A Triangulated Model to Assess Adoption of Virtual Learning

Environments in Primary Schools

Elena Codreanu

1,2,3,4

, Christine Michel

1,3

, Marc-Eric Bobillier-Chaumon

1,2

and Olivier Vigneau

Université de Lyon, 92, Rue Pasteur, 69007, Lyon, France

Université Lyon2, GRePS, EA 4163, 5, Avenue Pierre Mendès France, 69676, Bron, France

INSA-Lyon, LIRIS, UMR5205, F-69621, 20, Avenue Albert Einstein, 69621, Villeurbanne Cedex, France

WebServices pour l’Education, 22, Rue Legendre, 75017, Paris, France

Keywords: Virtual Learning Environments, Acceptance, Appropriation, Triangulation.

Abstract: The objective of this paper is to highlight the existing theoretical approaches which study the issue of

technological adoption, and to establish a triangulated model to explore Virtual Learning Environments

adoption in primary schools. The theoretical models cover three approaches: the social acceptance, the

practical acceptance and the situated acceptance. Our triangulated model proposes to explore three types of

factors: technological factors, activity and task factors and perceptual factors in order to assess technological

adoption.

1 INTRODUCTION

When new technology is deployed in schools, it is

generally expected to improve educational practices

overall. New technologies are associated to quick

change, modernisation, and improved efficiency.

These resonate with contemporary issues in education

like innovation, modernisation and democratisation

of schools. This political will of modernisation

remains quite general and it is not backed up by

scientific information on various situations and use

contexts. Such research is increasingly necessary as

existing studies (Blin and Munro, 2008, Cuban et al.,

2001, Jonsson, 2007) highlighted low use of

technologies available in schools. Also,

contemporary technologies become more complex,

flexible and interconnected. VLEs (Virtual Learning

Environments) are a typical example of complex

technology, with services designed for teaching,

learning, school management; addressed to different

public: teachers, parents, students, and available in

various contexts: at home, at school and in mobility

situation. The term VLE has different connotations

from country to country. In UK, VLEs were designed

primarily as collaborative learning spaces to which

administrative modules were later added. 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, and varied peer and tutor support,

feedback, and discussion” (Stiles, 2000). By contrast,

in France, VLEs were conceived from the outset as a

single workspace for both management and learning

activities.

The administrative modules (marks,

absences) designed for virtual classrooms served then

to design pedagogical applications and collaborative

working groups. In both British and French systems,

VLEs aim to encourage communication and

collaborative practices between the members of a

school community through tools like blogs or email

and to foster access to information.

So we can see that VLEs serve to carry out diverse

activities, are intended for several distinct user groups

(teachers, students, parents, and staff), and can be

exploited in very different contexts: in the classroom,

at home or on the move. This complexity can limit the

development of practices and the motivation to use it.

In this article we chose to evaluate the factors

involved in VLEs adoption in primary schools and to

consider two processes: technology acceptance and

appropriation. When they explain acceptance, the

existing studies focus either on individual factors

(like satisfaction, effort expectancy) or practical

factors (technological features like ergonomic of the

system), or, lately, contextual factors (like history and

evolution of professional practices). In this article, we

propose to present the main theoretical frameworks in

Codreanu, E., Michel, C., Bobillier-Chaumon, M-E. and Vigneau, O.

A Triangulated Model to Assess Adoption of Virtual Learning Environments in Primary Schools.

In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Computer Supported Education (CSEDU 2016) - Volume 2, pages 287-293

ISBN: 978-989-758-179-3

287

the study of acceptance and to eventually describe a

triangulated model to evaluate technology adoption.

It represents a first version of a model of technology

adoption that is based on different theoretical

frameworks.

Most of the theoretical approaches which try to

explain technology adoption are actually describing

acceptance and appropriation and come from the

fields of social psychology and ergonomics. This

sections describe three positions: the model of social

acceptance, practical acceptance and situated

acceptance.

1.1 The Models of “Social Acceptance”

These approaches focus on human factors in the

process of technological acceptance. The main idea is

that people’s perceptions and attitudes may play a

major role in this process. According to Davis (1989)

and his model TAM (Technology Acceptance

Model), acceptance can be explained through two

factors: perceived usefulness and perceived ease of

use. These two perceptions influence the intentions to

use the technology which, in turn, influence the

acceptance of the technology. Other attitudinal

factors are later added: satisfaction, performance

expectancy, effort expectancy. This model is inspired

by the theory of reasoned action (Ajzen, 1991) which

consider that behaviour is guided from inside by

people’s intentions. Other authors (Blackwell et al.,

2013) talk about internal factors (like beliefs,

convictions and attitudes of users), and external

factors (like support, training, technical

infrastructure). Some authors support the idea that

internal factors take priority in the decision to use an

educational technology (Pynoo et al. 2011, Pynoo et

al., 2012) while others think that external factors are

predominant (Ertmer, 2005). When they study VLEs

acceptance in particular, authors highlight the same

duality. While some support the major role of

technical infrastructure like access to the computer

classroom, number of computers in classroom,

Internet access and high speed Internet access and

institution management (Keller, 2006, Keller, 2009,

Osika, 2009, Babic, 2012), others admit that causes

of VLEs reject are lack of confidence in technology

and lack of time to train (Karasavvidis, 2009). Other

studies show that it is actually the connection between

the internal and the external factors that matters:

external factor (like institutional support, training)

will subsequently shape the beliefs and attitudes

toward the technologies and then the intention to use

those (Inan and Lowther, 2010).

In primary teaching, technology are less frequent,

so there are not many studies on this particular

subject. Studies demonstrated the importance of self-

confidence toward computer use in the development

of attitudes toward technologies and indirectly in the

intention to use the technologies (Chen and Chang,

2006, Faurie and Van de Leemput, 2007, Giamalas

and Nikolopulus, 2010, Tsytouridou and Vryzas,

2004). Beside confidence, some authors outline the

role of perceived security in the acceptance of VLEs

in primary school (Codreanu et al., 2015). VLEs

suppose a functioning similar to that of social

networks, with a unique access to content. Teachers

doubt their own possibilities of control and

moderation in cases of on-line bullying and

interrogate about the responsibilities in case of

misappropriation of the VLE by students. Also, they

worry about the misuse identity by other colleagues.

In primary schools, these issues are particular

important, because the students are particular young

and vulnerable to these forms of harassment.

Social acceptance approaches have nonetheless

been subject to a number of criticisms concerning

both methodological criteria and the models’

foundations (Brangier, Dufresne, and Hammes-

Adelé, 2009). One criticism is that these studies have

little practical relevance for the technological design

and improvement of the system. In effect, these

studies indicate that a system is not acceptable to the

target group without giving any information about the

changes and adaptations required. Added to this is the

fact that the research is based on small samples that

are not representative of the professional context, and

use questionnaires (scale of measurement) as the sole

method of evaluation. Critics claim that such a

method results in a truncated, partial and rather

disembodied picture of the meaning people attach to

the technology. However, in educational context, we

retain the effort to specify precise factors directly

implied in technological acceptance: confidence in

computer use, social and institutional support,

technological infrastructure and children’s security.

1.2 The Models of “Practical

Acceptance”

This approach focuses on the technology

characteristics (human factors and ergonomics) and

how the tool is implemented (support, training,

participatory design). The prevailing idea is that when

technology is easy to use and well implemented

(training is provided and end users are included in the

design process, for example) the device’s acceptance

is enhanced. In sum, the aim is not only to design a

suitable product, but also a suitable relationship to

CSEDU 2016 - 8th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

288

technology, and ultimately contribute to an

acceptable user experience for the individual

(Barcenilla and Bastien, 2009).

According to Nielsen (1994), the two most

important attributes for technology acceptance are

usability and utility. Usability refers to the fact that

people can easily use the functions of a system.

Utility refers to the capacity of the system to help

users do their tasks. In short, a technology easy to use

and useful will be accepted by the users. To these two

attributes, Nielsen adds others: costs of the

technology, compatibility, reliability. We have to

mention that the notion of “usability” is different of

that of “perceived ease of use” in the previous social

model. While the first refers to the effective usability

and is evaluated through user tests, the second refers

to perceptions and subjective attitude toward usability

and is evaluated through questionnaires. The ISO

9241 norm specify that the three dimension of

usability are: effectiveness (the accuracy with which

users achieve specified goals), efficiency (the effort

required for users to do theirs tasks) and satisfaction:

what users think about the system.

Ergonomics specialists proposed a list of criteria

to evaluate the usability of computer interfaces.

Bastien and Scapin (1993) proposed eight criteria:

guidance (means available to orient the user

throughout the interface), workload (interface

elements that play a role in the reduction of users’

perceptual and cognitive load), explicit control (the

control users have on the processing of their actions),

adaptability (the system’s capacity to behave

according to users’ needs), error management (means

available to recover from errors), consistency

(maintaining the interface choices in similar

contexts), significance of codes (codes and names

should be meaningful for users) and compatibility

(match between the users characteristics and task

characteristics). Concerning the last criteria,

compatibility is particularly important when

technologies are used by users with specific

characteristics (in terms of age, customs, perceptions,

skills). For instance, technologies designed to be used

in primary schools, should be adapted to a public of

young children, who do not master writing, reading

and have limited fine motor skills. So, the interfaces

should avoid using a lot of text content and complex

pull-down menus; they should prefer instead images

and simple menus (Hourcade, 2007, Lueder and Rice,

2008). Budiu and Nielsen (2010) used specific

methods in order to evaluate children’s behaviour on

the web (think aloud, card sorting). They proposed a

list of 130 recommendations for interfaces designed

for children (aged 3 to 12), organised by the type of

content (general interaction, navigation, images,

videos etc.). Generally, they recommend to use

interactive content, sound and colours, use of the

metaphors and big buttons. They also advise to ensure

children’s control over the interface and to avoid

sensory and cognitive overload.

These studies are important because they provide

precious practical advising for designers. The main

criticism is that they are focused on functional aspects

and do not consider the intrinsic characteristics of

user like emotions (pleasure, fun, amusement).

Recently, studies began to consider user as a real

partner in design of a technology in approaches like

User Centred Design and participatory design

(Carroll and Rosson, 2007, Carroll, 2008).

Participatory design “relies on the collective

generativity of stakeholders; in other words, it uses

the collective ability of stakeholders to generate or

create thoughts and imaginings” (Baek and Lee,

2008, pp. 173). In school technologies, participatory

design suppose that teachers and students can be

actively involved in the design of their future tools so

that these tools would better meet their needs

(Sucupura-Furtado, 2008, Konings et al., 2007,

Konings, Seidel, and van Merrienboer 2014, Chin,

2004).

This approach focuses therefore on the

technology conception, on ergonomic improvements

and on support to collaboration between designers

and end users. In this context, ergonomic approaches

intend to prescribe recommendations and guidelines

for designers in terms of technological adaption to

users ‘needs. However, these studies remain focused

on the functional aspects and on the performance of

users with the system. In addition, participatory

design, mostly applied in industry, is less adopted by

the stakeholders in digital education. This is due, on

one side, to the difficulty and high cost of putting

participatory design into practice and, on the other

side, to the diversity of educational contexts and high

number of schools, with their own autonomy and

specific organization which make technological

generalization difficult.

1.3 Appropriation and Situated

Acceptance Models

To address these limitations, the socio constructivist

approaches (Engestrom, 1987, Engestrom,

Mietinnen, and Punamaki, 1999) propose to take

account of the modalities of use and features of the

context in order to explain why and how a technology

is accepted by users. The notion of appropriation is

central. According to Engestrom (1987), a tool is not

A Triangulated Model to Assess Adoption of Virtual Learning Environments in Primary Schools

289

appropriated on neutral ground, but as part of a

history of practices and a pre-existing culture.

Engestrom proposes the notion of activity system,

made up of a subject, a technological artefact, an

object of activity, a community, operating rules, and

a division of labour between the community

members. In the school system, a new technology

enters a context in which tools already exist –

blackboards, pencils and textbooks, etc. – and have

formatted how teachers work. The new tool may also

alter the relationships between community members

(teachers, students and parents). This confrontation

between the new technology and the existing cultural-

historical background can give rise to tensions or

contradictions. These tensions favour and trigger

innovation and change and are a source of

development. The term “contradiction” should not be

understood as a problem, barrier or conflict but in

terms of development and progress.

According to Jonsson (2007), appropriation is

“the gradual process by which participants

successively become more proficient in using the

tools” (p. 11) Unlike mastery, which entails the

acquisition of a skill, appropriation, in addition to a

technical skill, includes the competence to use the

technology for carrying out an authentic task in a

given context. As such, appropriation is thought to be

strongly linked to the notion of change. Using a text

editor at school changes practices very little, but

being able to modify a digital text without having to

copy it out can change the importance traditionally

attached to writing.

Bobillier-Chaumon (2016) considers that the

appropriation of a technological tool is a condition of

its acceptance. When someone appropriates a tool,

she contributes to it and is able to innovate, and

therefore use the tool for previously unforeseen

purposes. By making this contribution to the

technology, the person can identify with it, make it

her own, give it meaning and therefore accept it.

Bobillier-Chaumon proposes the notion of situated

acceptance, defined “as the way in which an

individual – or a group or organization – perceives the

issues related to these technologies (strengths,

benefits, risks, opportunity) through their use in

everyday situations, and reacts to them (favourably or

not).” (Bobillier-Chaumon and Dubois, 2009). What

is taken into account here is the experience in a

situation of interaction between users and a certain

technology that already exists. In this approach, the

object of study is not the perception or attitude

towards technology but the practices and activities

carried out as part of a real job.

The advantage of this approach is that it brings

into light for the first time dimensions like “history”

and “context” and proposes to look for acceptance

directly in daily activities of end users. Methodology

consists of qualitative studies (case studies, activity

analysis, and elicitation interviews), small samplings

and a certain “opening” of the researchers: they do not

depend on a priori hypothesis. Their

recommendations are highly adapted to the situation

and identify issues that are not previously visible or

expected. The main criticism rely on the fact that

situated acceptance models focus on specific

situations and it may be difficult to replicate them in

other contexts. Therefore, we propose in this article a

prospective model to evaluate acceptance, which

could be used in different educational contexts.

2 AN ANALITICAL MODEL OF

VLE ADOPTION IN PRIMARY

SCHOOLS

We have identified three categories of approaches.

The first, social acceptance, focuses on the individual

perceptions and attitudes of prospective users; the

second, practical acceptance, concentrates on the

tool’s ergonomic characteristics; and the third

analyses users’ activities and hence the interaction

between the technology and actual practices. In our

study, we need to evaluate the acceptance of a VLE,

a complex tool designed for multiple user groups

(teachers, students and parents) to perform diverse

tasks in a range of contexts (communication, learning,

monitoring, etc.). Consequently, we consider that

acceptance is a process that can be evaluated through

three sets of factors:

• Technological factors grouped in system

quality factors (like usability) and design

quality factors (participatory design)

• Activity and task factors related to

characteristics of professional activity like

rules, prescriptions, professional practices,

objectives

• Perception factors related to individual

opinions about the qualities of the technology

(perceived ease of use, satisfaction, perceived

security)

In the above diagram (Figure 1), the single arrow

indicates a one-way relationship between the two

factor categories. The double arrow indicates a two-

way relationship. The technological factors (quality

of the product, quality of support) influence the

perceptions of the tool, which in turn influence the

tool’s appropriation and acceptance. For their part,

CSEDU 2016 - 8th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

290

Figure 1: Model of VLE adoption: factors involved in the acceptance and appropriation of VLEs.

the activity and task factors (activity, practices,

community) also influence the perception factors.

The creation of technology’s meaning is made during

the actual use. The use trials influence significantly

the level of technology acceptation and appropriation.

The quality of use will build a new form of

appropriation (by creating new forms of practices and

innovative use) and acceptance (through the lens of

new emotions and new benefits related to use). These

two constructs will modify the initial perception of

the technology and the users’ perceptions on their

technological skills. The retroactive loop describes

how appropriation (seen as mastery of the tool plus

innovation) is decisive for the acceptance of the tool

(seen as the subjective decision to start using the

technology) and vice versa.

It is a dynamic model that may enable the plurality

of viewpoints and situations to be reconstructed.

Dynamism of the model is important for explaining

the principles of technology adoption through

articulation of factors issued of different theoretical

approaches. This model may restore a diversity of

points of view and situations and the formalisation of

factors’ progression in context. In order to deepen this

approach and qualify the criteria of each factor, we

propose to use triangulated methods (Denzin, 1978)

which consists in using more than one method to

study a phenomenon. So, our model is based on a

theory triangulation (using more than one theoretical

scheme to interpret a phenomenon) and a

methodological triangulation (using more than one

method to study a phenomenon). In terms of

methodology, we propose a triangulation consisting

of qualitative methods (interviews, elicitation

interviews, content analysis) and quantitative

methods (questionnaires, analysis of connection

logs).

We intend to illustrate this model in a new study.

This research will include three different approaches:

1. an evaluation of the platform’s ergonomics through

user tests; 2. an evaluation of teachers and parents’

perceptions about the VLE through questionnaires;

and 3. an analysis of activities realised on the VLE by

teachers, students and parents through thematic

analysis of contributions made on VLE and

interviews. In the first approach we intend to see if

the VLE used is easy to use and adapt to the public,

especially the young children. The other objective is

to produce recommendations to designers in order to

ameliorate the solution if needed. The second

approach aims at collecting users’ opinions about the

VLE, on different criteria: perceived ease of use,

satisfaction, usefulness in theirs activities, perceived

security. The third approach consists of analysing real

activities realised by teachers, students and parents

with the VLE. The objective is to see how exactly

they adapt the technology to their practices, and on

what type of activities appropriation is constructed.

For instance, we are interested to know if the teachers

prefer using the VLE in order to provide

communication and collaboration with parents or to

realise pedagogical tasks with students. In Figure 2

we can see an example of a pedagogical contribution

of a 7 years aged student, made on the VLE ONE.

These answers may help us know what the priorities

of users are and how they relate to the technology

when it is first introduce, what use they represent in

first and what activity they experiment. The

advantage of this kind of model is that it proposes a

large exploration of the subject of acceptance,

through different angles of research and

complementary methods (qualitative and

quantitative). Another advantage is the fact that it

may restore multiple points of view of educational

community members: teachers, students and parents

and the relation between these members. It permits a

A Triangulated Model to Assess Adoption of Virtual Learning Environments in Primary Schools

291

focus on different actors and their specific needs and

characteristics.

Figure.2: Example of pedagogical use of the Multimedia

Notebook on VLE ONE.

3 CONCLUSIONS

In this paper we presented three important models in

the study of technological adoption. The three models

have their origins in different fields of research. The

models of “social acceptance”, like TAM and

UTAUT were inspired by social psychology but

applied to management and marketing studies. The

“practical acceptance” theories are specific to

ergonomists and designers. And finally, models of

“situated acceptance” are also issued from

development psychology and lately applied to various

fields, from change management to organization

issues. The technological adoption issue is of general

interest and should not be limited to one singular

approach. Our objective was to resume these various

models and to extract information that is salient for

educational area. Factors like usability for young

children, teachers’ confidence in their computer use

skills, teacher’s perceived security toward children’s

use and preexistent teaching practices are example of

important determinants of technology adoption in

schools. The proposed model represent a first

theoretical proposition and it will subsequently be

validated in specific studies.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This paper has been conducted in the context of a Phd

thesis which was funded by the company

WebServices pour l’Education, Paris, France and

supported by ANRT France (Association Nationale

de la Recherche et de la Technologie). The VLE

studied is called ONE (http://one1d.fr/en/home-

page/) and it was specifically designed for an

elementary school audience, with ergonomics and

interfaces that are suitable for children. It is currently

used by primary schools in France and South

America.

REFERENCES

Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior.

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision

Processes, 50, 179-211.

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.

Baek, J. S., & Lee, K. P. (2008). A participatory design

approach to information architecture design for

children. CoDesign: International CoCreation in

Design and the Arts, 4(3), pp. 173-191.

Barcenilla, J., & Bastien, J. M. (2009). L'acceptabilité des

nouvelles technologies : quelles relations avec

l'ergonomie, l'utilisabilité et l'expérience utilisateur ? Le

Travail Humain, 72, 311-331.

Bastien, J.M., & Scapin, D.L. (1993). Ergonomic Criteria

for the evaluation of Human-Computer Interfaces.

Institut National de recherche en Informatique et en

Automatique.

Blackwell, C.K., Lauricelle, A., Wartella, E., Robb, M., &

Schomburg, R. (2013). Adoption and use of technology

in early education. The interplay of extrinsic barriers

and teachers attitudes, Computers and Education, 69,

310-319.

Blin, F., & Munro, M. (2008). Why hasn’t technology

disrupted academics’ teaching practices?

Understanding resistance to change through the lens of

activity theory. Computers and Education, 475-490.

Bobillier-Chaumon, M.E. (2016, in press). Acceptation

située des TIC dans et par l’activité : Premiers étayages

pour une clinique de l’usage. Psychologie du Travail et

des Organisations.

Bobillier-Chaumon, M.E., & Dubois, M. (2009).

L’adoption des technologies en situation

professionnelle : quelles articulations possibles entre

acceptabilité et acceptation ? Le travail Humain, 72,

355-382.

Brangier, E., Dufresne, A. & Hammes-Adele (2009).

Approche symbiotique de la relation humain-

technologie: perspectives pour l’ergonomie

informatique, Le travail Humain, (72) 4, 333-353.

Budiu, R., & Nielsen, J. (2010). Children (Ages 3-12) on

the Web (2nd edition). NN Group.

Carroll, J.M. (2008). Building Educational Technology

Partnerships through Participatory Design in Khosrow-

Pour, M. (Eds). Encyclopedia on information Science

and Technology, Second Edition. (2008).

Carroll, J.M., & Rosson, M.B. (2007). Participatory design

in community informatics, Design Studies, 28, 243-

261.

CSEDU 2016 - 8th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

292

Chin, G. (2004). A case study in the Participatory Design

of a Collaborative Science Based Learning

Environment, Blacksburg, Virginia.

Chen, J., & Chang, C. (2006). Using computers in early

childhood classrooms: Teachers’ attitudes, skills and

practices. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 4(2),

169-188.

Codreanu, E., Michel, C. Bobillier-Chaumon, & Vigneau,

O. (2015). Acceptation des Environnements

Numériques de Travail par les Enseignants du Primaire,

Conference Paper, EIAH 2015, 1-2 june, Agadir.

Cuban, L, Kirkpatrick, H, & Peck, C. (2001). High access

and low use of technologies in high school classrooms.

Explaining an Apparent Paradox. American

Educational Research Journal, 38 (4). 813-834.

Davis, F.D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of

use, and user acceptance of information

technology.MISQuarterly, 13, 319-340.

Denzin, NK. (1978). Sociological Methods. New York:

McGraw-Hill.

Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by Expanding: An Activity

Theoretical Approach to Developmental Research,

Orienta-Konsultit, Helsinki.

Engeström, Y., Miettinen, R., &Punamaki, R.L. (1999).

Perspectives on Activity Theory, Cambridge University

Press.

Ertmer, P. A. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: the final

frontier in our quest for technology information?

Educational Technology research and Development,

53(4), 25-39.

Faurie, I. & van de Leemput, C; (2007). Influence du

Sentiment d’Efficacité informatique sur les Usages

d’Internet des étudiants. L’orientation scolaire et

professionnelle, 36(4).

Giamalas, V., & Nikolopulus, K. (2010). In-service and

pre-service early childhood teacher’s views and

intentions about ICT use in early childhood setting: A

comparative study. Computers and Education 55, 333-

341.

Hourcade, J.P. (2007). Interaction Design and Children.

Now Publishers Inc., Hanover.

Inan, F., & Lowther, D. (2010). Laptops in K12 classrooms:

exploring factors impacting use. Computers and

Education, 55, 937-944.

Jonsson, L.E. (2007). Appropriating Technologies in

Educational Practices. Goteburg Studies in Educational

sciences 215. PhD Thesis.

Karasavvidis, I. (2009). Activity theory as a conceptual

framework for understanding teachers’ approaches to

Information and Communication Technologies.

Computers and Education, 436-444.

Keller, C. (2006). Technology acceptance in Academic

Organisations: Implementation of Virtual Learning

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).

Konings, K., Seidel, T, & Van Merrienboer, J. (2014).

Participatory design of learning environments:

integrating perspectives of student, teachers, and

designers. Instructional Science, 42 (1). DOI:

10.1007/s11251-013-9305-2.

Konings, K., van Zundert, M., Bran-Gruwel, S., &van

Merrienboer, J. (2007). Participatory design in

secondary education: its desirability and feasibility

according to teachers and students. Educational

Studies, 33, 445-465.

Lueder, R., & Rice, V. J. (2007). Ergonomics for Children:

Designing Products and Places for Toddlers to Teens

(Taylor & F.).

Nielsen, J. (1994) Usability Engineering. New York:

Morgan Kaufman Publishers.

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).

Pynoo, B., Devolder, P., Tondeur J., Braak, J.V., Duyck,

W., & Duyck P. (2011).Predicting secondary school

teachers’ acceptance and use of a digital learning

environment: A cross-sectional study.Computers in

Human Behaviour, 27, 568-575.

Pynoo, B., Devolder, P., Tondeur J., Braak, J.V., Duyck,

W., Sijnave, B., & Duyck P. (2012). Teachers’

acceptance and use of an educational portal.

Computers& Education, 58, 1308-1317.

Sucupura-Furtado, M.E. (2008). Improving the usability of

interactive learning systems: the best practices of

requirements engineering in Khosrow-Pour, M. (Eds.).

Encyclopedia of Information Science and Technology,

Second Edition (2008).

Stiles, M.J. (2000). Effective Learning and the Virtual

Learning Environment. The Learning Development

Centre, Staffordshire University, UK.

Tsytouridou, M., Vryzas, K. (2004). The prospect of

integrating ICT into the education of young children:

Theviews of Greek early childhood teachers, European

Journal of Teacher Education, 27(1), 29-45.

A Triangulated Model to Assess Adoption of Virtual Learning Environments in Primary Schools

293