Cited by 280Educational Technology and E-LearningTechnology Adoption and User BehaviourDigital Transformation of Higher Education

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 177 of the 178 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Understanding academics' adoption of learning technologies: A systematic review

Liu, Qian, Geertshuis, Susan, Grainger, Rebecca·2020·Computers & Education

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103857

Cites

177 of 177 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 178 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Liu, Q., Geertshuis, S., & Grainger, R.
Affiliations
  • University of Auckland (NZ)
  • University of Otago (NZ)
Corresponding author
Liu, Qian
Venue
Computers & Education
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-07
Volume
151
Pages
103857
ISSN
0360-1315 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3008352202
Cited by
279
References
178
Citations by year
2026: 22 · 2025: 42 · 2024: 63 · 2023: 42 · 2022: 48 · 2021: 39 · 2020: 23
FWCI
5.54
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Computers & Education (publishedVersion)
  • Otago University Research Archive (University of Otago) (submittedVersion)
Funders
University of Auckland
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Educational Technology and E-Learning
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Technology Adoption and User Behaviour
  • Social Sciences › Education › Digital Transformation of Higher Education
Keywords
learning technology adoption, university faculty, higher education, technology adoption factors, adoption strategies, faculty technology use, educational technology implementation

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