Revista Electrónica de Investigación Educativa

Vol. 24, 2022/e11

Production of Polimedia by University Professors and Degree of Acceptance in the Dominican Republic

Antonio Palacios-Rodríguez (1) https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0689-6317

Julio Cabero-Almenara (1) https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1133-6031

Ángel Puentes-Puente (2) https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7575-5625

(1) Universidad de Sevilla, España

(2) Universidad Federico Henríquez y Carvajal, República Dominicana

(Received: June 18, 2020; accepted for publishing: March 19, 2021)

Abstract

The use of video in distance education contexts and in virtual training is essential. This study presents the results of an experience with 114 university professors from two universities in the Dominican Republic who carried out training activities on the pedagogical bases of the Polimedia systems. The degree of acceptance of the Polimedia system was measured through an adaptation of the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) developed by Davis in 1989, and the significance of different sociodemographic variables in the model was analyzed. The results demonstrate the high degree of teacher acceptance of the Polimedia system and its relationship with variables such as experience with ICT, as well as the robustness of the TAM. This strengthens the need to establish training plans that focus less on technological aspects and more on the pedagogical dimension.

Keywords: training of trainers, educational technology, ICT, higher education

I. Audiovisual productions in video and Polimedia format

Audiovisual productions in video format are becoming increasingly important in training. On the one hand, this can be explained by the possibilities that this resource offers to present concepts and allow the observation of phenomena, and the wide range of functions that it can perform in teaching, the lack of required maintenance, etc. On the other hand, thanks to digitization, these productions can be used in different media, thus becoming a “transmedia” resource as they are stored in specific repositories for constant viewing (Chien et al., 2020). These possibilities make this resource a very valid means to promote learning and create new scenarios for teaching (Brame, 2016; Cooley et al., 2020). At the same time, its multimedia capacity facilitates the transfer of information to long-term memory (Mayer, 2003; Zhang et al., 2019). Lastly, it favors the development of attention in the student (Arroyo-Barrigüete et al., 2019).

The use of video productions in distance training contexts and as part of virtual training actions is essential because of the audiovisual culture in which we live. This has also been shown by a number of different studies, which have made it clear that they boost student satisfaction and motivation, improving learning (Arroyo-Barrigüete et al., 2019; Liu et al., 2019; Rodríguez‐Ardura & Meseguer‐Artola, 2017).

One type of educational resource in video format is Polimedia. A Polimedia production can be defined as a virtual multimedia presentation in which a video recorded by the speaker is integrated into a virtual set and presents resources that the teacher requires. This involves different technologies such as presentations, videos, animations, writing on an electronic whiteboard, and working on applications in real time (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Recording studio for Polimedia resources

Visually, a Polimedia production is made up of two distinct parts. On the one hand, the teacher appears in a part of the screen. The rest of the screen is occupied by the presentation to which the teacher refers during his or her speech. Thus, the phases of a Polimedia production are presentation design, choice of virtual setting, and recording (Cabero, 2018).

A Polimedia production is considered a learning object to support teaching, with multimedia content created to strengthen and complement teaching. The Polimedia management and creation system (Figure 2) is designed for the production of teaching materials aimed at students who will have access to them through different distribution channels. These may include DVDs, fixed devices, mobile devices, and social networks.

Figure 2. Polimedia production

1.1 Educational uses of video in teaching

Video is one of the most widespread educational media in teaching, across all levels of the educational system, and has been further promoted in recent times by events like digitization, the existence of different repositories of educational and didactic videos on the Internet, both institutional and personal, the significance that tools such as YouTube have acquired in today’s culture and specifically for younger generations, and the transmedia nature of video, allowing videos to be viewed on different technological media such as televisions, computers, smartphones, and tablets.

The use of video in education has been explored by different authors (Cabero, 2007; Cabero & Barroso, 2016; Cabero & Llorente, 2011; Ballesteros, 2013; Bartolomé, 2008; de Benito et al., 2015; Monedero & Monedero, 2013). Their research has made it possible to draw a series of conclusions that highlight the range of possibilities that video offers for teaching and the many ways it can be used.

1.2 Uses of Polimedia productions in university education

According to Cabero (2018), the uses of Polimedia can be divided into two main groups: instructional uses and institutional uses. Our research focuses on the former, as presented in Figure 3.

Figure 3. Instructional uses of Polimedia productions

The information transmitter is one of the most frequent Polimedia productions, used by teachers to transmit the contents of their course to students and for discussion in the classroom. Students can also watch these productions later to clear up any questions or to further their learning experience.

Guo et al. (2014) offer a series of recommendations for the production of MOOCs, which may be helpful in video lessons. Specifically, the recommendations they make are as follows:

1. Short videos are much more attractive.
2. Videos that intersperse an instructor’s talking head with PowerPoint slides are more interesting than showing just the slides.
3. Videos produced with a more personal feel might be more attractive than high-fidelity studio recordings.
4. Khan-style tablet drawing tutorials are more attractive than PowerPoint slides or code recordings.
5. Even high-quality prerecorded classroom classes are not as interesting as when they are cut into short segments.
6. Videos where instructors speak fairly quickly and with great enthusiasm are more interesting.
7. Students participate differently with lectures and video tutorials.

The recommended duration initially depends on the intended purpose of the document. Even so, two recommendations are provided:

1. As a general principle, to work with the idea that the duration should be as short as possible (López-Bonilla & López-Bonilla, 2011).
2. If necessary, to fragment the production into different sub-productions that can be viewed individually.

One other use of Polimedia productions is to provide a brief introduction to the course or to a set of didactic units, wherein the teacher explains the objectives and skills to be attained, the content to be developed, the materials the student will work with, the activities to be carried out and delivery deadlines, the evaluation, etc. These productions can also serve to remind students of the prerequisite knowledge for the course. Websites or documents can also be presented to enable students to find information about a specific topic. Finally, Polimedia can serve to connect new content with that already acquired by students. Consequently, meaningful and non-rote learning is favored (Ausubel, 1978).

One possible teaching activity is the explanation of the operation of a machine or technological instrument in a laboratory. Polimedia productions can be very useful for this. Not only do they make it possible to enlarge objects that need to be observed, and enable more precise sequencing of the information to be presented to students, but they also provide a document that can be reviewed many times by students. This category includes productions that are specially conceived as explanatory video tutorials on the operation of a program.

Case studies are a great help in connecting the concepts and information presented with real-life contexts where they should be applied. In this sense, case studies should include different contexts to favor the transfer of knowledge to different real-life situations. It must not be forgotten that it is increasingly frequent to find case studies being used as a methodological resource to develop competences, but also as a learning or evaluation activity.

As already noted, one of the ways in which video can be used in teaching is to assess the knowledge and skills acquired by students, by presenting them with specific situations, both real and simulated. This provides teachers with insight into the knowledge, skills, competences and abilities acquired by students. Video is therefore another instrument for student evaluation. The construction of the video can take different forms: description of a sequence to be evaluated by the students; presentation in a process of a series of errors to be identified by the students; presentation of a document for students to make a text comment on it, answering a series of questions previously provided by the teacher; and the presentation of activities as performed by first-year students so that upper-level students can identify the mistakes made.

In different curricular disciplines, students must learn the processes of organizing laboratory tests and preparing diagnostic tests. This requires the application of a standardized protocol to which students must adapt for perfect mastery. Polimedia productions can be of great help not only because of the perfect sequencing of the processes, but also because the teacher can indicate the most common errors made by students in executing the processes, and the precautions to be taken in this regard.

One methodology that is currently gaining traction in the context of university education is the so-called “flipped classroom”, developed by Bretzmann (2007). In essence, this consists in reversing the traditional division of time in teaching, such that the content of the course is delivered outside the school setting and school hours, while tasks traditionally performed at home are done so in class (Bergmann & Sams, 2014; Prieto, 2017; Santiago et al., 2017).

Finally, we note the importance of videos in Massive Online Open Courses (MOOCs), of which there are three types: xMOOCs, cMOOCs, and tMOOCs (Vázquez et al., 2015). Videos play a key role in all of these.

II. TAM: Technology Acceptance Model

The Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), initially formulated by Davis (1989), suggests that attitude towards the use of an ICT is based on two previous variables: perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use (Figure 4). According to Fishbein and Azjen (1975, p.216), attitude is "a learned predisposition to respond in a consistently favorable or unfavorable manner with respect to a given object." The perceived usefulness is considered a motivation that is extrinsic to the user and is defined as “the degree to which a person believes that using a particular system would enhance his or her job performance” (Davis, 1989, p.320), while perceived ease of use can be understood as the "degree to which a person believes that using a certain system will be effortless" (Davis, 1989, p.320).

Figure 4. TAM of Davis (1989)

As suggested by Yong et al. (2010), to determine if a technology will be used optimally, it is necessary to identify different external variables that may affect the usefulness and ease of use perceived by users of ICT. Various studies have identified and proposed such variables: type of user, gender, age, experience in technology management, level of training, career level, and personal tendency towards innovation (Hsiao & Yang, 2011; Kumar & Kumar, 2013; López-Bonilla & López-Bonilla, 2011; Teo & Noyes, 2011).

Different studies and meta-analyses in research have shown that TAM is a valid and robust model to explain the intention to use any technology and is notable for its simplicity (He & King, 2008; López-Bonilla & López-Bonilla, 2011). This has led to research on different technologies: portfolios (Wai-tsz et al., 2014), mobile devices (Kim et al., 2016), virtual libraries (Chen & Chengalur, 2015), e-learning (Cabero et al., 2016; Urquidi et al., 2019), m-learning (Iqbal & Ahmed, 2015), cloud computing (Jou & Wang, 2013), e-learning platforms (Alharbi & Drew, 2014), YouTube (Lee & Lehto, 2013), video games (Cheng et al., 2013; Huang, 2019), social networks (Lorenzo et al., 2011), and augmented reality (Martínez & Fernández, 2018).

Also important to bear in mind is the criticism raised in relation to the TAM: the instrument itself relies on the subject’s self-report, the results may be determined by context, the conceptual simplicity of the model, and the difficulty of obtaining objective measurements with the TAM (Yousafzai et al., 2007).

III. Methodology

This research was carried out with faculty belonging to two universities in the Dominican Republic: Universidad Federico Henríquez y Carvajal (UFHEC) and Universidad Eugenio María de Hostos (UNIREMHOS). The diagnostic instruments were administered once the course "Pedagogical Bases of Virtual Training" was completed (25 contact hours and 25 virtual hours). The following content was developed: pedagogical bases for e-learning; content creation for network training; content production programs for the network; and virtual training activities, techniques and strategies.

Objectives. The main research objective was to analyze the degree of acceptance by teachers of Polimedia video systems. In addition, we intended to explore the significance of different sociodemographic variables in the model.

Sample. A total of 114 university professors – 64 women and 50 men – participated in this study. The majority were between 30 and 49 years old (73.7%). The distribution by branch of knowledge was as follows: 10.5% were in art and humanities, 18.4% sciences, 25.4% health sciences, 28.1% social and legal sciences, and 17.5% engineering and architecture. Figure 5 shows the percentages of participants by number of years of teaching experience.

Figure 5. Years of teaching experience

As can be seen, most teachers have from 1 to 5 years of experience.

Study model, hypothesis, and instrument. Figure 6 represents the adaptation of the TAM formulated by Davis (1989) for this study.

Figure 6. TAM used in the study

This model is an adaptation of the one used by Cabero et al. (2016) in other work. It assumes that the teacher’s perception of ease of use of virtual training determines the perceived usefulness.

We considered five variables that could predict the interactions of the system: gender, age, teaching experience, experience in the use of ICT, and percentage of time spent on ICT in classes.

Consequently, the following hypotheses were formulated:

• H1-H2-H3-H4-H5: There are significant differences between the contrast variable (gender, age, experience, ICT use time or use of ICT in class) and the perceived usefulness (PU) of the Polimedia system.
• H6-H7-H8-H9-H10: There are significant differences between the contrast variable (gender, age, experience, ICT use time or use of ICT in class) and the perceived ease of use (PEU) of the Polimedia system.
• H11-H12-H13-H14-H15: There are significant differences between the contrast variable (gender, age, experience, ICT use time or use of ICT in class) and the perceived enjoyment (PE) of the Polimedia system.
• H16-H17-H18-H19-H20-H21-H22-H23-H24: There is a positive influence between the dimensions of the TAM model (according to the direction of the arrows in Figure 6).

The instrument used was a questionnaire made up of two main sections: the first one collects information on the sociodemographic variables and the second assesses the degree of acceptance of the Polimedia system. Regarding the TAM, the instrument was made up of 17 items (Table 3) on a 7-point Likert scale:

• 1 = Extremely unlikely / disagree
• 2 = Quite unlikely / disagree
• 3 = Slightly unlikely / disagree
• 4 = Neither unlikely nor likely / neither disagree nor agree
• 5 = Slightly likely / agree
• 6 = Fairly likely / agree
• 7 = Extremely likely / agree.

The questionnaire was administered via the Internet with Google Forms and can be viewed at https://bit.ly/3bT0NyS

Before the production of the Polimedia materials, a double training procedure was followed. The first stage focused on how to make effective and attractive PowerPoint presentations. The second stage was to make contact with the Polimedia production room. For the first stage, all teachers were provided a document coordinated by Cabero (2018) called "The Incorporation of Polimedia Productions into University Education," a chapter of which is devoted to producing presentations. A face-to-face session was held with teachers at the same time to clear up questions and present important examples. For the second stage, visits were made with small groups of teachers to the recording room, where an explanation was given on the types of shots that would be used, and they were shown where the microphone was set and given recommendations on items of clothing to be worn or avoided on the day of the recording.

It should also be noted that, before the recordings were made, the presentations were reviewed by a member of the research team. Criteria were used to assess the quality of presentations and offer a series of recommendations if necessary.

In summary, the procedure followed in the experience included the following stages:

1. Teachers were trained to create presentations and were introduced to the Polimedia room and the way recordings are made.
2. Teachers produced the presentations used in the Polimedia production.
3. Review of the presentations made by teachers.
4. Recording of the Polimedia material by the teacher.
5. Teachers completed the TAM instrument to enable analysis of the degree of acceptance of the technology.
6. Analysis of the reliability and validity of the instrument.

To obtain the reliability index, Cronbach’s alpha was applied and the values obtained are presented in Table 1, both overall and for the different dimensions that make up the instrument.

Table 1. Reliability of the instrument

The values obtained indicate high levels of reliability according to O’Dwyer and Bernauer (2014). The item-total correlation was also examined, taking into account that the elimination of any item could increase the reliability of the instrument, both globally and in its different dimensions. The values obtained do not suggest the elimination of any item.

Data analysis procedure. The data matrix was modified for operational reasons. New variables were created: total, PU, PEU, PE, ATU, and IU. These variables were calculated from the arithmetic mean of the constituent items. In addition, the response order of item ATU2 “Students have been bored using Polimedia recordings” was reversed, as it was phrased negatively.

At the same time, it was verified that the data were not normally distributed through a descriptive analysis taking into account asymmetry and kurtosis. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test confirms this verification (Sig = .001).

On the other hand, to test the hypotheses, the Mann-Whitney U test and Kruskal-Wallis H test were used with a post-hoc test (Dunn’s test). Furthermore, to calculate the influence of the dimensions of the TAM, Spearman’s correlation coefficient was used.

IV. Results

The mean scores obtained in relation to the TAM instrument are presented below (Table 2).

Table 2. Average and standard deviations of the total TAM instrument and its dimensions

The mean evaluation scores obtained indicate that the teachers participating in the training action tended to value the different dimensions as “quite likely.” In other words, they tend to perceive the Polimedia system as easy to incorporate into university education and quite useful. At the same time, they show a receptive attitude toward using Polimedia. The low standard deviations obtained reveal a degree of uniformity in the teachers’ responses.

Table 3 shows the scores of the different items in the TAM diagnostic instrument part.

Table 3. TAM items

The teachers emphasize that they would like to continue using the Polimedia system in the future, if they have the opportunity, and to use it to learn a variety of topics. The item with the lowest score should be interpreted in a negative sense, and therefore students can be considered not to have been bored using the Polimedia recordings.

Next, we performed an analysis of the hypotheses formulated above, derived from the TAM in Figure 6. First, we checked whether there was a positive influence between the dimensions of the TAM (H16-H17-H18-H19-H20-H21-H22-H23-H24). To do this, Spearman’s correlation coefficient was used. The obtained values are shown in Table 4.

Table 4. Correlations between the dimensions of the TAM

In all cases, there is a statistically positive relationship.

Finally, we present the data obtained regarding the variables relating to the possible influence of gender, age, experience, ICT use time, and ICT use in class (H1-H2-H3-H4-H5-H6-H7-H8-H9-H10-H11-H12-H13-H14-H15). For the gender variable, Mann-Whitney U tests were used (Table 5). In the rest of the cases, the Kruskal-Wallis H test was used (Table 6) with the post-hoc test for significant results (Table 7).

Table 5. Contrast of the gender variable

There are no statistically significant differences regarding gender. Therefore, H1, H6, and H11 are rejected.

Table 6. Level of significance of the Kruskal-Wallis H test

The results allow us to accept H2, H12, H4, H9, H14, and H10. The rest of the hypotheses are rejected: H7, H3, H8, and H15.

In Table 7, each row tests the hypothesis between groups within the same variable. The post-hoc test results are displayed only when statistically significant.

Table 7. Post-hoc test variables: significant differences between groups

V. Conclusions

The conclusions drawn from this work point in two directions: one conceptual and scientific, and the other methodological and operational.

Regarding the first of these directions, the study addressed a number of aspects. First, our research examined the validity and consistency of the TAM model formulated by Davis (1989). Secondly, we assessed its significance in determining the future degree of acceptance of the Polimedia system by teachers. In turn, this determines the relevance of virtual training in an educational institution that, in this case, provides higher education. These results are consistent with those obtained by other authors regarding teachers’ acceptance of virtual training (Cabero et al., 2016; Teo & Noyes, 2011).

As future lines of research, we propose replicating this study in another context with other teachers. This would confirm if the significant results we found are maintained. Another avenue to explore is the degree of acceptance by students when these materials are used in teaching. The hypothesis is that the results for students would also be positive. Indeed, research has been conducted with students on videoblogs and the results point in the same direction (Colomo et al., 2020).

Regarding the second direction, the work provides technology with an organizational structure that can be of great help in facilitating the incorporation of ICT in university teaching-learning processes. As different research has shown, the quality of the infrastructure and availability of digital devices and necessary technologies is a variable that hinders the incorporation of ICT by teachers (Cela-Ranilla et al., 2017; Gil-Flores et al., 2017), as does the lack of time available for teachers to invest in the production of technologies (Hilliger et al., 2020). In addition, the ease with which this technology is produced affects the degree of technological acceptance shown by the teachers involved in the study. Its incorporation can serve to eliminate the resistance to change that teachers feel toward the incorporation of ICT in teaching (Córica, 2020; Córica & García, 2018; Mercader, 2019).

On the other hand, the work indicates the viability of establishing educational training activities for teachers in Polimedia systems. According to related research in a Dominican context, the level of digital competence is high in a technological-instrumental dimension and low in educational use (Cabero et al., 2020; Pérez-Díaz, 2019). These activities should focus not so much on the instrumental component – that is, the operation of the video recording and assembly system – but rather on didactic aspects, those related to the design of materials for the network or the strategies and e-activities that can be applied within the network. This suggests different orientations are necessary for institutions wishing to employ this form of virtual learning, because – among other reasons – this will allow them to adopt and modify significant attitudes towards virtual education.

It has also been pointed out that Polimedia recordings can be very useful for teachers in the application of the flipped learning methodology (Bergmann & Sams, 2014). At the same time, these recordings can be turned into interactive videos that incorporate questions about the information presented, where a positive response is required from the students in order to continue viewing the document. This results in active engagement by the student and the investment of more mental effort. These questions can be incorporated with a variety of programs, such as H5P or Camtasia. This topic also opens up a possible future line of research. Finally, this study provides instruments that are easy to administer and exhibit acceptable levels of reliability. For this reason, the relevance of this study lies in gaining insight into the degree of acceptance of technology in virtual training by teachers.

Referencias

Alharbi, S., & Drew, S. (2014). Using the Technology Acceptance Model in understanding academics’ behavioural intention to use learning management systems. International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications, 5(1), 143-155. https://doi.org/10.14569/IJACSA.2014.050120

Arroyo-Barrigüete, J., López-Sánchez, J., Minguela-Rata, B., & Rodriguez-Duarte, A. (2019). Use patterns of educational videos: A quantitative study among university students. WPOM-Working Papers on Operations Management, 10(2), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.4995/wpom.v10i2.12625

Ausubel, D. (1978). Psicología educativa. Un punto de vista cognoscitivo [Educational psychology: A cognitive view]. Trillas.

Ballesteros, C. (2013). El vídeo en la enseñanza y la formación [Video in teaching and training]. Pirámide.

Bartolomé, A. (2008). Vídeo digital y educación [Digital video and education]. Síntesis.

Bergmann, J., & Sams, A. (2014). Dale la vuelta a tu clase: lleva tu clase a cada estudiante, en cualquier momento y cualquier lugar [Flip your classroom: Reach every student in every class every day]. SM.

Brame, C. (2016). Effective educational videos: Principles and guidelines for maximizing student learning from video content. CBE Life Sciences Education, 15(4), 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-03-0125

Bretzmann, J. (2007). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy. Pearson.

Cabero, J. (2007). Nuevas tecnologías aplicadas a la educación [New technologies applied to education]. McGraw-Hill.

Cabero, J. (2018). La incorporación de las producciones Polimedias a la formación universitaria [Incorporating Polimedia productions into university education]. SAV de la Universidad de Sevilla.

Cabero, J., & Barroso, J. (2016). The educational possibilities of Augmented Reality. New Approaches in Educational Research, 5(1), 44-50. https://doi.org/10.7821/naer.2016.1.140

Cabero, J., & Llorente, C. (2011). El lenguaje audiovisual: el vídeo y su utilización educativa [Audiovisual language: Video and its use in education]. Pirámide.

Cabero, J., Sampedro, B., & Gallego, O (2016). Valoraciones de la “aceptación de la tecnología de formación virtual” por profesores universitarios asistentes a un curso de formación virtual [Assessments of “acceptance of virtual training technology” by university professors attending a virtual training course]. EDUTEC, Revista Electrónica de Tecnología Educativa, (56). https://doi.org/10.21556/edutec.2016.56.745

Cabero-Almenara, J., Barroso-Osuna, J., Rodríguez-Gallego, M., & Palacios-Rodríguez, A. (2020). La competencia digital docente. El caso de las universidades andaluzas [Digital competence for educators. The case of Andalusian universities]. Aula Abierta, 49(4), 363-372. https://doi.org/10.17811/rifie.49.4.2020.363-372

Cela-Ranilla, J., Esteve González, V., Mon, F., González Martínez, J., & Gisbert-Cervera, M. (2017). El docente en la sociedad digital: Una propuesta basada en la pedagogía transformativa y en la tecnología avanzada [Teachers in the digital society: A proposal based on transformative pedagogy and advanced technology]. Profesorado, 21(1), 403-422.

Chen, Y., & Chengalur-Smith, I. (2015). Factors influencing students’ use of a library Web portal: Applying course-integrated information literacy instruction as an intervention. The Internet and Higher Education, 26, 42-55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2015.04.005

Cheng, Y., Lou, S., Kuo, S., & Shih, R. (2013). Investigating elementary school students’ technology acceptance by applying digital game-based learning to environmental education. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 29(1), 96-110. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.65

Chien, S., Hwang, G., & Siu-Yung, M. (2020). Effects of peer assessment within the context of spherical video-based virtual reality on EFL students’ English-speaking performance and learning perceptions. Computer & Education, 146, 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103751

Colomo, E., Gabarda, V., Cívico, A., & Cuevas, N. (2020). Percepción de estudiantes sobre el uso del videoblog como recurso digital en educación superior [Students’ perceptions of the use of videoblogs as a digital resource in higher education]. Píxel-Bit. Revista de Medios y Educación, (59), 7-25. https://doi.org/10.12795/pixelbit.74358

Cooley, S.J., Eves, F., Cumming, J., & Burns, V. (2020). Hitting the ground running: Preparing groups for outdoor learning using a theoretically-based video. Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning, 20, 30-48. https://doi.org/10.1080/14729679.2018.1558081

Córica, J. (2020). Resistencia docente al cambio: Caracterización y estrategias para un problema no resuelto [Teacher resistance to change: Characterization and strategies for an unresolved problem]. Revista Iberoamericana de Educación a Distancia 23(2), 255-272. https://doi.org/10.5944/ried.23.2.26578

Córica, J., & García, L. (2018). Estudio cualitativo de factores de resistencia docente al cambio tecnológico en Argentina [Teacher resistance to technological change in Argentina: A qualitative approach]. Educación Superior, 17(25), 29-39.

Davis, F. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS quarterly.

de Benito, B., Darder, A., & Salinas, J. (2015). Audio y vídeo digital en la práctica educativa [Digital audio and video in educational practice]. Síntesis.

Fishbein, M., & Azjen, I. (1975). Formation of intentions. Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Addison-Wesley

Gil-Flores, J., Rodríguez-Santero, J., & Torres-Gordillo, J.-J. (2017). Factors that explain the use of ICT in secondary-education classrooms: The role of teacher characteristics and school infrastructure. Computers in Human Behavior, 68, 441-449. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CHB.2016.11.057

Guo, Ph., Kim, J., & Rubin, R. (2014). How MOOC video production affects student engagement: an empirical study of MOOC videos. edX

He, J., & King, W. (2008). The role of user participation in information systems development: Implications from a meta-analysis. Journal of Management Information Systems, 25(1), 301-331. https://doi.org/10.2753/MIS0742-1222250111

Hilliger, I., Ortiz-Rojas, M., Pesántez-Cabrera, P., Scheihing, E., Tsai, Y. S., Muñoz-Merino, P. J., Broos, T., Whitwlock-Wainwright, A. & Pérez-Sanagustín, M. (2020). Identifying needs for learning analytics adoption in Latin American universities: A mixed-methods approach. The Internet and Higher Education, 45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2020.100726

Hsiao, C., & Yang, C. (2011). The intellectual development of the technology acceptance model: A co-citation analysis. International Journal of Information Management, 31(2), 128-136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2010.07.003

Huang, Y. (2019). Exploring students’ acceptance of educational computer games from the perspective of learning strategy. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 35(3). https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.3330

Iqbal, S., & Ahmed, Z. (2015). An investigation of university student readiness towards m-learning using Technology Acceptance Model. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 16(4), 83-103. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v16i4.2351

Jou, M., & Wang, J. (2013). Observations of achievement and motivation in using cloud computing driven CAD: Comparison of college students with high school and vocational high school backgrounds. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(2), 364-369. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.08.001

Kim. K., Hwang, J., & Zo, H. (2016). Understanding users’ continuance intention toward smartphone augmented reality applications. Information Development, 32(2), 161-174. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0266666914535119

Kumar, S., & Kumar, J. (2013). Technology acceptance model for the use of learning through websites among students in Oman. International Arab Journal of e-Technology, 3(1), 44-49.

Lee, D., & Lehto, M. (2013). User acceptance of YouTube for procedural learning: An extension of the Technology Acceptance Model. Computers & Education, 61, 193-208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.10.001

Liu, S., Li, Y., & Hua, G. (2019). Human pose estimation in video via structured space learning and halfway temporal evaluation. IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, 29(7), 2029-2038. https://doi.org/10.1109/TCSVT.2018.2858828

López-Bonilla, L., & López-Bonilla, J. (2011). Los modelos de adopción de tecnologías de la información desde el paradigma actitudinal [Information technology adoption models from the attitudinal paradigm]. Cuadernos, 9(1), 177-197. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1679-39512011000100011

Lorenzo, C. Alarcón, M., & Gómez, M. (2011). Adopción de redes sociales virtuales: ampliación del modelo de aceptación tecnológica integrando confianza y riesgo percibido [Adoption of virtual social networks: Extending the Technology Acceptance Model by integrating trust and perceived risk]. Cuadernos de Economía y Dirección de la Empresa, 14(3), 194-205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cede.2010.12.003

Martínez, S., & Fernández, B. (2018). Objetos de Realidad Aumentada: percepciones del alumnado de Pedagogía [Augmented reality objects: Perceptions of pedagogy students]. Pixel-Bit. Revista de Medios y Educación, (53), 207-220. https://doi.org/10.12795/pixelbit.2018.i53.14

Mayer, R. (2003). Multimedia learning. Cambridge University Press.

Mercader, C. (2019). Las resistencias del profesorado universitario a la utilización de las tecnologías digitales [Faculty resistance to using digital technologies]. Aula Abierta, 48(2), 167-174. https://doi.org/10.17811/rifie.48.2.2019.167-174

Monedero, C., & Monedero, J. (2013). Uso y selección de videos en educación [Use and selection of videos in education]. Síntesis.

O’Dwyer, L., & Bernauer, J. (2014). Quantitative research for the qualitative researcher. SAGE.

Pérez-Díaz, R. (2019). Competencia Digital Docente en los Institutos Superiores de Formación de Maestros: Caso de República Dominicana [Teachers’ digital competence in higher teacher training institutes: The case of the Dominican Republic]. Pixel-Bit. Revista de Medios y Educación, (55), 75 97. https://doi.org/10.12795/pixelbit.2019.i55.05

Prieto, A. (2017). Flipped Learning: aplicar el modelo de aprendizaje inverso [Flipped learning: Applying the flipped learning model]. Narcea Ediciones.

Rodríguez-Ardura, I., & Meseguer-Artola, A. (2017). Flow in e-learning: What drives it and why it matters. British Journal of Educational Technology, 48(4), 899-915. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12480

Santiago, R., Díez, A., & Andía, L. A. (2017). Flipped classroom: 33 experiencias que ponen patas arriba el aprendizaje [Flipped classroom: 33 experiences that turn learning on its head]. Editorial UOC.

Teo, T., & Noyes, J. (2011). An assessment of the influence of perceived enjoyment and attitude on the intention to use technology among pre-service teachers: a structural equation modeling approach. Computers & Education, 57(2), 1645-1653. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.03.002

Urquidi, A., Calabor, M., & Tamarit, C. (2019). Entornos virtuales de aprendizaje: modelo ampliado de aceptación de la tecnología [Virtual learning environments: extending the technology acceptance model]. Revista Electrónica de Investigación Educativa, 21(22), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.24320/redie.2019.21.e22.1866

Vázquez, E., López, E., & Barroso, J. (2015). El futuro de los MOOC. Retos de la formación online, masiva y abierta [The future of MOOCs. Challenges for massive, open, online training]. Síntesis.

Wai-tsz, R., Chi-kin, J., Chang, Ch., Zhang, Z., Chiu, A. & Ping, C. (2014). Digital teaching portfolio in higher education: Examining colleagues’ perceptions to inform implementation strategies. The Internet and Higher Education, 20, 60-68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2013.06.003

Yong, L., Rivas, L., & Chaparro-Peláez, J. (2010). Technological acceptance model (TAM): a study of the influence of the national culture and of the user profile in the use of ICTS. Innovar, 20(36), 187-203.

Yousafzai, S., Foxall, G., & Pallister, J. (2007). Technology acceptance: a meta‐analysis of the TAM: Part 1. Journal of Modelling in Management, 2(3), 251-280. https://doi.org/10.1108/17465660710834453

Zhang, C., Pang, H., Liu, J., Tang, S., Zhang, R., Wang, D., & Sun, L. (2019). Toward edge-assisted video content intelligent caching with long short-term memory learning. IEEE Access, 7, 152832–152846. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2947067