The DOI matches its Crossref record; 85 of the 85 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Educational Technology Adoption: A systematic review
Open accessAbstract
During the past decades a respectable number and variety of theoretical perspectives and practical approaches have been advanced for studying determinants for prediction and explanation of user’s behavior towards acceptance and adoption of educational technology. Aiming to identify the most prominent factors affecting and reliably predicting successful educational technology adoption, this systematic review offers succinct account of technology adoption and acceptance theories and models related to and widely applied in educational research. Recognised journals of the Web of Science (WoS) database were searched with no time frame limit, and a total of 47 studies published between 2003 and 2021 were critically analysed. The key research findings revealed that in educational context a vast majority of selected studies explore the validity of Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) and its many different extensions (N=37), along with TAM’s integrations with other contributing theories and models (N=5). It was exposed that among numerous predictors, thematically grouped into user aspects, task & technology aspects, and social aspects, self-efficacy, subjective norm, (perceived) enjoyment, facilitating conditions, (computer) anxiety, system accessibility, and (technological) complexity were the most frequent predictive factors (i.e. antecedents) affecting educational technology adoption. Considering types of technologies, e-learning was found to be the most common validated mode of delivery, followed by m-learning, Learning Management Systems (LMSs), and social media services. The results also revealed that the majority of analysed studies were conducted in higher education environments. New directions of research along with potential challenges in educational technology acceptance, adoption, and actual use are discussed as well.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology
Davis, F. D. (1989) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/249008 · Cited by 68,483
User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward A Unified View1
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/30036540 · Cited by 45,035
Venkatesh, V., Thong, J. Y. L., & Xu, X. (2012) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/41410412 · Cited by 15,756
A Cognitive Model of the Antecedents and Consequences of Satisfaction Decisions
Oliver, R. L. (1980) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.1177/002224378001700405 · Cited by 14,494
Information Systems Success: The Quest for the Dependent Variable
DeLone, W. H., & McLean, E. R. (1992) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.3.1.60 · Cited by 10,697
Understanding information technology usage: a test of competing models
Taylor, S., & Todd, P. A. (1995) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.6.2.144 · Cited by 8,815
Understanding Information Systems Continuance: An Expectation-Confirmation Model1
Bhattacherjee, A. (2001) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/3250921 · Cited by 8,767
A Protection Motivation Theory of Fear Appeals and Attitude Change1
Rogers, R. W. (1975) · The Journal of Psychology · doi:10.1080/00223980.1975.9915803 · Cited by 6,805
Stanton, B. F., & Rogers, E. M. (1963) · Journal of Farm Economics · doi:10.2307/1235767 · Cited by 6,675
(1985) · Cited by 6,185
Cited by
Human-centred learning analytics and AI in education: A systematic literature review
Alfredo, R., Echeverria, V., Jin, Y., Yan, L., Swiecki, Z., Gašević, D., & Martinez-Maldonado, R. (2024) · Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100215 · Cited by 281
Key Factors Influencing Teachers’ Motivation to Transfer Technology-Enabled Educational Innovation
Stumbrienė, D., Jevsikova, T., & Kontvainė, V. (2024) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-023-11891-6 · Cited by 78
AI-Powered E-Learning for Lifelong Learners: Impact on Performance and Knowledge Application
Ahn, H. Y. (2024) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su16209066 · Cited by 56
AI in essay-based assessment: Student adoption, usage, and performance
Smerdon, D. (2024) · Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100288 · Cited by 43
Tan, M., & Subramonyam, H. (2024) · Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3613904.3642592 · Cited by 40
Metadata
- Authors
- Granić, A.
- Venue
- Education and Information Technologies
- Published
- 2022-04-05
- Volume
- 27
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 9725-9744
- ISSN
- 1360-2357 (ISSN-L)
- 1573-7608
- OpenAlex
- W4223544034
- Cited by
- 348
- References
- 85
- FWCI
- 8.61
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Educational Technology Adoption: A systematic review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1007/s10639-022-10951-7
- The paper
- Granić, A. (2022). Educational Technology Adoption: A systematic review. Education and Information Technologies. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-10951-7
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.