Figure 1
Technology Acceptance Model (Venkatesh & Davis, 2000, p. 188)
Table 1
Coding Guideline
| Category Subcategory | Variable | Indicator | Guideline question |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subjective norm (d) | Perceived image of the VSB | The interviewee speaks about the perceived image of the VSB in his/her school | How do you/Please describe the opinions of the VSB in your school? |
| Image (d) | Personal impact of the VSB's image | The interviewee speaks about the influence of the image towards his/her own opinion | You have told us about a rather positive/negative opinion at your school. How did you personally perceive the VSB? |
| Voluntariness (d) | Terms of use | The interviewee speaks about the perceived terms of use | How was the VSB implemented? Did it appear voluntary or mandatory to you? |
| Experience (d) | Individual experience with the VSB | The interviewee speaks about their personal experience with the VSB | How do you describe your experience with the VSB? |
| How often do you use the VSB? | |||
| What was a hinderance/benefit for use? | |||
| Beneficial aspects (i) | |||
| Hindering aspects (i) | |||
| Job relevance (d) | |||
| Task description (i) | Individual description of the tasks of the VSB | The interviewee described the tasks that the VSB should undertake | How do you describe the tasks, that the VSB shall undertake? |
| Adjustment (i) | Adjustment of how well the VSB matches teachers tasks | The interviewee describes the extent of adjustments between the VSB and his/her own tasks | Which tasks did the VSB actually undertake? |
| Output Quality (d) | Perceived quality of the VSB for teachers | The interviewee describes the actual output of using the VSB | Which tasks did the VSB actually undertake? |
| Further development suggestions (i) | Development suggestions | The interviewee speaks about ideas to improve the VSB | Do you have any further suggestions for the development of the VSB? |
[i] Note: d = deductive; i = inductive
Table 2
Examples for Definition, Anchor Examples and Coding Rules for Job Relevance
| Subcategory | Definition | Anchor Examples | Coding Rules |
|---|---|---|---|
| Task description of the VSB | The individual description of tasks the VSB undertakes | ‘A platform to present pupils with various special needs, to upload documents and more’ (GGS1–I3) | Code all statements referring to which tasks the VSB is supposed to undertake in the interviewees understanding |
| Adjustment of own tasks and the VSB | All statements containing information about the adjustment of teachers’ tasks and the VSB | ‘Indeed I teach students, who are problematic and predestined for the platform or the platform is predestined for those students…’ (GGS1–I5) | The interviewee speaks about the perceived adjustment of his/her own tasks and the supportive functions of the VSB |
Table 3
Intercoder Reliability
| Category Subcategory | Total of coded passages | Total: Coder A | Total: Coder B | Total: Common codings/Holsti-r |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 1298 | 642 | 656 | 615 |
| Image | 226 | 109 | 117 | 0.96 |
| Subjective norm | 102 | 50 | 52 | 0.98 |
| Voluntariness | 67 | 33 | 34 | 0.99 |
| Experience – frequency | 128 | 66 | 62 | 0.91 |
| Experience | 291 | 145 | 146 | 0.98 |
| Beneficial aspects | 84 | 42 | 42 | 0.98 |
| Hindering aspects | 207 | 103 | 104 | 0.98 |
| Job relevance | 235 | 118 | 117 | |
| Task description | 101 | 54 | 47 | 0.81 |
| Adjustment | 134 | 64 | 70 | 0.89 |
| Output quality | 125 | 62 | 63 | 0.98 |
| Further development suggestions | 124 | 59 | 65 | 1,00 |
Table 4
Main Results
| Categories Coding rule | Reduction | Frequency |
|---|---|---|
| Subjective norm All statements that provide information about how the VSB is viewed at the school | Enthusiastic, positive, positive in the first instance and thankful for its clarity | 6 |
| Concerned, linked with negative emotions, shyness and frustration | 10 | |
| Additional barrier (especially in stressful times), an extra burden, additional work, a barrier, critical, negative, not sufficient and an overload | 16 | |
| Mostly veteran colleagues with little technical expertise struggle | 1 | |
| Voluntariness The interviewee describes the extent to which the usage decision was perceived as binding | Using the VSB was perceived as voluntary | 9 |
| Using the VSB was perceived as a commitment | 5 | |
| Using the VSB was perceived as mandatory | 9 | |
| Image The pedagogical specialist speaks about the influence of the VSB's image on her/his own opinion | Positive attitude towards the VSB at first | 10 |
| Decreasing positive attitude with increasing use results in confusion, frustration and little use | 3 | |
| Positive for its practicability, the overview and display of information, gaining time, companionship through SEN assessments and individual educational plan, interdisciplinary teamwork (e.g. with speech therapists), documentation and companionship for individual support especially in bigger school systems | 25 | |
| Despite current problematic issues teachers are confident about the future of the VSB. They verbalise a need for change and further training, vote for digitalisation and see opportunities | 11 | |
| Negative attitude towards the VSB. VSB as a barrier, time-consuming, additional workload, complicated, mysterious, non-self-explanatory and formulate concerns towards monitoring by their employers | 46 | |
| Experience Code all passages, providing information on how often the VSB was used | weekly, 3h/week, weekly to monthly for the documentation of discussions with parents, support of students, for research aims or as a support for SEN-assessment | 16 |
| Continuous in the first 1–2 months, but decrease the use a short time after. They report rare use, often too rare to develop any sort of routine | 11 | |
| Teachers never used the VSB, only for a single instance, but never as a whole | 11 | |
| Experience - beneficial aspects All statements on the beneficial aspects of the overall conception of the VSB | Teachers perceive the overview a beneficial | 11 |
| Teachers liked the connection of diagnostic instruments and the options given for evaluation in a step-by-step education process | 8 | |
| Teachers liked the use of the VSB as a platform for an interactive exchange with their colleagues | 13 | |
| Experience - hindering aspects All statements on hindering aspects of the overall conception of the VSB | Teachers experience hardware and technical problems. Missing scanner, notebooks and computer and no reliable connection hinder usage | 8 |
| The identified hindering aspects such as technical obstacles lead to frustration, stress, disillusionment and require a great deal of time and additional workload | 26 | |
| Functionality (e.g. when uploading differing file formats), user-friendliness, complicated mapping, user interface, little intuitive handling, focus on competences, inflexibility, the evaluation of set goals, no option to sign documents, data protection | 57 | |
| Missing letters of agreement by student parents, technical problems at the introductory event, little collegial support, missing routine and workspaces, exchange with school administration and the distance to get help | 4 | |
| Job relevance - task description All statements are coded to describe the function of the VSB in school in general language | Give an overview and summary of teachers, pupils and their support, the evaluation of diagnostic instruments, provide guidance within the process of diagnostic instruments, enhance multi-professional teamwork, provide a platform to display information, offer an interface for multidisciplinary interaction (including professions outside the school systems), guide and support teachers, point out errors, administer data and facilitate SEN initiations, digitisation and the reachability of data as tasks | 53 |
| Job relevance – adjustment of teachers’ tasks and VSB performance All statements are codes that describe the adjustment of teachers’ tasks and VSB performance | Matched teachers’ task when analysing diagnostic instruments for conscientious procedures when supporting students. Relevant for documentation, multi-professional teamwork, conscientious evaluation and creating small-step educational plans for students. Supportive and accompaniment when SEN initiatives were conducted | 21 |
| Limited in matching teachers tasks. Speech disorders and competencies missing, difficulties with specific terms, missed opportunities for continuous documentation and struggled in collaborating with other schools when hiring diagnostic instruments. Documents provided were not sufficient for SEN assessments and took too much time | 13 | |
| Did not fit the teacher's tasks. Additional work and time with no clear usage. No assurance for privacy; not enough flexibility to work from home. Analogue work or other software and communication systems are preferred. Did not fit with the technical equipment of the school or their technical expertise | 26 | |
| Output quality All statements focussed on the specific fulfilment of tasks of the VSB | Evaluation of diagnostic material, availability of diagnostic material, accompaniment and support, advancement of inclusion, possibility to document discussions with parents, continuous documentation, easing school change, output for digitisation and new types of educational plans, collection of data and the outcome for individual students and students with emotional and behavior disorder and learning difficulties | 18 |
| Limited, because they are currently familiarising themselves, continuity is missing, technical hurdles limit its use, they face problems with the software, they spent a lot of time searching for buttons and use the VSB only as a shelf, agreements and collaboration continue to run analogously and analogue work is preferred | 11 | |
| No benefit because analogue work is rated as more effective, technical hurdles are too great, perceived as a burden/extra work/challenge/complicated, they have not used the hiring platform, there were no pupils matching or their educational plans differed Some teachers believe that future output is realistic | 30 | |
| Further development suggestions Code all passages for further development suggestions for the VSB | Improved design and user interface, print options, cloud functions for home office, extension of speech disabilities, library function, specific areas for educational plan, customisation, hints, links to other software, apps and tablets, tutorials, handbooks, dummy students, fixed VSB work times, extensive schoolwide use, step-by-step training of experts and later colleagues, training days | 56 |
| Category | Guideline questions |
|---|---|
| Image | You have told us about a rather positive/negative impression of the VSB at your school. How did you personally perceive the VSB? |
| To what extent do you comprehend (alternatively understand) or disagree with your colleagues’ opinions? | |
| Subjective norm | How would you describe the opinion of the VSB at your school? |
| What did you perceive? | |
| Voluntariness | How was the VSB introduced to your school? How do you feel about the decision regarding usage? |
| Mandatory or voluntary? | |
| Experience | How would you describe your personal experiences using the VSB? |
| How often do you use the VSB? | |
| Job relevance | Can you describe what the VSB is supposed to offer teachers? |
| Which tasks does the VSB undertake and which does it not undertake? | |
| Output quality | Which tasks in school does the VSB take on and which does it not undertake? |
| How well did the system work? | |
| Further development suggestions | Which other aspects are important to you? |
| Are there other issues on which you would like to report or focus? |