Faculty acceptance of the peer assessment collaboration evaluation tool: a quantitative study
The problem this study sought to address was faculty reluctance to use new online peer-assessment tools. The purpose of this study was to examine the motivational factors that influence the acceptance of the Peer Assessment Collaboration Evaluation (PACE) Tool among faculty employed at a mid-sized u...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Educational technology research and development 2020-06, Vol.68 (3), p.1381-1407 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 1407 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 3 |
| container_start_page | 1381 |
| container_title | Educational technology research and development |
| container_volume | 68 |
| creator | Podsiad, Megan Havard, Byron |
| description | The problem this study sought to address was faculty reluctance to use new online peer-assessment tools. The purpose of this study was to examine the motivational factors that influence the acceptance of the Peer Assessment Collaboration Evaluation (PACE) Tool among faculty employed at a mid-sized university in the Southeastern United States. This study used Davis’s (
1986
) technology acceptance model (TAM) and motivational constructs “attitude toward using, perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use” (p. 44). The researcher used simple linear regression and standard multiple regression to determine if there was a significant relationship, if any, between the motivational constructs. The results of the linear regressions denoted positive, significant relationships between perceived ease of use of the PACE Tool and attitude toward using the PACE Tool, perceived usefulness of the PACE Tool and attitude toward using the PACE Tool; and perceived ease of use of the PACE Tool and perceived usefulness of the PACE Tool. The results of the multiple regression indicated that both perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness of the PACE Tool were positively, significantly related to attitude toward using the PACE Tool. Through faculty members’ speculations, the researcher was able to measure their motivation to use the PACE Tool. The results of this study demonstrated faculty members are motivated to use the PACE Tool, which indicates high acceptability and potential usage in the future. By understanding how faculty members perceive the PACE Tool, designers may be able to develop online peer-assessment tools that are more acceptable. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s11423-020-09742-z |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2459000141</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A713964623</galeid><ericid>EJ1256258</ericid><sourcerecordid>A713964623</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c413t-e65ffe9d66b8535f531203103f858ffa9bfc6879856a1dd6afd2644a9072509c3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9UcFKHTEUDaVC7bM_UCgE3HQzmptMMhN3ItoqghtdSsjL3NiReckzyQjPr2_aKQpdmCxyueece084hHwFdgSMdccZoOWiYZw1THctb14-kH2QUjVKMvhYa1aboLj-RD7n_Mjq6VS_T-4vrJunsqPWOdwWGxzS6Gn5hXSLmKjNGXPeYCjUxWmy65hsGWOg-GyneSlLjNMJtfRptqGMpTafkeYyD7sDsuftlPHLv3dF7i7Ob89-Ntc3Py7PTq8b14IoDSrpPepBqXUvhfRSAGcCmPC97L23eu2d6jvdS2VhGJT1A1dtazXruGTaiRX5vszdpvg0Yy5mM2aH1W_AOGfDW6nrj6FuW5HD_6iPcU6huqssACahA11ZRwvrwU5oxuBjSdbVO-BmdDGgH2v_tAOhVau4qAK-CFyKOSf0ZpvGjU07A8z8icgsEZkakfkbkXmpom-LCNPoXgXnV8Cl4rKvuFjwXLHwgOnN6ztTfwNagZ3Q</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2411051719</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Faculty acceptance of the peer assessment collaboration evaluation tool: a quantitative study</title><source>JSTOR Archive Collection A-Z Listing</source><source>EBSCOhost Education Source</source><source>SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings</source><creator>Podsiad, Megan ; Havard, Byron</creator><creatorcontrib>Podsiad, Megan ; Havard, Byron</creatorcontrib><description>The problem this study sought to address was faculty reluctance to use new online peer-assessment tools. The purpose of this study was to examine the motivational factors that influence the acceptance of the Peer Assessment Collaboration Evaluation (PACE) Tool among faculty employed at a mid-sized university in the Southeastern United States. This study used Davis’s (
1986
) technology acceptance model (TAM) and motivational constructs “attitude toward using, perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use” (p. 44). The researcher used simple linear regression and standard multiple regression to determine if there was a significant relationship, if any, between the motivational constructs. The results of the linear regressions denoted positive, significant relationships between perceived ease of use of the PACE Tool and attitude toward using the PACE Tool, perceived usefulness of the PACE Tool and attitude toward using the PACE Tool; and perceived ease of use of the PACE Tool and perceived usefulness of the PACE Tool. The results of the multiple regression indicated that both perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness of the PACE Tool were positively, significantly related to attitude toward using the PACE Tool. Through faculty members’ speculations, the researcher was able to measure their motivation to use the PACE Tool. The results of this study demonstrated faculty members are motivated to use the PACE Tool, which indicates high acceptability and potential usage in the future. By understanding how faculty members perceive the PACE Tool, designers may be able to develop online peer-assessment tools that are more acceptable.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1042-1629</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1556-6501</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s11423-020-09742-z</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York: Springer US</publisher><subject>Attitudes ; Collaborative learning ; College Faculty ; Correlation ; Development Article ; Education ; Educational Technology ; Evaluation Methods ; Learning and Instruction ; Motivation ; Peer Evaluation ; Researchers ; Teacher Attitudes ; Teacher Motivation ; Technology Acceptance Model ; University faculty ; Usability</subject><ispartof>Educational technology research and development, 2020-06, Vol.68 (3), p.1381-1407</ispartof><rights>Association for Educational Communications and Technology 2020</rights><rights>COPYRIGHT 2020 Springer</rights><rights>Association for Educational Communications and Technology 2020.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c413t-e65ffe9d66b8535f531203103f858ffa9bfc6879856a1dd6afd2644a9072509c3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c413t-e65ffe9d66b8535f531203103f858ffa9bfc6879856a1dd6afd2644a9072509c3</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-9118-6610</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s11423-020-09742-z$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11423-020-09742-z$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27923,27924,41487,42556,51318</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=EJ1256258$$DView record in ERIC$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Podsiad, Megan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Havard, Byron</creatorcontrib><title>Faculty acceptance of the peer assessment collaboration evaluation tool: a quantitative study</title><title>Educational technology research and development</title><addtitle>Education Tech Research Dev</addtitle><description>The problem this study sought to address was faculty reluctance to use new online peer-assessment tools. The purpose of this study was to examine the motivational factors that influence the acceptance of the Peer Assessment Collaboration Evaluation (PACE) Tool among faculty employed at a mid-sized university in the Southeastern United States. This study used Davis’s (
1986
) technology acceptance model (TAM) and motivational constructs “attitude toward using, perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use” (p. 44). The researcher used simple linear regression and standard multiple regression to determine if there was a significant relationship, if any, between the motivational constructs. The results of the linear regressions denoted positive, significant relationships between perceived ease of use of the PACE Tool and attitude toward using the PACE Tool, perceived usefulness of the PACE Tool and attitude toward using the PACE Tool; and perceived ease of use of the PACE Tool and perceived usefulness of the PACE Tool. The results of the multiple regression indicated that both perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness of the PACE Tool were positively, significantly related to attitude toward using the PACE Tool. Through faculty members’ speculations, the researcher was able to measure their motivation to use the PACE Tool. The results of this study demonstrated faculty members are motivated to use the PACE Tool, which indicates high acceptability and potential usage in the future. By understanding how faculty members perceive the PACE Tool, designers may be able to develop online peer-assessment tools that are more acceptable.</description><subject>Attitudes</subject><subject>Collaborative learning</subject><subject>College Faculty</subject><subject>Correlation</subject><subject>Development Article</subject><subject>Education</subject><subject>Educational Technology</subject><subject>Evaluation Methods</subject><subject>Learning and Instruction</subject><subject>Motivation</subject><subject>Peer Evaluation</subject><subject>Researchers</subject><subject>Teacher Attitudes</subject><subject>Teacher Motivation</subject><subject>Technology Acceptance Model</subject><subject>University faculty</subject><subject>Usability</subject><issn>1042-1629</issn><issn>1556-6501</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNp9UcFKHTEUDaVC7bM_UCgE3HQzmptMMhN3ItoqghtdSsjL3NiReckzyQjPr2_aKQpdmCxyueece084hHwFdgSMdccZoOWiYZw1THctb14-kH2QUjVKMvhYa1aboLj-RD7n_Mjq6VS_T-4vrJunsqPWOdwWGxzS6Gn5hXSLmKjNGXPeYCjUxWmy65hsGWOg-GyneSlLjNMJtfRptqGMpTafkeYyD7sDsuftlPHLv3dF7i7Ob89-Ntc3Py7PTq8b14IoDSrpPepBqXUvhfRSAGcCmPC97L23eu2d6jvdS2VhGJT1A1dtazXruGTaiRX5vszdpvg0Yy5mM2aH1W_AOGfDW6nrj6FuW5HD_6iPcU6huqssACahA11ZRwvrwU5oxuBjSdbVO-BmdDGgH2v_tAOhVau4qAK-CFyKOSf0ZpvGjU07A8z8icgsEZkakfkbkXmpom-LCNPoXgXnV8Cl4rKvuFjwXLHwgOnN6ztTfwNagZ3Q</recordid><startdate>20200601</startdate><enddate>20200601</enddate><creator>Podsiad, Megan</creator><creator>Havard, Byron</creator><general>Springer US</general><general>Springer</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>7SW</scope><scope>BJH</scope><scope>BNH</scope><scope>BNI</scope><scope>BNJ</scope><scope>BNO</scope><scope>ERI</scope><scope>PET</scope><scope>REK</scope><scope>WWN</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>0-V</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88B</scope><scope>88G</scope><scope>8A4</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ALSLI</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>CJNVE</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>M0P</scope><scope>M2M</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PQEDU</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PSYQQ</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>S0X</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9118-6610</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20200601</creationdate><title>Faculty acceptance of the peer assessment collaboration evaluation tool: a quantitative study</title><author>Podsiad, Megan ; Havard, Byron</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c413t-e65ffe9d66b8535f531203103f858ffa9bfc6879856a1dd6afd2644a9072509c3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>Attitudes</topic><topic>Collaborative learning</topic><topic>College Faculty</topic><topic>Correlation</topic><topic>Development Article</topic><topic>Education</topic><topic>Educational Technology</topic><topic>Evaluation Methods</topic><topic>Learning and Instruction</topic><topic>Motivation</topic><topic>Peer Evaluation</topic><topic>Researchers</topic><topic>Teacher Attitudes</topic><topic>Teacher Motivation</topic><topic>Technology Acceptance Model</topic><topic>University faculty</topic><topic>Usability</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Podsiad, Megan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Havard, Byron</creatorcontrib><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC (Ovid)</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC (Legacy Platform)</collection><collection>ERIC( SilverPlatter )</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC PlusText (Legacy Platform)</collection><collection>Education Resources Information Center (ERIC)</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Education Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Psychology Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Education Periodicals</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Social Science Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Education Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>Education Database</collection><collection>Psychology Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Education</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest One Psychology</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>SIRS Editorial</collection><jtitle>Educational technology research and development</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Podsiad, Megan</au><au>Havard, Byron</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><ericid>EJ1256258</ericid><atitle>Faculty acceptance of the peer assessment collaboration evaluation tool: a quantitative study</atitle><jtitle>Educational technology research and development</jtitle><stitle>Education Tech Research Dev</stitle><date>2020-06-01</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>68</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>1381</spage><epage>1407</epage><pages>1381-1407</pages><issn>1042-1629</issn><eissn>1556-6501</eissn><abstract>The problem this study sought to address was faculty reluctance to use new online peer-assessment tools. The purpose of this study was to examine the motivational factors that influence the acceptance of the Peer Assessment Collaboration Evaluation (PACE) Tool among faculty employed at a mid-sized university in the Southeastern United States. This study used Davis’s (
1986
) technology acceptance model (TAM) and motivational constructs “attitude toward using, perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use” (p. 44). The researcher used simple linear regression and standard multiple regression to determine if there was a significant relationship, if any, between the motivational constructs. The results of the linear regressions denoted positive, significant relationships between perceived ease of use of the PACE Tool and attitude toward using the PACE Tool, perceived usefulness of the PACE Tool and attitude toward using the PACE Tool; and perceived ease of use of the PACE Tool and perceived usefulness of the PACE Tool. The results of the multiple regression indicated that both perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness of the PACE Tool were positively, significantly related to attitude toward using the PACE Tool. Through faculty members’ speculations, the researcher was able to measure their motivation to use the PACE Tool. The results of this study demonstrated faculty members are motivated to use the PACE Tool, which indicates high acceptability and potential usage in the future. By understanding how faculty members perceive the PACE Tool, designers may be able to develop online peer-assessment tools that are more acceptable.</abstract><cop>New York</cop><pub>Springer US</pub><doi>10.1007/s11423-020-09742-z</doi><tpages>27</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9118-6610</orcidid></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1042-1629 |
| ispartof | Educational technology research and development, 2020-06, Vol.68 (3), p.1381-1407 |
| issn | 1042-1629 1556-6501 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2459000141 |
| source | JSTOR Archive Collection A-Z Listing; EBSCOhost Education Source; SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings |
| subjects | Attitudes Collaborative learning College Faculty Correlation Development Article Education Educational Technology Evaluation Methods Learning and Instruction Motivation Peer Evaluation Researchers Teacher Attitudes Teacher Motivation Technology Acceptance Model University faculty Usability |
| title | Faculty acceptance of the peer assessment collaboration evaluation tool: a quantitative study |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-10T20%3A57%3A58IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Faculty%20acceptance%20of%20the%20peer%20assessment%20collaboration%20evaluation%20tool:%20a%20quantitative%20study&rft.jtitle=Educational%20technology%20research%20and%20development&rft.au=Podsiad,%20Megan&rft.date=2020-06-01&rft.volume=68&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=1381&rft.epage=1407&rft.pages=1381-1407&rft.issn=1042-1629&rft.eissn=1556-6501&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s11423-020-09742-z&rft_dat=%3Cgale_proqu%3EA713964623%3C/gale_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2411051719&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_galeid=A713964623&rft_ericid=EJ1256258&rfr_iscdi=true |