A study on academic staff personality and technology acceptance: The case of communication and collaboration applications

Abstract Over the recent years, the communication and collaboration based on online applications has been ubiquitous, being used in teaching, learning and research. In this context, the present study analyses the attitudes and perceptions of the teaching staff and researchers from several higher education institutions in Romania with respect to online collaboration and communication applications, and the impact these applications have on their work (teaching and research). The findings have revealed that the email is still the main communication and collaboration application in both teaching and research, but other, newer applications are not far behind. The extent to which these applications are accepted and used seem to depend directly on personal variables, the most significant ones being the technology anxiety and self-efficacy. The relationship between personality traits and the use of online communication and collaboration applications in the professional academic life has been shown to be mediated by work engagement, which enhances the teachers' personal resources, enhancing their levels of achievement. The findings have also demonstrated that the use of online communication and collaboration applications is part of the factors predicting the teachers' and researchers’ success in academic life.

[1]  Ritu Agarwal,et al.  A Conceptual and Operational Definition of Personal Innovativeness in the Domain of Information Technology , 1998, Inf. Syst. Res..

[2]  Margarita Teresevicienè,et al.  Organizational Support for Employee Engagement in Technology-Enhanced Learning , 2015 .

[3]  Mary Jo Bitner,et al.  The influence of technology anxiety on consumer use and experiences with self-service technologies , 2003 .

[4]  Xin Tan,et al.  User acceptance of SaaS-based collaboration tools: a case of Google Docs , 2015, J. Enterp. Inf. Manag..

[5]  C. Fornell,et al.  Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. , 1981 .

[6]  Agnetha Broos,et al.  Gender and Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) Anxiety: Male Self-Assurance and Female Hesitation , 2005, Cyberpsychology Behav. Soc. Netw..

[7]  M. Warschauer.  Comparing Face-To-Face and Electronic Discussion in the Second Language Classroom , 2013, CALICO Journal.

[8]  O. John,et al.  Measuring personality in one minute or less: A 10-item short version of the Big Five Inventory in English and German , 2007 .

[9]  Emily Lardner,et al.  A New Era in Learning-Community Work: Why the Pedagogy of Intentional Integration Matters , 2008 .

[10]  Gerry Stahl,et al.  Group Cognition: Computer Support for Building Collaborative Knowledge (Acting with Technology) , 2006 .

[11]  Volkan Özbek,et al.  The Impact of Personality on Technology Acceptance: A Study on Smart Phone Users , 2014 .

[12]  Benjamin Hirsch,et al.  Quantitative approach to collaborative learning: performance prediction, individual assessment, and group composition , 2016, International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning.

[13]  Viswanath Venkatesh,et al.  Why Don't Men Ever Stop to Ask for Directions? Gender, Social Influence, and Their Role in Technology Acceptance and Usage Behavior , 2000, MIS Q..

[14]  Cesar C. Navarrete,et al.  Online social networks as formal learning environments: Learner experiences and activities , 2012 .

[15]  M. Vauras,et al.  SHARED-REGULATION AND MOTIVATION OF COLLABORATING PEERS: A CASE ANALYSIS , 2003 .

[16]  Hua Wang,et al.  Age differences in perceptions of online community participation among non-users: An extension of the Technology Acceptance Model , 2010, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[17]  Fred D. Davis,et al.  A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies , 2000, Management Science.

[18]  Päivi Häkkinen,et al.  Conceptualizing the Awareness of Collaboration: A Qualitative Study of a Global Virtual Team , 2005, Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW).

[19]  Wilmar B. Schaufeli,et al.  Burnout and work engagement: Do individual differences make a difference? , 2006 .

[20]  Tracy Ann Sykes,et al.  Individual Reactions to New Technologies in the Workplace: The Role of Gender as a Psychological Construct , 2004 .

[21]  Chirag Shah,et al.  Collaborative Information Seeking: A Literature Review , 2010 .

[22]  James C. McElroy,et al.  Dispositional Factors in Internet Use: Personality Versus Cognitive Style , 2007, MIS Q..

[23]  Adrianna Kezar.  Redesigning for Collaboration within Higher Education Institutions: An Exploration into the Developmental Process , 2005 .

[24]  Martin Ebner,et al.  Microblogs in Higher Education - A chance to facilitate informal and process-oriented learning? , 2010, Comput. Educ..

[25]  J. Perry,et al.  Collaboration Processes: Inside the Black Box , 2006 .

[26]  Rudolf R. Sinkovics,et al.  The Use of Partial Least Squares Path Modeling in International Marketing , 2009 .

[27]  Catalin Maican,et al.  A system architecture based on open source enterprise content management systems for supporting educational institutions , 2016, Int. J. Inf. Manag..

[28]  Viswanath Venkatesh,et al.  Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions , 2008, Decis. Sci..

[29]  Ederyn Williams,et al.  Experimental comparisons of face-to-face and mediated communication: A review. , 1977 .

[30]  Douglas R. Vogel,et al.  Predicting user acceptance of collaborative technologies: An extension of the technology acceptance model for e-learning , 2013, Comput. Educ..

[31]  K. Hussinger,et al.  Costs and Benefits of Inter-Departmental Innovation Collaboration , 2011 .

[32]  Deborah Compeau,et al.  Intentions to Use Information Technologies: An Integrative Model , 2006, J. Organ. End User Comput..

[33]  C. McCreadie,et al.  The acceptability of assistive technology to older people , 2005, Ageing and Society.

[34]  Bern Elliot,et al.  Magic Quadrant for Unified Communications , 2012 .

[35]  Maribeth Back,et al.  A Taxonomy of Collaboration in Online Information Seeking , 2009, ArXiv.

[36]  Joar Vittersø,et al.  Personality and technology acceptance: the influence of personality factors on the core constructs of the Technology Acceptance Model , 2013, Behav. Inf. Technol..

[37]  Todd Lubart,et al.  How can computers be partners in the creative process: Classification and commentary on the Special Issue , 2005, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[38]  Julian Schulze,et al.  The Knowledge, Skills, Abilities, and Other Characteristics Required for Face-to-Face Versus Computer-Mediated Communication: Similar or Distinct Constructs? , 2016, Journal of Business and Psychology.

[39]  Diane Zigo,et al.  Rethinking reciprocity: Collaboration in labor as a path toward equalizing power in classroom research , 2001 .

[40]  A. Bakker,et al.  The Measurement of Work Engagement With a Short Questionnaire , 2006 .

[41]  Subhasish Dasgupta,et al.  User Acceptance of E-Collaboration Technology: An Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model , 2002 .

[42]  Tuure Tuunanen,et al.  Consumers' adoption of information services , 2013, Inf. Manag..

[43]  Ann Lieberman,et al.  Collaborative Research: Working With, Not Working On. . . , 1986 .

[44]  Wouter Duyck,et al.  Predicting secondary school teachers' acceptance and use of a digital learning environment: A cross-sectional study , 2011, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[45]  Richard Cox.  Technology‐enhanced research: educational ICT systems as research instruments , 2007 .

[46]  Alexander W. Chizhik,et al.  Equity Issues in Collaborative Group Assessment: Group Composition and Performance , 1998 .

[47]  Colin Lankshear,et al.  'Because it's boring, irrelevant and I don't like computers': Why high school girls avoid professionally-oriented ICT subjects , 2008, Comput. Educ..

[48]  Timothy Teo,et al.  Technology acceptance among pre-service teachers: Does gender matter? , 2015 .

[49]  Harold Thimbleby,et al.  Validating the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT) tool cross-culturally , 2007 .

[50]  Theodore Panitz,et al.  Collaborative versus Cooperative Learning: A Comparison of the Two Concepts Which Will Help Us Understand the Underlying Nature of Interactive Learning. , 1999 .

[51]  Mark Deuze.  Collaboration, participation and the media , 2006, New Media Soc..

[52]  Jan Marco Leimeister,et al.  Understanding Diversity - The Impact of Personality on Technology Acceptance , 2013, INTERACT.

[53]  Sun Joo Yoo,et al.  The impact of employee’s perception of organizational climate on their technology acceptance toward e-learning in South Korea , 2012 .

[54]  Xiaofeng Guo,et al.  Meeting the "Digital Natives": Understanding the Acceptance of Technology in Classrooms , 2013, J. Educ. Technol. Soc..

[55]  Marko Sarstedt,et al.  Goodness-of-fit indices for partial least squares path modeling , 2013, Comput. Stat..

[56]  Yogesh Kumar Dwivedi,et al.  The unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT): a literature review , 2015, J. Enterp. Inf. Manag..

[57]  Oded Nov,et al.  Personality and Technology Acceptance: Personal Innovativeness in IT, Openness and Resistance to Change , 2008, Proceedings of the 41st Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS 2008).

[58]  Andrew J. Nelson,et al.  Help-Seeking and Help-Giving as an Organizational Routine: Continual Engagement in Innovative Work , 2015 .

[59]  Viswanath Venkatesh,et al.  Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology: A Synthesis and the Road Ahead , 2016, J. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[60]  Anders I. Mørch,et al.  Mutual development in mass collaboration: Identifying interaction patterns in customer-initiated software product development , 2016, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[61]  Jérôme Rossier,et al.  Validation of the French Utrecht Work Engagement Scale and its relationship with personality traits and impulsivity , 2015 .

[62]  Richard A. Schwier.  Comparing Formal, Non-formal, and Informal Online Learning Environments , 2012 .

[63]  Fred D. Davis,et al.  User Acceptance of Computer Technology: A Comparison of Two Theoretical Models , 1989 .

[64]  Sofia Matrosova Khalil,et al.  From resistance to acceptance and use of technology in academia , 2013 .

[65]  Tao Wang,et al.  Exploring determinants of adoption intentions towards Enterprise 2.0 applications: an empirical study , 2014, Behav. Inf. Technol..

[66]  Teresa M. Harrison,et al.  Wielding new media in Web 2.0: exploring the history of engagement with the collaborative construction of media products , 2009, New Media Soc..

[67]  Rajiv Kishore,et al.  Within-study measurement invariance of the UTAUT instrument: An assessment with user technology engagement variables , 2015, Inf. Manag..

[68]  N. Charness,et al.  Factors Predicting the Use of Technology: Findings From the Center for Research and Education on Aging and Technology Enhancement (CREATE) , 2006 .

[69]  Gordon B. Davis,et al.  User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward a Unified View , 2003, MIS Q..

[70]  J. Valacich,et al.  Idea Generation in Computer-Based Groups: A New Ending to an Old Story , 1994 .

[71]  Viswanath Venkatesh,et al.  Consumer Acceptance and Use of Information Technology: Extending the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology , 2012, MIS Q..

[72]  Laura Naismith.  Using text messaging to support administrative communication in higher education , 2007 .

[73]  Robert F. Easley,et al.  Research Note - How Does Personality Matter? Relating the Five-Factor Model to Technology Acceptance and Use , 2008, Inf. Syst. Res..

[74]  Peter A. Gloor,et al.  Swarm Creativity: Competitive Advantage Through Collaborative Innovation Networks , 2006 .

[75]  Donna Weaver McCloskey,et al.  The Importance of Ease of Use, Usefulness, and Trust to Online Consumers: An Examination of the Technology Acceptance Model with Older Customers , 2006, J. Organ. End User Comput..

[76]  Steven Warburton,et al.  Second Life in higher education: Assessing the potential for and the barriers to deploying virtual worlds in learning and teaching , 2009, Br. J. Educ. Technol..

[77]  Anatoliy A. Gruzd,et al.  Connected scholars: Examining the role of social media in research practices of faculty using the UTAUT model , 2012, Comput. Hum. Behav..