The Acceptance of VLEs (Virtual Learning Environments) by
Primary School Teachers
Elena Codreanu
1,2,3,4
, Christine Michel
1,3
, Marc-Eric Bobillier-Chaumon
1,2
and Olivier Vigneau
4
1
Université de Lyon, Lyon, France
2
Université Lyon2, GRePS, EA 4163, Bron, France
3
INSA-Lyon, LIRIS, UMR5205, F-69621, Villeurbanne, France
4
WebServices pour l’Education, Paris, France
Keywords: VLE, Acceptance, Activity Theory, Primary School, Professional Practices.
Abstract: This article presents a study on the conditions of use of a VLE (Virtual Learning Environment) by primary
school teachers. To this end, we used research related to activity theory and implemented qualitative
methods (individual and collective interviews). Our study describes how teachers (8 participants) perceived
the role of the VLE in the evolution of their working practices (maintaining, transforming or restricting
existent practices), in their relationship with parents and in the follow-up of their students.
1 INTRODUCTION
The definition of Virtual Learning Environments
differs from country to country. In UK, the VLEs
were designed mainly as pedagogical and
collaborative and lately there were added school
management tools. In this view, a VLE is “learner
centred and facilitates the offering of active learning
opportunities, including specific tutor guidance,
granularity of group working by tutor and learners”
(Stiles, 2000). By contrast, in France, the VLEs were
since the beginning designed as a unique access
workspace, both for school management and for
learning activities. The initially management
modules (marks, absences) designed for virtual
classrooms served then to design pedagogical
applications and collaborative group works. In both
British and French systems, VLEs aim to encourage
communication and collaborative practices between
the members of a school community through tools –
such as blogging and a messaging service – and to
foster access to information (in regards to
homework, for example) through the use of a digital
planner.
The last report of OECD (Organization for
Economic Co-operation and Development) mentions
that technologies are not sufficient to support
teaching and instructional purposes. They are simple
tools in the hands of teachers and it depends on them
to take good use in their activities. Yet, our society
is “not yet good enough at the kind of pedagogies
that make the most of technologies (…). Adding 21st
century technologies to 20th-century teaching
practices will just dilute the effectiveness of
teaching” (OECD, 2015, p. 3). This is the reason
why we choose to analyse the technology acceptance
of teachers and the practices they develop.
2 TEACHERS’ VLE
ACCEPTANCE STUDIES
Some studies analyse the teachers’ attitudes to and
beliefs about this type of technology. In their study,
Kolias et al. (2005) examined attitudes and beliefs of
teachers from Finland, Greece, Italy and the
Netherlands after a first teaching experience with a
computer learning environment in order to see if
they would be able to include technology in their
everyday practices. The study gives very promising
conclusion about the possible use of technology, but
miss of real practice and acceptance observations.
Others studies analyse the teachers practices and
the problems linked with the VLE uses. Indeed, the
VLEs have been mainly used in secondary education
and higher education. French studies showed that
Codreanu, E., Michel, C., Bobillier-Chaumon, M-E. and Vigneau, O.
The Acceptance of VLEs (Virtual Learning Environments) by Primary School Teachers.
In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Computer Supported Education (CSEDU 2016) - Volume 2, pages 299-307
ISBN: 978-989-758-179-3
Copyright
c
2016 by SCITEPRESS Science and Technology Publications, Lda. All rights reserved
299
certain teachers had partly integrated VLEs in their
professional practices. Prieur and Steck (2011)
indicated that, although teachers recognized the
pedagogical benefits of VLEs, they were not ready
to endorse them due to poor ergonomics, and to their
lack of training and proficiency in IT tools. Teachers
also felt overworked and resisted the idea of
extending the “school space-time continuum”
outside of school. For their part, Poyet and Genevois
(2010) identified differences in culture: since VLEs
are often seen as management tools for businesses,
they may need to be “translated” and the meaning
adapted to the context of school. One of the ways to
solve this issue would be to use school-based
metaphors (“notebooks”, “lockers”) instead of
bureaucratic terms (“messaging”, “agenda”). Poyet
and Genevois showed how VLE tools were
unfamiliar to teachers and how the latter did not
fully grasp their pedagogical uses and benefits. This
led to unsatisfying experimental phases in which
teachers tested the tool's various functions, “without
always having a full representation of the tool's
potentialities and specific limits”. This drew
teachers to prefer using personal and familiar tools
(such as their own emails). Similar observations
were made by Pacurar and Abbas (2014) who
noticed that the VLE was perceived as a
communication tool (through the messaging service)
and an administrative tool (assigning grades, writing
down absences), but that it “was not firmly anchored
in pedagogical practices”, especially when it came
to using it during class time or to design class
material. The prescribed uses did not answer the real
needs felt by teachers on a daily basis. These
conclusions are also given by Firmin and Genesi,
(2013) and Blin and Munro (2008). Bruillard (2011)
mentioned the complexities in deploying VLEs
when a variety of people are involved: teachers,
parents, students, school districts, local authorities,
software publishers and the Ministry of Education.
Bruillard also noticed a paradox between the
Ministry's will to open schools up to parents, and the
actual low amount of parental implication. Teachers
are also concerned that parents may interfere in their
pedagogical choices. These difficulties are further
amplified by the fact that teachers who use VLEs do
not get institutional recognition. Practitioners in the
field have also felt disempowered since external
companies were called to design the VLEs. There is
also the risk of creating inequalities or even to
exclude certain parents who are less equipped and
trained in digital technologies. Missonier (2008)
developed these points based on the design and the
deployment of VLE projects that were managed by
local authorities and service providers. These
approaches have not always been very effective,
since they depend on the project manager – who
may lack in transparency or carefulness – to solve
disputes linked to functionalities or uses. This, in
turn, leads to different protagonists within the
network to decrease their commitment. Prieur and
Steck (2011) recommend implementing spaces for
ideas “that articulate the current practices of
teachers, practices that can help foster the
acquisition of skills and the potentialities of different
VLE tools, in order to develop possible
instrumentalisations”. This would help to adapt
prescribed uses, depending on the context.
Voulgre (2011) introduced a political dimension.
Teachers are generally favourable to arguments
promoting the uses of VLEs: the latter are useful to
catch up on classes (illness, loss of grades), to
retrieve previous work or to support students with
schooling difficulties. But the fact that not all
children have Internet at home represents an
inequality, thus preventing teachers from fully using
VLEs. Such a refusal is seen as a “type of counter-
power” against political injunctions. On the
contrary, acceptance factors are linked to the respect
of hierarchy, of the institution and of the law
(obligation to use a VLE); other positive factors are
linked to the values of solidarity and cooperation
that are promoted by VLE tools.
Other studies also point out the importance of
technical infrastructure: access to the computer
classroom, number of computers in classrooms,
Internet access, broadband speed and technical
support. The school institution’s management, the
organisational culture and VLE implementation
strategies have all a great role in technology
acceptance (Keller, 2006; Keller; 2009; Osika,
Johnson and Buteau 2009; Babic, 2012). Finally,
lack of competences in technology, lack of
confidence and lack of time were mentioned
(Karasavvidis, 2009). In the end, all of these studies
showed that the acceptance of VLEs by teachers
depended on practical considerations, as well as
strategic concerns that were both professional and
political.
VLE began to be deployed now in primary
schools. Only a few studies explored the acceptance
of VLE in these contexts. Berry (2005) highlighted
that primary school pupils can use VLEs and
appreciate it in case of absence because they can
easily get lesson content and homework. Moreover,
they have more confidence to discuss mathematics
problems on the VLE platform. But younger
CSEDU 2016 - 8th International Conference on Computer Supported Education
300
children differ greatly from students in secondary or
higher education in terms of their autonomy and
their use of digital media. So we are led to ask
ourselves how primary school teachers take this
factor into account and more generally how they
include such a new tool in their professional
practices: are they able to adapt or develop their
practices or not and what are their reasons?
We need to evaluate how actual teaching
practices can evolve in order to integrate and make
profit of the existing technologies. This is why we
aimed in this field study to identify the current
teaching practices that constitute the core of
professional activities for primary school teachers.
We also wanted to identify tensions that could lead
us to find ways to improve the design of VLEs and
to provide recommendations for uses and services.
3 ANALYSING ACCEPTANCE
3.1 Acceptance Models
In Davis's (Davis, 1989) Technology Acceptance
Model (TAM), certain requirements like perceived
usefulness and perceived ease of use are ill-adapted
to improve the design and the implementation of a
system, to describe actual practices at work and so to
study the eligibility of educational platforms.
Indeed, the TAM has methodological shortcomings
(its factor-structure is not systematically replicated,
the questionnaire is the only assessment method
used) and it is out of line with the educational
environment. The TAM is a predictive and
deterministic model which is limited to individual
socio-cognitive factors and which does not take into
account the specific context of using the technology
in the educational sector. This context includes
elements such as a regulatory environment, a school
curriculum, relationships with families, and
professional practices and histories. The activity
theory can help to understand the act of teaching in
all its complexity.
3.2 Activity Theory
Activity theory, as detailed by Engeström, Miettinen
and Punamaki (1999) and Kuutti (1996), provides
more complete elements to quantify the context of
use. Instead of referring to uses, activity theory
refers to an activity system: the user (subject) has a
precise objective and accomplishes it by using
certain instruments (tools). He/she fits into a social
community (the group of people who intervene in
the activity). This community is regulated by certain
operating rules (the norms and rules to respect in a
given activity), and respects specific divisions of
work (the ways in which roles are distributed among
individuals).
Activity systems are characterized by
contradictions (or internal tensions), which favour
and trigger innovation; such changes contribute to
further development. Therefore, activity theory
appears to be useful to qualify the context as well as
to define the dynamics at work when accepting and
taking ownership of technology.
3.3 The Teacher’s Activity System
The teacher’s activity system is summarized in
figure 1 and relates to the educator’s daily practices.
These practices occur with or without instruments,
since they often take the shape of direct
communication in class, and can be supplemented
with instruments such as the board, posters,
notebooks, etc. These practices follow rules that are
specific to the educational system and fit into an
educational community composed of teachers,
students and parents. The division of work includes
the effective practices inherent to the profession and
the ways in which the different tasks are distributed
among the different protagonists. In terms of the
education and follow-up of students, teachers and
parents work together, but in different contexts.
Each group’s responsibility is therefore well defined.
With the arrival of a new technological tool, used
both in class and at home, these differentiated roles
and identities may come into conflict.
Figure 1: Activity system (Engeström, Miettinen and
Punamaki, 1999).
Furthermore, according to Rabardel and
Bourmaud (2003), the conditions needed to
implement human-machine interactions lead to the
modification of the technology's properties and,
consequently, to the readjustment of human
conducts. This occurs through the process known by
Rabardel and Bourmaud as the instrumental genesis
The Acceptance of VLEs (Virtual Learning Environments) by Primary School Teachers
301
(a double process of instrumentation/
instrumentalisation). The tool therefore does not
only exist for itself or in an isolated way. It is
socially embedded and fits within certain practices,
habits and social communities that guide its use and
transform its characteristics. This theoretical
perspective therefore leads us to consider acceptance
as being situated, meaning that it is constructed in
and by the activity (Bobillier-Chaumon, 2013).
Like Kolias et al. (2005) we choose using the
activity theory to detect VLE acceptance and non-
acceptance factors according to contexts of use. The
standards considered to define acceptance are linked
to the ways in which the profession is practiced, to
social and work constructs and to ways in which the
VLE tool is used and deployed.
4 FIELD STUDY
METHODOLOGY
The approach developed in this study is essentially
qualitative. We aimed to collect testimonies from
teachers in which they represented and perceived
their experiences as they teached with and used a
VLE.
4.1 Observed Context and Participants
All participants in our study were part of the
Versailles and Caen school districts (situated near
Paris). 6 schools were in the Versailles district and 6
were in the Caen district. They volunteered to
experiment with the VLE One for 2 years. At the
time of our study, 26 teachers (in both districts) had
volunteered to be part of the experiment and had
already used the VLE One for 3 to 6 months.
We questioned 8 teachers over the course of 4
individual interviews and 2 group interviews (with 2
teachers in each interview). Among the teachers, two
were school principals who were also giving classes
(in first and fifth grades). The other teachers worked
in first grade (2), second grade (1) and fifth grade (3)
classes. The group of participants was composed of
seven women and one man. The schools were all
situated in urban areas, in the Versailles school
district (6) and in the Caen district (2). The average
age of participants was of 46 years with a standard
deviation of 15.
4.2 Description of the Tool
The VLE used in this study is entitled One. It was
specifically designed for an elementary school
audience, with ergonomics and interfaces that are
suitable for children (Budiu and Nielsen, 2010,
Lueder and Rice 2007). The One interface is
therefore simple, intuitive and attractive (see Figure
2). The collaboration functions that are offered
consist in a Messaging Service, a Blog and a Storage
Space. One also offers customization features (My
Account, My Mood), notifications (a News Feed,
birthday notifications), organizational tools
(Calendar) and a school website. Each user has the
option of customizing his/her profile with a picture
and personal information (motto, mood, information
on favourite leisure activities, films, music, food).
Students are by default included in their class group
and have access to the content published in the
group by the teacher.
When we were conducting our study, the VLE
One had not yet offered services such as the Planner
notebook and the Multimedia notebook.
Figure 2: Interfaces for the pages « News Feed » « The Classroom » and « My Apps » in the VLE One.
CSEDU 2016 - 8th International Conference on Computer Supported Education
302
4.3 Data Collection
Teachers participated to semi-structured interviews.
These interviews lasted an hour and a half on average
and tackled the following themes: the teachers'
experience with TEL (Technology Enhanced
Learning), the school's computer equipment, the
teacher’s representation of the VLE, needs related to
the VLE, the VLE's usefulness, ease of use and
intentions of use, difficulties of use, and the
implications of the VLE for the teaching profession.
Teachers could speak openly and were able to give
their critical point of view on various uses, share their
own representations of the tool, and give their opinion
on functions that were being developed, such as the
planner notebook, the digital parent-teacher notebook
and the multimedia notebook. They were also
welcome to recount difficulties linked to the use of
the VLE, using Flanagan's critical incident technique
(Flanagan, 1954).
4.4 Analysing the Teachers’ Interviews
The interviews were entirely recorded and
transcribed so that they could be systematically
studied (Bardin, 1996). We considered in our
analysis the comments that associated One with
daily teaching practices, operating rules (linked to
the educational system), the education community
(composed of teachers, students and parents) and the
division of work (the ways in which tasks are shared
between different groups of people). We used the
sentence – a basic syntactic unit built around a verb
– as the main unit to study the transcripts. Sentences
were identified as in the following example: “I
showed them how to make folders (sentence 1)/, but
it is hard for the students (sentence 2)”. We also
distinguished between the comments that were
rather favourable (supporting initiatives) and the
ones that were less favourable (difficulties in use).
We proceeded to do counts and percentage
calculations to rank the different factors. We
determined that the users had accepted the VLE
when they mentioned the successful ways in which
they used it, the adjustments they made or the
contradictions they encountered and overcame.
Categories weren't pre-established and we retained the
themes that had been mentioned at least three times.
5 RESULTS
The analysis revealed 4 main themes (see Table 1),
as well as 16 sub-factors (see Table 2): (1) factors
linked to the practice of the profession (the
workload, raising awareness of digital uses and
habits, work recognition), (2) factors linked to
pedagogical monitoring (pedagogy, health and
safety, emotions and attractiveness); (3) factors
linked to social and work-related organization
(collaboration, communication, the reorganization of
communicative practices), (4) factors linked to the
tool's use and deployment (ease of use, usefulness,
feedback, computer and network equipment, support
and assistance). We will first present the results that
stemmed from the four main factors; we will then
proceed to describe the sub-factors.
5.1 Main Factors
In Table 1, we can see that the factors linked to
social organization brought about the largest number
of positive comments (88), which means that the
VLE played an important role in communication and
collaboration practices within the school activity
system. Conversely, factors linked to the teaching
profession and to the use and deployment of the
VLE gathered the largest number of negative
comments. The deployment and use of the VLE
therefore seem to raise questions linked to
professional recognition and to the practice of the
teaching profession. It also raises issues regarding
the alignment of VLEs with school uses and habits.
In the following paragraph, we present an analysis
according to each sub-factor (see Table 2), thus
allowing us to refine each element.
Table 1: Main Factor Occurrences.
Factor Number of positive
comments
Number of
negative
comments
Profession 35(15,56%) 90 (36%)
Pedagogical
follow-up
54(24%) 57 (22,8%)
Social organisation 88(39,11%) 14 (5,6%)
The tool’s use and
deployment
48(21,33%) 89 (35,6%)
Total 225(100%) 250 (100%)
5.2 Factors Linked to the Practice of
the Profession
As we can see in Table 2, the perceived workload
(triggered by the use of the VLE) brought about the
largest number of negative comments (72). In fact,
teachers had the impression that they needed to
invest additional time to master the VLE's
functionalities and to imagine interesting projects to
do on the platform. They also felt that using the VLE
The Acceptance of VLEs (Virtual Learning Environments) by Primary School Teachers
303
implied sustained and continuous work for new tasks
that did not necessarily fit into their areas of
expertise, such as: taking pictures, downloading
material on the computer and then on the VLE,
publishing blog posts, writing messages, and
designing teaching projects that included the VLE.
Since these teachers did not have a dedicated time
slot to use these technologies, they had to use
pedagogical time to become familiar with such tools.
Teachers also felt the weight of large workloads,
with the impression of having an ever increasing
amount of informational solicitations. The VLE had
indeed been added to a number of pre-existing
educational platforms: academic e-mail, the career
management platform “I-prof”, online training
platforms, didactic platforms and an online
handbook of skills. Teachers therefore felt
constantly submerged by a large amount of data
which they had to manage (email addresses,
different login names and passwords for each
platform, various approaches and functions
according to the different resources...). They also felt
overwhelmed by the informational content that they
had to focus on and prioritize (academic
information, pedagogical information, event
notifications to sort and share...). Faced with the fear
of having to work twice the amount with a VLE,
some teachers refused to publish their lessons on the
VLE since they already did the same thing using
their own automation tools:I already create the
lesson on “paper board”, so putting it up again (on
the VLE)... I do not want to do that...
Teachers made 20 positive comments about
making students more responsible when using
digital tools. Teachers found that they had a part to
play when trainingstudents to use digital tools
responsibly”. On the other hand, some teachers
found that parents should be in charge of raising
their children's digital awareness (12 comments).
These teachers' main arguments had to do with the
fact that working on the students’ digital
responsibilities affected other teaching activities
negatively. They also argued that such digital tools
were massively consulted by the children at home,
such as when they checked new messages. For these
reasons, controlling digital tools should relate to the
private sphere. This opinion was not necessarily
shared by parents who believed that, on the contrary,
the follow-up on digital practices should be done by
the institutions that set up the tools in the first place.
We can therefore see that, within the “school-home”
axis, responsibilities and roles between teachers and
parents may need to be redefined within the teaching
program, and the division of work would need to be
more efficiently coordinated (controlling and
following up on uses).
Work recognition was mentioned positively 15
times. Some teachers saw the VLE as a way to
highlight classroom work through the blog. Some
activities, which had previously been almost
invisible to parents, could now be displayed, such as
sporting activities, class outings, and the work of the
pupils themselves. The VLE then became a tool that
could help recognize the teacher’s and the students’
work. But such recognition is still limited due to
parents not being fully involved in the VLE project
and not consulting these resources often (negative
mentions).
5.3 Factors Linked to Student
Monitoring
According to the teachers, the primary benefit of
VLEs for students lied in the fact that VLEs helped
to build a more attractive and stimulating
relationship based on emotions (30 positive
comments in Table 2). The VLE was a motivating
tool for students and allowed them to appreciate
class work. In terms of pedagogy, the VLE was seen
as a benefit (20 positive comments) in the
construction of verbal expression and student
communication. It was also positively viewed to
raise awareness and autonomy when students were
working with computers. The VLE blogs were
therefore often co-edited by the teachers and the
students.
However, teachers also expressed many fears
linked to the children’s health and safety (57
negative comments versus 4 positive ones). These
fears related more specifically to possible abuses
(bullying, insults) or to the misuse of
communication and coordination tools. Teachers did
not gave any access to the children's accounts and
were therefore unable to control the content of
exchanged messages. Several teachers created a
fictitious student account to follow and control
exchanges. This also allowed them to check the
layout quality of the information and documents that
they published on the VLE. We noticed that the
teachers who had not used the platform in such an
innovative way weren't as satisfied with the device.
This example highlights the importance of offering
verification and surveillance functionalities for the
teachers, with parent or student views available.
Another fear related to ways in which the children
themselves could use the VLE in transgressive ways.
It is particularly difficult for teachers to authenticate
information coming from the system, as the
following example shows: “I received a parental
message, I do not know if it was the older brother or
CSEDU 2016 - 8th International Conference on Computer Supported Education
304
the parent who sent the message.../... so I needed to
go back to the paper notepad to write a note.../... on
the notepad, there's the handwriting, the signature,
we can quickly tell the difference between a parent
and a child”.
Table 2: Sub-factor Occurrences.
Sub-factor
Number of
positive
comments
Number of
negative
comments
Factors linked to the practice of the profession
Workload 0 (0%) 72 (28,8%)
Raising awareness
on digital uses
20 (8,89%) 12 (4,8%)
Work recognition 15 (6,67%) 15 (6%)
Total
35 (15,56%) 90 (36%)
Factors linked to student monitoring
Pedagogy 20 (8,89%) 0 (0%)
Health and safety 4 (1,78%) 57 (22,8%)
Emotions and
attractiveness
30 (13,3%) 0 (0%)
Total
54 (24%) 57 (22,8%)
Factors linked to social and work-related
organization
Collaboration 12 (5,33%) 0 (0%)
Communication 72 (32%) 8 (3,2%)
Reorganizing
communicative
practices
4 (1,78%) 6 (2,4%)
Total
88 (39,11%) 14 (5,6%)
Factors linked to the tool’s use and deployment
Ease of use 27 (12%) 24 (9,6%)
Usefulness 9 (4%) 6 (2,4%)
User feedback 4 (1,78%) 39 (15,6%)
Computer and
network equipment
0 (0%) 6 (2,4%)
Support and
assistance
8 (3,56%) 14 (5,6%)
Total
48 (21,33%) 89 (35,6%)
5.4 Factors Linked to Social and
Work-related Organization
VLEs were particularly appreciated as a tool
supporting communication (72 positive comments).
Certain teachers, who created blogs, mentioned
these blogs in the notepads when information needed
to be consulted. Teachers seemed to appreciate the
positive role that the VLE played in teacher
collaboration (12 mentions). Sharing resources made
it easier to organize common activities and outings,
and facilitated pedagogical work.
Negative comments (8) addressed the messaging
service as a communication method, highlighting the
fact that this service did not distinguish between in-
school time and out-of-school time. Teachers
mentioned the need to change the settings so that
parents could only send messages outside of school
time and to limit school-time messages between
students. Concerning the parents, such parameters
would limit the amount of last-minute intrusive
messages that require additional work on the
teacher's behalf during class time. Teachers have
more control using the parent-teacher notepad.
Providing these settings could be useful as a first
step. It would reassure teachers and would give them
time to set-up digital awareness activities for
students and parents.
5.5 Factors Linked to the Tool’s Use
and Deployment
Teachers reported finding the platform user-friendly
(27 positive comments). They considered the
functionalities and information coherent and easily
accessible through the menu and the icons. The
negative comments (24) were linked to the
functionalities in the VLE's Document space:
teachers would have liked to share folders rather
than files: “the children receive... [the files] just like
that. It is not easy for them, we have a Shared
Document and everything is mixed together: music,
stories. If the name of the folder is a bit vague, they
will not know”. There was also a lack of visibility as
to who consulted content and who connected to the
platform. By following the news feed, teachers
managed to see the activity of other users (parents,
students), but only if the latter had modified a
certain feature, such as their avatar or their motto.
But feedback could not be retrieved when users
simply consulted the platform without leaving
tangible traces. “It is true that... if they do not
change their mood or their motto, we do not know if
they have connected or not. It would be interesting
for us users to know who saw the content”. In order
to obtain such data, teachers had to do an additional
task which consisted in sending a questionnaire
through the parent-teacher notepad or by asking the
students if their parents had connected to the
platform. Such feedback was important in order to
build ties with the different educational partners and
to make sure that the published information had
actually been seen and received. Otherwise, teachers
had difficulties knowing if the system was really
useful and effective.
The lack of computer infrastructure (equipment,
networks...) was also seen as hampering the
acceptance of VLEs (6 comments). Teachers would
have liked to use the VLE in class with the students
but they did not have enough computers and tablets.
we would almost need to have computers in the
class all the time to really use (VLEs) in every day
The Acceptance of VLEs (Virtual Learning Environments) by Primary School Teachers
305
teaching”. Teachers also pointed out that all students
did not have equal access to VLEs: some had
continuous access, while others had restricted access
through their parents; some students did not have
Internet access at all. Finally, teachers mentioned a
lack of support and assistance. They did not feel
adequately trained to use VLEs. Given the fact that
this was an experimental implementation phase, not
all possible means were used to support the teachers.
On the long term, academic supervisors would need
to get involved in training and supporting teachers.
6 DISCUSSION AND
CONCLUSION
We noticed that, in terms of acceptance, the uses of
the VLE spurred tensions that were similar to the
ones described by Prieur and Steck (2011) and
Voulgre (2011) in secondary education. We
observed contradictions between the artefact, the
community and the rules as well as contradictions
between the artefact and the division of work. The
first type of contradiction was linked to the
subverted uses of the Messaging Service or the
News Feed. There was also a lack of digital access
due to poor infrastructure in schools and in some
homes. The second type of contradiction was due to
an excessive workload and an increase in the
teachers’ professional responsibilities through the
extension of the “school space-time continuum”. We
recommend that decision-makers (the Ministry,
school districts) provide better information on VLE
users’ responsibilities. When it comes to
community uses – such as the ways in which to use
the messaging service or whether or not use
feedback indicators– we think that such decisions
can be made at a local level through discussions
between the school administration, the teachers and
the VLE publisher. Depending on contexts and
practices, certain modes of operation may or may
not be effective or acceptable.
There were fewer contradictions linked to the
artefact itself. Teachers appreciated the services
offered by One as well as its ergonomics; they tried
to adapt the VLE to their professional practices.
They did not hesitate to make requests to improve
the tool. They also agreed to help train children and
their parents on digital best practices. Teachers
showed signs of acceptance in this area, but they still
need to be given more support and assistance to
maintain such uses on the long term.
To conclude, the acceptance of this VLE seems
to have been overall positive since One was well
designed and relatively adapted to the practices of
the teachers involved. The main problems are linked
to the ways in which the tool is implemented. The
recommendations formulated here are meant for the
Ministry of Education and school principals.
Clarifications need to be made concerning the limits
of the school space-time continuum and the rules of
governance and communication. Such resolutions
are relevant in a context in which very young
children are concerned, since they are to use these
platforms without having prior social digital skills.
REFERENCES
Bardin, L, 1996. L’analyse de contenu. Paris, PUF.
Babic, S., 2012. Factors that influence academic teacher’s
acceptance of e-learning technology in blended
learning environment. E-Learning-Organizational
Infrastructure and Tools for Specific Areas, p.3–18.
Berry, M, 2005. An investigation of the effectiveness of
virtual learning environment implementation in
primary school. Thesis University of Leicester.
Blin, F. & Munro, M., 2008. Why hasn’t technology
disrupted academics’ teaching practices?
Understanding resistance to change through the lens of
activity theory. Computers & Education, 50(2), p.
475-490.
Bobillier-Chaumon, M.E., 2013. Conditions d’usage et
facteurs d’acceptation des technologies dans l’activité
: questions et perspectives pour la psychologie du
travail. HDR Thesis. 205 p.
Bruillard, E., 2011. Le déploiement des ENT dans
l’enseignement secondaire : entre acteurs multiples,
dénis et illusions. Revue française de pédagogie, 177,
p.101-130.
Bruillard, E., & Hourbette, D., 2008. Environnements
Numériques de Travail, un modèle bureaucratique à
modifier. ARGOs, 44, p.29-34.
Budiu, R. & Nielsen, J., 2010. Children (Ages 3-12) on the
Web (2nd edition). NN Group.
Davis, F.D., 1989. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of
use, and user acceptance of information technology.
MIS Quarterly, 13, p.319-340.
Engeström, Y., Miettinen, R., & Punamaki, R.L., 1999.
Perspectives on Activity Theory, Cambridge
University Press.
Flanagan, J. C., 1954. The Critical Incident Technique.
Psychological Bulletin, 51, p.327-358.
Firmin, M. & Genesi, D., 2013. History and
implementation of classroom technology. Procedia-
Social and Behavioral Sciences, 93, p.1603-1617.
Karasavvidis, I., 2009. Activity Theory as a conceptual
framework for understanding teacher approaches to
Information and Communication Technologies.
Computers & Education, 53(2), p.436-444.
Keller, C., 2006. Technology acceptance in Academic
Organisations: Implementation of Virtual Learning
CSEDU 2016 - 8th International Conference on Computer Supported Education
306
Environments. Proceeding of the 14th European
Conference on Information Systems, Gothenburg.
Keller, C., 2009. User Acceptance of Virtual Learning
Environments: A case Study from Three Northern
European Universities. Communications of the
Association for Information Systems, 25(1), Available
at: http://aisel.aisnet.org/cais/vol25/iss1/38 25(38).
Kolias, V., Mamalougos, N., vamvakoussi, X., Lakkala,
M., & Vosniadou, S., 2005. Teachers’ attitudes to and
beliefs about web-based Collaborative Learning
Environments in the context of an international
implementation. Computers & Education, 45(3),
p.295-315.
Kuutti, K., 1996. Activity theory as a potential framework
for human-computer interaction research. Nardi B.
(ed.), Context and consciousness. Activity theory and
human computer interaction, Cambridge, MA: The
MIT Press.
Lueder, R., & Rice, V. J., 2007. Ergonomics for Children:
Designing Products and Places for Toddlers to Teens,
Taylor & Francis.
Missonier, S., 2008. Analyse réticulaire de projets de mise
en œuvre d’une technologie de l’information : le cas
des espaces numériques de travail. PhD Thesis.
OECD. 2015. Student, Computers and Learning. Making
the Connection. PISA. OECD Publishing, Available
at: http://www.oecd.org/edu/students-computers-and-
learning-9789264239555-en.htm.
Osika, E., Johnson, R. & Buteau, R., 2009. Factors
influencing faculty use of technology in online
instruction: A case study. Online Journal of Distance
Learning Administration, 12(1).
Pacurar, E., & Abbas, N., 2014. Analyse des intentions
d’usage d’un ENT chez les enseignants de lycées
professionnels, In STICEF, 21, Available at:
http://sticef.org.
Poyet, F. & Genevois, S., 2010. Intégration des ENT dans
les pratiques enseignantes : entre ruptures et
continuités. Rinaudo J.-L. and Poyet F. (ed.)
Environnements numériques en milieu scolaire. Quels
usages et quelles pratiques ?, Lyon, INRP, p.23-46.
Prieur, M & Steck, P., 2011. L’ENT : un levier de
transformation des pratiques pédagogiques pour
accompagner les apprentissages du socle commun,
Colloque International INRP 2011.
Rabardel, P. & Bourmaud, G., 2003. From computer to
instrument system: a developmental perspective.
Interacting with Computers, 15(5), p.665-691.
Stiles, M.J., 2000. Effective Learning and the Virtual
Learning Environment. The Learning Development
Centre, Staffordshire University, UK.
Voulgre, E., 2011. Une approche systémique des TICE
dans le système scolaire français : entre finalités
prescrites, ressources et usages par les enseignants.
PhD Thesis.
The Acceptance of VLEs (Virtual Learning Environments) by Primary School Teachers
307