Applying the TAM Framework to Inform Faculty Participation in Course Quality Reviews

Authors

  • Efren de la Mora Velasco University of Central Florida
  • Roslyn Miller University of Central Florida
  • Florence Williams University of Central Florida
  • Aimee deNoyelles University of Central Florida

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v29i3.5079

Keywords:

course quality reviews, technology acceptance, TAM, online courses, technology, self-efficacy, structural equation modeling

Abstract

Higher Education Institutions promote course reviews as a strategy to increase the quality of online learning. However, little is known about the factors that affect faculty participation and engagement in course quality reviews. The present study expands the Technology Acceptance Model by examining factors of faculty’s use intentions of course quality reviews. A questionnaire was administered to test the theoretical new model. 119 responses from faculty eligible to complete course quality reviews were analyzed using PLS-SEM. The results revealed that perceived usefulness was a statistically significant predictor of intention to participate in course quality reviews, followed by subjective norm. Subjective norm was found to be a predictor of perceived usefulness. Faculty technology self-efficacy also played a key role by enhancing perceived ease of use of course quality reviews. Theoretical implications, as well as implications at the institutional, departmental, peer, and student level, are discussed.

Author Biographies

Efren de la Mora Velasco, University of Central Florida

Efren de la Mora Velasco holds a doctoral degree in education with a specialization in instructional design and technology from the University of Central Florida. He is currently an instructional designer in the Center for Distributed Learning in the same institution.

Roslyn Miller, University of Central Florida

Roslyn Miller is an instructional designer with University of Central Florida’s Center for Distributed Learning with more than 20 years’ experience as an educator in public, private, military, and university settings. She holds a PhD in Curriculum and Instruction from Mississippi State University, and her experience includes designing and teaching online courses, conducting faculty development, researching educational initiatives, evaluating educational programs, and developing large-scale assessments. Roslyn’s research focuses on faculty development, quality instructional design, effective teaching in STEM disciplines, and online assessment.

Florence Williams, University of Central Florida

Dr. Florence Williams is an instructional designer at the University of Central Florida, where she has served since 2020. With over two decades of experience in higher education across public and private institutions, she specializes in course design enhancement and faculty development for online and blended learning environments. Her leadership in educational technology integration and curriculum development has advanced pedagogical innovation throughout her career.

Dr. Williams' research focuses on inclusive excellence in higher education and the implementation of emerging technologies in teaching and learning, with findings presented at numerous national and international conferences. She has published in open educational journals and academic books and actively contributes to professional organizations in instructional design and educational technology. She holds expertise in the intersection of technology, pedagogy, and accessibility in higher education.

Aimee deNoyelles, University of Central Florida

Aimee deNoyelles is a Senior Instructional Designer at the University of Central Florida.

References

Abdallah, N. A., Ahlan, A. R., & Abdullah, O. A. (2019). The role of quality factors on learning management systems adoption from instructors’ perspectives. The Online Journal of Distance Education and E-Learning, 7(2), 133–150.

Abdullah, F., & Ward, R. (2016). Developing a General Extended Technology Acceptance Model for E-Learning (GETAMEL) by analysing commonly used external factors. Computers in Human Behavior, 56, 238–256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.11.036

About OSCQR – OSCQR – SUNY Online Course Quality Review Rubric. (n.d.). OSCQR.SUNY.EDU. Retrieved July 3, 2025, from https://oscqr.suny.edu/about/about-oscqr/

Afthanorhan, W. M. A. B. W. (2013). A comparison of partial least square structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) and covariance based structural equation modeling (CB-SEM) for confirmatory factor analysis. International Journal of Engineering Science and Innovative Technology, 2(5), 198–205.

Akram, H., Aslam, S., Saleem, A., & Parveen, K. (2021). The Challenges of Online Teaching in Covid-19 Pandemic: A Case Study of Public Universities in Karachi, Pakistan. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 20, 263–282. https://doi.org/10.28945/4784

Alkindi, M. Z. H., Dawood Hafiz, A., Abulibdeh, E., Almurshidi, G., & Abulibdeh, A. (2022). Moderating Effect of Faculty Status in the Relationship between Attitude, Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, Behavioral Intention, Subjective Norms on Mobile Learning Applications. Journal of Positive School Psychology, 6(5), 5359–5379.

Altawalbeh, M. A. (2023). Adoption of Academic Staff to use the Learning Management System (LMS): Applying Extended Technology Acceptance Model (TAM2) for Jordanian Universities. International Journal on Studies in Education (IJonSE, 5(3), 288–300. https://doi.org/10.46328/ijonse.124

Bagasra, A., & Mackinem, M. B. (2019). Addressing Discrepancies in Faculty and Student Perceptions of the Quality and Rigor of Online Courses. In Ensuring Quality and Integrity in Online Learning Programs (pp. 120–148). https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-7844-4.ch005

Brown, V., Williams, F., & Dunn, S. (2024). A Responsive, Consultative Professional Development Model for Online Engagement. In Handbook of Research in Online Learning (pp. 106–132). https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004702813_005

Burch, Z. A., & Mohammed, S. (2019). Exploring Faculty Perceptions about Classroom Technology Integration and Acceptance: A literature review. https://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/facpubs/307

Castro, M. D. B., & Tumibay, G. M. (2021). A literature review: Efficacy of online learning courses for higher education institutions using meta-analysis. Education and Information Technologies, 26(2), 1367–1385. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-019-10027-z

Chin, W. W. (1998). The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. Modern Methods for Business Research, 295(2), 295–336.

Chowdhary, C. (2023). So... What Does an Outstanding Teacher Do?: A Visible Learning Evidence Based Approach. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003264453

Cilsalar-Sagnak, H., & Baran, E. (2021). Faculty members’ planned technology integration behaviour in the context of a faculty technology mentoring programme. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 37(3), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.5912

Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008

Fathema, N., & Sutton, K. L. (2013). Factors influencing faculty members’ Learning Management Systems adoption behavior: An analysis using the Technology Acceptance Model. International Journal of Trends in Economics Management & Technology, 2(6), 20–28.

Fearnley, M. R., & Amora, J. T. (2020). Learning Management System Adoption in Higher Education Using the Extended Technology Acceptance Model. IAFOR Journal of Education, 8(2), 89–106.

Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104

Goodhue, D. L., Lewis, W., & Thompson, R. (2012). Does PLS have advantages for small sample size or non-normal data? MIS Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.2307/41703490

Granić, A. (2022). Educational technology adoption: A systematic review. Education and Information Technologies, 27(7), 9725–9744. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-10951-7

Gunasinghe, A., Hamid, J. A., Khatibi, A., & Azam, S. M. F. (2020). The viability of UTAUT-3 in understanding the lecturer’s acceptance and use of virtual learning environments. International Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning, 12(4), 458. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijtel.2020.110056

Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2014). Multivariate Data Analysis (7th ed.). Pearson Education.

Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2011). PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 19(2), 139–151. https://doi.org/10.2753/MTP1069-6679190202

Hair, J. F., Risher, J. J., Sarstedt, M., & Ringle, C. M. (2019). When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. European Business Review, 31(1), 2–24. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-11-2018-0203

Hair, J., Hollingsworth, C. L., Randolph, A. B., & Chong, A. Y. L. (2017). An updated and expanded assessment of PLS-SEM in information systems research. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 117(3), 442–458. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-04-2016-0130

Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115–135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8

Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118

Ibrahim, R., Leng, N. S., Yusoff, R. C. M., Samy, G. N., Masrom, S., & Rizman, Z. I. (2017). E-learning acceptance based on technology acceptance model (TAM. Journal of Fundamental and Applied Sciences, 9(4S), 871–889.

Kamble, A., Golhar, D., & Kalkar, P. (2022). Technology acceptance for online teaching-learning: Perspectives of teachers from higher education in India. Educational Media International, 59(4), 324–340. https://doi.org/10.1080/09523987.2022.2153989

King, W. R., & He, J. (2006). A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model. Information & Management, 43(6), 740–755. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2006.05.003

Long, T., Cummins, J., & Waugh, M. (2019). Investigating the factors that influence higher education instructors’ decisions to adopt a flipped classroom instructional model. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(4), 2028–2039. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12703

Marangunić, N., & Granić, A. (2015). Technology acceptance model: A literature review from 1986 to 2013. Universal Access in the Information Society, 14(1), 81–95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-014-0348-1

Martin, F., & Bolliger, D. U. (2018). Engagement matters: Student perceptions on the importance of engagement strategies in the online learning environment. Online Learning, 22(1), 205–222.

Miotto, G., Del-Castillo-Feito, C., & Blanco-González, A. (2020). Reputation and legitimacy: Key factors for Higher Education Institutions’ sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Business Research, 112, 342–353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.11.076

Muthuprasad, T., Aiswarya, S., Aditya, K. S., & Jha, G. K. (2021). Students’ perception and preference for online education in India during COVID-19 pandemic. Social Sciences & Humanities Open, 3(1), 100101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2020.100101

Newell, J. R., Bartlett, S., Mixson-Brookshire, D., Moore, J., Powell, T., Lee, S., & Cochran, J. (2021). Time-Efficient Techniques for Improving Student and Instructor Success in Online Courses. International Journal on Advances in Intelligent Systems, 14(3), 193–207.

Park, S. Y. (2009). An analysis of the technology acceptance model in understanding university students’ behavioral intention to use e-learning. Educational Technology & Society, 12(3), 150–162.

Perrotta, K. A., & Bohan, C. H. (2020). A reflective study of online faculty teaching experiences in higher education. Journal of Effective Teaching in Higher Education, 3(1), 50–66. https://doi.org/10.36021/jethe.v3i1.9

Pitsoe, V. J., & Maila, M. W. (2014). Quality and quality assurance in open distance learning (ODL) discourse: Trends, challenges and perspectives. The Anthropologist, 18(1), 251–258. https://doi.org/10.1080/09720073.2014.11891542

Podsiad, M., & Havard, B. (2020). Faculty acceptance of the peer assessment collaboration evaluation tool: A quantitative study. Educational Technology Research & Development, 68(3), 1381–1407. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09742-z

QM Member List | Quality Matters. (n.d.). Retrieved July 3, 2025, from https://www.qualitymatters.org/members

Quality course reviews | Missouri Online: Teaching. (n.d.). Retrieved July 3, 2025, from https://teaching.missouri.edu/design-services/quality-course-reviews

Quality Online Course Design—UCF. (n.d.). University of Central Florida. Retrieved July 3, 2025, from https://cdl.ucf.edu/services/instructional/ucf-quality-initiative/

Ralston-Berg, P., Buckenmeyer, J., Barczyk, C., & Hixon, E. (2015). Students’ Perceptions of Online Course Quality: How Do They Measure Up to the Research? Internet Learning. https://doi.org/10.18278/il.4.1.2

Rucker, R., Edwards, K., & Frass, L. R. (2015). Assessing faculty experiences with and perceptions of an internal quality assurance process for undergraduate distributed learning courses: A pilot study. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 16(4), 35–44.

Sadeck, O. (2022). Technology adoption model: Is use/non-use a case of technological affordances or psychological disposition or pedagogical reasoning in the context of teaching during the Covid-19 pandemic period? In Frontiers in Education (Vol. 7). https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.906195

Salloum, S. A., Alhamad, A. Q. M., Al-Emran, M., Monem, A. A., & Shaalan, K. (2019). Exploring students’ acceptance of e-learning through the development of a comprehensive technology acceptance model. IEEE Access, 7, 128445–128462.

Scherer, R., Siddiq, F., & Tondeur, J. (2019). The technology acceptance model (TAM): A meta-analytic structural equation modeling approach to explaining teachers’ adoption of digital technology in education. Computers & Education, 128, 13–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.09.009

Scherer, R., & Teo, T. (2019). Unpacking teachers’ intentions to integrate technology: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 27, 90–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2019.03.001

Schmitz, B., & Hanke, K. (2023). Engage me: Learners’ expectancies and teachers’ efforts in designing effective online classes. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 39(4), 1132–1140. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12636

Smith, J. A., & Sivo, S. A. (2011). Predicting continued use of online teacher professional development and the influence of social presence and sociability. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(6), 871–882. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2011.01223.x

Smith, M. M., & Macdonald, D. (2015). Assessing quality and effectiveness in fully online distance education. Journal of Perspectives in Applied Academic Practice, 3(1). https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/fb59/df072a3174972cfe1da9e1b97872ab704416.pdf

Sridharan, B., Leitch, S., & Watty, K. (2015). Evidencing learning outcomes: A multi-level, multi-dimensional course alignment model. Quality in Higher Education, 21(2), 171–188. https://doi.org/10.1080/13538322.2015.1051796

Timbi-Sisalima, C., Sánchez-Gordón, M., Hilera-Gonzalez, J. R., & Otón-Tortosa, S. (2022). Quality assurance in e-learning: A proposal from accessibility to sustainability. Sustainability, 14(5), 3052. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14053052

Venkatesh, V., & Bala, H. (2008). Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on interventions. Decision Sciences, 39(2), 273–315. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.2008.00192.x

Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. (1996). A model of the antecedents of perceived ease of use: Development and test. Decision Sciences, 27(3), 451–481. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.1996.tb00860.x

Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186–204. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926

Venkatesh, V., Thong, J. Y., & Xu, X. (2012). Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: Extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS Quarterly, 36(1), 157–178. https://doi.org/10.2307/41410412

Williams, F. (2024). Applying Culturally Responsive Strategies to Promote Engagement and Student Success in Online Courses. In Humanizing Online Teaching and Learning in Higher Education (pp. 140–161). https://doi.org/10.4018/979-8-3693-0762-5.ch007

Wright, S. (2018). Mobile technology adoption: Assessing faculty acceptance using the technology acceptance model [Doctoral dissertation]. Northcentral University.

Zimmerman, W., Altman, B., Simunich, B., Shattuck, K., & Burch, B. (2020). Evaluating online course quality: A study on implementation of course quality standards. Online Learning, 24(4), 147–163. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v24i4.2325

Downloads

Published

2025-09-01

How to Cite

de la Mora Velasco, E., Miller, R., Williams, F., & deNoyelles, A. (2025). Applying the TAM Framework to Inform Faculty Participation in Course Quality Reviews. Online Learning, 29(3), 130–157. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v29i3.5079

Issue

Vol. 29 No. 3 (2025): Online Learning Journal (OLJ)

Section

2025 OLC Conference Special Issue

License

Copyright (c) 2025 Efren de la Mora Velasco, Roslyn Miller, Florence Williams, Aimee deNoyelles

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

As a condition of publication, the author agrees to apply the Creative Commons – Attribution International 4.0 (CC-BY) License to OLJ articles. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

This licence allows anyone to reproduce OLJ articles at no cost and without further permission as long as they attribute the author and the journal. This permission includes printing, sharing and other forms of distribution.

Author(s) hold copyright in their work, and retain publishing rights without restrictions