.
What did they find?
According to the UT-AUT, four factors are directly and positively associated with users' acceptance
and their intention to use technology.
Can I jump in here and ask what you mean by directly and positively associated?
Sure, positive and direct.
Let's look at direct first.
So a direct factor means that there is no intermediary.
If we change one of these factors, then we are going to see a change in the intention
to use technology and the use of it immediately.
And that might become a little bit more clear when I give an example of an indirect factor.
But positive means that when one of these factors increases, then we see an increase
in the use of technology.
And if one of these goes down, then we would see a decrease in the intention to use technology.
So basically as these go up, folks are going to use our systems.
When these go down, folks are not going to be using our system.
So there's that direct positive correlation.
What are the factors then?
First there's effort expectancy.
When the system is easier to use, folks are more likely to use it.
When it's more difficult to use, they're less likely to use it.
Yeah, I see how that is a positive association.
Yes, and I'll stop here to point out that the researchers also identified experience
as an indirect factor that affects effort expectancy.
So if we design for ease of use, then users are going to increase their use through that
direct effect.
But as they become more familiar through experience with our systems, even if we don't change
them, then we will see a change in their effort expectancy.
So even if it's a poorly designed system, over time as folks get used to it, there will
be an increase in the effort expectancy.
So they'll intend to use it more.
But it's not really a good idea to sit around and wait for folks to get used to using bad
systems.
Let's design for ease of use right when we start.
That clears up the earlier question.
Now you have three more factors to tell us about.
Second, there's performance expectancy.
If users perceive that IT helps them to do their job either more efficiently or more
effectively, then they're more likely to use the technology.
That's two.
Third are social influences.
If users perceive they have systems that are similar to those used by others, and of course
others whose opinions matter to them, then they're more likely to use them.
And finally, we have facilitating conditions.
If users perceive that there are resources available to keep the systems up and running,
there's financing available, there's tech help when they need it, and there's assistance
when they need to learn how to use new technology, then they're more likely to use it as well.
Are there other indirect factors?
Yes.
In addition to experience, age and gender have also been identified as indirect factors
affecting technology acceptance.
Of course, UTAUT was defined more than 20 years ago in 2012.
Another research group defined the UTAUT2, and they included enjoyment, price value,
and habit as factors positively associated with the intention to use technology.
In my experience, however, school leaders who focus on ease of use, performance, social
influences, and facilitating conditions are changing what matters most to their users.
Shall we break down those four factors?
Before we do that, I want to stress that technology acceptance specifies that it is the user's
perceptions of these factors that matter.
This can pose a challenge because the perceptions may be contradictory.
What we as IT professionals perceive to be easy to use, our users may not.
And even within groups of users, what one group of teachers finds easy to use or effective
may not be so for another.
And when we are interpreting our data that we've collected about technology acceptance,
or even when we're hearing folks complain about technology, we need to realize that
what they perceive is the reality to which we must respond.
Okay.
Now, let's look at effort expectancy.
This is a measure of individuals' perceptions of how easy it is to use the IT systems.
So perceived ease of use exerts strong influences on decisions to use technology after that
initial training has occurred.
But before the user becomes so familiar with it and skilled that they kind of know what's
going on with it.
When first learning to use the technology system, the simple work of remembering the
steps or what buttons to click can interfere with ease of use.
And that indicates the importance of initial training when new IT systems are deployed
in school.
Of the four factors, effort expectancy is the one that can cause the most consternation.
Those different perceptions that I mentioned earlier can really affect ease of use.
Invariably also, when we change in order to meet one request, that change satisfies one
group, but it makes another one discontent.
So system administrators can sometimes use organizational units or groups on the network
operating system, for example, to improve ease of use for different groups of users.
For example, you can give all the art teacher's access to the color printer so whenever they
log on, they don't have to go searching for it when they need it.
It's not uncommon for IT professionals in schools, a group that we know is perpetually
understaffed, to configure systems that allow for more efficient management by them and
their teams.
But these efficiencies may interfere with the efficiencies or the perceived ease of use
for users as they operate them.
If IT professionals believe a system is easy to use, but the users are not, then of course
it's the perceptions of the users that matter and the systems must be modified.
Now, of course, I want to make sure that I'm not saying we have to do everything that teachers
or the users say.
We still need to be concerned with the security of our data and the systems have to be sustainable
and things like that.
But whenever possible, we need to try to accommodate and make changes that do accommodate our users.
It seems effort expectancy is easy to understand, but it may be a little more difficult to accomplish.
I think that's true, but if IT professionals listen to users, try to respond to their feedback,
maybe even have them involved in the design process, then we can improve their technology
acceptance.
We just need to realize that what folks say in a testing environment may not be the same
thing that they say about systems when they get out into production.
Let's move on to performance expectancy.
Creative performance is rooted in outcomes and relative advantage.
For educators who are using IT in their instruction, outcomes, of course, are defined by the goals
and they have for the classroom.
One challenge for IT professionals is that the outcomes may be different for different
teachers or for different parts of their curriculum or for different students.
Teachers who believe their job is to prepare students to do well on a standardized test
will perceive technology differently compared to those who believe their job is to prepare
students to create high quality public performances, for example.
Of course, the same teacher may have very different and seemingly contradictory goals.
As a math teacher, I may want students to have access to a web-based platform that gives
them practice problems that are designed to improve their basic computational skills.
This teaching by computer, it's a very common method and it's very easy to identify the
system requirements and for IT to set up.
But as a math teacher, I might also want my students to have multimedia tools that allow
for scripting so they can explore fractals, maybe.
Relative advantage includes the educators' perceptions of the IT systems compared to
other options.
If they believe they can achieve their goals, whatever they are, more quickly or that learning
is somehow improved when they use the IT, then compared to when they don't use IT, then
performance expectancy is improved and they're more likely to use it.
Can IT decide performance expectancy?
No, they can't.
Remember, this is the appropriate, proper and reasonable podcast.
Go check out the first episode to hear where this title comes from.
But if you are correct that IT really is in no position to judge if a system fits into
a user's needs as far as their job performance is concerned.
One thing that is difficult for non-educators to understand is that it is very different
teachers have very different technology needs.
IT might want everyone to have the same technology.
That makes sense.
It's easier for us to manage, more sustainable, and it makes our lives much easier.
But what an elementary art teacher needs, for example, is much different from what a high
school math teacher needs, and those differences are even greater when we get into higher education.
So performance expectancy boils down to, does it help me do my job better and is it better
than any of the other options?
Social influences next.
Educators are affected by what others do just like all other humans are.
When IT, when it comes to using IT, it seems that educators are particularly affected by
others.
Social influences have complex roots emerging from individual sense that others, others who
they think are important, expect them to use IT as well as the individual's cultural experiences
and expectations and the social status that they might gain by using technology or the
status that they will lose if they fail to use it.
Of course, all these factors and influences may be contradictory.
For example, if a CIO who has little teaching experience recommends a new platform, it may
not be accepted by teachers just because of the negative social influences.
Alternatively, educators may advocate IT professionals install and configure systems
that are similar to those used by their colleagues in other schools.
New educators may be influenced by the role of technology that was in their teacher education
program, for example, which may be very different from what they encounter in their first professional
position.
Younger teachers may also have very different cultural experiences and different expectations
about the acceptance of IT.
They may be dismissed by older colleagues who minimize the role of IT in the classroom.
Yes, I recognize the stereotypes there, but I'm just trying to make the point that different
folks with different experiences are going to perceive the technology differently, and
that's going to affect these social influences.
Of course, no IT professional can justify drawing any conclusions about one's use of
IT based on age, gender identity, or any other factor like that.
Social influences can be complicated, can't they?
Yes, social influences come from many sources, and social psychologists recognize three types
of social influences.
There's those that result from compliance.
We're told we must use technology, we're obligated to use it either to gain a reward
or to avoid some kind of punishment.
Educators who are required to use a particular online grade book, for example, may comply
with the request, but they might not use it for some of the advanced reporting features.
When individuals feel a strong identity with another individual, or they feel like they're
a member of a group that uses a specific piece of technology, then they have a different
type of social influence, and those tend to be stronger than the influences that come
from compliance.
The strongest influences arise when an individual internalizes the social influences, thus they
perceive these to be a natural part of what one should do if they're in any particular
role.
Okay, now, the last factor is facilitating conditions.
Can you tell me more about those?
There are a range of technical and organizational factors that contribute to an individual's
feeling supported in the use of IT systems.
For educators, they can include financial resources, troubleshooting and repair expertise,
and training opportunities.
And all these, their perceptions of all these are going to affect their decision to use
technology.
In a school where educators perceive that all of those areas are sufficiently supported,
and the proper procedures are in place and they know what to do, then they're more likely
to use the technology.
Can you explain a little of how you use technology acceptance in your work, designing IT in schools?
For me, technology acceptance has become deeply embedded in my work.
I guess it's the strongest of the social influences, right?
But I'm always listening for suggestions and what folks say I could do to improve the effectiveness
or the ease of use of systems.
I'm always listening to hear what folks are saying about the technology they've heard
about from their colleagues at the work of the places or the technology that they have
in other places that they've worked.
So it's just a part of the formal and the informal data collection that I do.
Of course, we can't always do what folks want, but the more we accommodate them or try to
accommodate them, the better it is for everyone.
Can we collect data formally about technology acceptance?
Sure.
There are some instruments that are available for capturing technology acceptance in populations.
Some years ago, I adapted a survey that was used for business populations for use in educational
populations, and that seemed to work pretty well.
I've continued to use that when need arises.
The reality is, though, once you think about technology acceptance and keep those four
factors in mind and design for those, you're going to find folks are much happier with
the IT you're building.
All right, everybody.
Thanks for listening to this episode, and we'll see you in the next one.