Skip to main content
Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Factors Affecting Public Employees’ Acceptance of Video Conferencing Tools: An Extended TAM Perspective Cover

Factors Affecting Public Employees’ Acceptance of Video Conferencing Tools: An Extended TAM Perspective

By:  and    
Open Access
|Aug 2025

References

  1. Agrebi, S., & Jallais, J. (2015). Explain the intention to use smartphones for mobile shopping. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 22, 1623. 10.1016/j.jretconser.2014.09.003
  2. Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Prentice-Hall.
  3. Alajmi, M. A., & Said Ali, M. (2021). Video-conference platforms: understanding the antecedents and consequences of participating in or attending virtual conferences in developing countries. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 38(13), 11951211. 10.1080/10447318.2021.1988237
  4. Al-Madadha, A., Al Khasawneh, M. H., Al Haddid, O., & Al-Adwan, A. S. (2022). Adoption of telecommuting in the banking industry: a technology acceptance model approach. Interdisciplinary Journal of Information, Knowledge, and Management, 17, 443470. 10.28945/5023
  5. Al-Samarraie, H. (2019). A scoping review of videoconferencing systems in higher education: learning paradigms, opportunities, and challenges. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 20(3). 10.19173/irrodl.v20i4.4037
  6. Alturki, U., & Aldraiweesh, A. (2022). Adoption of Google Meet by postgraduate students: the role of task technology fit and the TAM model. Sustainability, 14(23), Article 15765. 10.3390/su142315765
  7. Aydın, İ. (2014). Hizmet içi eğitim el kitabı [In-service training handbook]. Pegem Akademi.
  8. Baber, H. (2021). Modelling the acceptance of e-learning during the pandemic of COVID-19 – A study of South Korea. The International Journal of Management Education, 19(2), Article 100503. 10.1016/j.ijme.2021.100503
  9. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. Freeman.
  10. Baturay, M. (2010). Satisfaction and technology acceptance levels of medical instructors taking pediatric electrocardiography course through videoconferencing. Mersin University Journal of the Faculty of Education, 6(1), 145160.
  11. Bozkurt, A., Karakaya, K., Turk, M., Karakaya, Ö., & Castellanos-Reyes, D. (2022). The impact of COVID-19 on education: A meta-narrative review. TechTrends, 66(5), 883896. 10.1007/s11528-022-00759-0
  12. Bozkurt, A., & Sharma, R. C. (2020). Emergency remote teaching in a time of global crisis due to CoronaVirus pandemic. Asian Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), ivi. 10.5281/zenodo.3778083
  13. Camilleri, M. A., & Camilleri, A. C. (2022). The acceptance of learning management systems and video conferencing technologies: Lessons learned from COVID-19. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 27(4), 13111333. 10.1007/s10758-021-09561-y
  14. Carvalho, S. (2000). Modernizing and globalizing the learning environment: Video-conferencing in education. In Proceedings of the University of West Indies Small States Conference 2000 (pp. 299309). Commonwealth of Learning.
  15. Carville, S., & Mitchell, D. R. (2000). “It’s a bit like Star Trek”: The effectiveness of video conferencing. Innovations in Education and Training International, 37(1), 4249. 10.1080/135580000362070
  16. Cavus, N., & Sekyere-Asiedu, D. (2021). A comparison of online video conference platforms: Their contributions to education during COVID-19 pandemic. World Journal on Educational Technology: Current Issues, 13(4), 11621173. 10.18844/wjet.v13i4.6329
  17. Chatzoglou, P. D., Sarigiannidis, L., Vraimaki, E., & Diamantidis, A. (2009). Investigating Greek employees’ intention to use web-based training. Computers & Education, 53(3), 877889. 10.1016/j.compedu.2009.05.007
  18. Chen, J. L. (2011). The effects of education compatibility and technological expectancy on e-learning acceptance. Computers & Education, 57(2), 15011511. 10.1016/j.compedu.2011.02.009
  19. Cheon, J., Lee, S., Crooks, S. M., & Song, J. (2012). An investigation of mobile learning readiness in higher education based on the theory of planned behavior. Computers & Education, 59(3), 10541064. 10.1016/j.compedu.2012.04.015
  20. Compeau, D. R., & Higgins, C. A. (1995). Computer self-efficacy: Development of a measure and initial test. MIS Quarterly, 19(2), 189211. 10.2307/249688
  21. Correia, A. P., Liu, C., & Xu, F. (2020). Evaluating videoconferencing systems for the quality of the educational experience. Distance Education, 41(4), 429452. 10.1080/01587919.2020.1821607
  22. Davis, F. D. (1985). A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-user information systems: Theory and results [Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology]. https://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/15192/14927137-MIT.pdf
  23. Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319340. 10.2307/249008
  24. Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35(8), 9821003. 10.1287/mnsc.35.8.982
  25. Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1992). Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation to use computers in the workplace. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22(14), 11111132. 10.1111/j.1559-1816.1992.tb00945.x
  26. Deng, Z. (2013). Understanding public users’ adoption of mobile health service. International Journal of Mobile Communications, 11(4), 351373. 10.1504/IJMC.2013.055748
  27. Denstadli, J. M., Julsrud, T. E., & Hjorthol, R. J. (2012). Videoconferencing as a mode of communication: A comparative study of the use of videoconferencing and face-to-face meetings. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 26(1), 6591. 10.1177/1050651911421125
  28. Ducey, A. J., & Coovert, M. D. (2016). Predicting tablet computer use: An extended Technology Acceptance Model for physicians. Health Policy and Technology, 5(3), 268284. 10.1016/j.hlpt.2016.03.010
  29. El-Gayar, O., Moran, M., & Hawkes, M. (2011). Students’ acceptance of tablet PCs and implications for educational institutions. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 14(2), 5870.
  30. Escobar-Rodriguez, T., & Monge-Lozano, P. (2012). The acceptance of Moodle technology by business administration students. Computers & Education, 58(4), 10851093. 10.1016/j.compedu.2011.11.012
  31. Finlay, K. A., Trafimow, D., & Villarreal, A. (2002). Predicting exercise and health behavioral intentions: Attitudes, subjective norms and other behavioral determinants. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32(2), 342356. 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2002.tb00219.x
  32. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(3), 3950. 10.1177/002224378101800104
  33. Gabbiadini, A., Paganin, G., & Simbula, S. (2023). Teaching after the pandemic: The role of technostress and organizational support on intentions to adopt remote teaching technologies. Acta Psychologica, 236, Article 103936. 10.1016/j.actpsy.2023.103936
  34. Giday, D. G., & Perumal, E. (2024). Students’ perception of attending online learning sessions post-pandemic. Social Sciences & Humanities Open, 9, Article 100755. 10.1016/j.ssaho.2023.100755
  35. Grant, M. M., & Cheon, J. (2007). The value of using synchronous conferencing for instruction and students. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 6(3), 211226.
  36. Hacker, J., Vom Brocke, J., Handali, J., Otto, M., & Schneider, J. (2020). Virtually in this together–how web-conferencing systems enabled a new virtual togetherness during the COVID-19 crisis. European Journal of Information Systems, 29(5), 563584. 10.1080/0960085X.2020.1814680
  37. Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2011). PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 19(2), 139152. 10.2753/MTP1069-6679190202
  38. Hashim, J. (2008), Factors influencing the acceptance of web-based training in Malaysia: applying the technology acceptance model. International Journal of Training and Development, 12, 253264. 10.1111/j.1468-2419.2008.00307.x
  39. 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, 115135. 10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8
  40. Hong, X., Zhang, M., & Liu, Q. (2021). Preschool teachers’ technology acceptance during the COVID-19: An adapted technology acceptance model. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, Article 691492. 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.691492
  41. Huang, F., Teo, T., & Scherer, R. (2020). Investigating the antecedents of university students’ perceived ease of using the Internet for learning. Interactive Learning Environments, 30(6), 10601076. 10.1080/10494820.2019.1710540
  42. Huang, T. (2023). Factors affecting students’ online courses learning behaviors. Education and Information Technologies, 28(12), 1648516507. 10.1007/s10639-023-11882-7
  43. Hurst, E. J. (2020). Web conferencing and collaboration tools and trends. Journal of Hospital Librarianship, 20(3), 266279. 10.1080/15323269.2020.1780079
  44. Hussain, S. B., Sumiea, E. H. H., Ahmad, M. H., Kumar, S., & Moshood, T. D. (2023). Factors affecting the public higher education institution (PHEI) acceptance of online meetings applications during COVID-19 pandemic: An empirical study. Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education, 15(4), 11461166. 10.1108/JARHE-03-2022-0082
  45. Ji, Z., Yang, Z., Liu, J., & Yu, C. (2019). Investigating users’ continued usage intentions of online learning applications. Information, 10(6), Article 198. 10.3390/info10060198
  46. Karaali, D., Gumussoy, C. A., & Calisir, F. (2011). Factors affecting the intention to use a web-based learning system among blue-collar workers in the automotive industry. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(1), 343354. 10.1016/j.chb.2010.08.012
  47. Koç, N. E. (2022). An example of a digital disease: causes of the “zoom” fatigue and its effects on employees. Turkish Online Journal of Design Art and Communication, 12(2), 383400. 10.7456/11202100/012
  48. Lee, Y. -H., Hsieh, Y.-C., & Chen, Y.-H. (2013). An investigation of employees’ use of e-learning systems: applying the technology acceptance model. Behaviour & Information Technology, 32(2), 173189. 10.1080/0144929X.2011.577190
  49. Lee, Y.-H., Hsieh, Y.-C., & Ma, C.-Y. (2011). A model of organizational employees’ e-learning systems acceptance. Knowledge-Based Systems, 24(3), 355366. 10.1016/j.knosys.2010.09.005
  50. Luarn, P., & Lin, H.-H. (2005). Toward an understanding of the behavioral intention to use mobile banking. Computers in Human Behavior, 21(6), 873891. 10.1016/j.chb.2004.03.003
  51. Marangunić, N., & Granić, A. (2015). Technology acceptance model: a literature review from 1986 to 2013. Universal Access in the Information Society, 14, 8195. 10.1007/s10209-014-0348-1
  52. Miao, R., Wu, Q., Wang, Z., Zhang, X., Song, Y., Zhang, H., Sun, Q., & Jiang, Z. (2017). Factors that influence users’ adoption intention of mobile health: a structural equation modeling approach. International Journal of Production Research, 55(19), 58015815. 10.1080/00207543.2017.1336681
  53. Nalaka, G. P. S., Ranagala, D. L., Gunarathne, G. R. N., Dhammasiri, M., & Prabashini, I. G. N. (2023). Academics’ intention to use zoom meetings for teaching. Anatolian Journal of Education, 8(2), 99112. 10.29333/aje.2023.827a
  54. Nguyen, N. B. (2021). An overview of distance education during the pandemic: Student-teacher communication over videoconferencing platforms [Bachelor’s thesis, Corvinus University of Budapest: Hungary]. https://szd.lib.uni-corvinus.hu/14791/
  55. Nguyen, X.-A., Pho, D.-H., Luong, D. H., & Cao, X.-T.-A. (2021). Vietnamese students’ acceptance of using video conferencing tools in distance learning in Covid-19 pandemic. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 22(3), 139162. 10.17718/tojde.961828
  56. Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
  57. Okabe-Miyamoto, K., Durnell, E., Howell, R. T., & Zizi, M. (2022). Video conferencing during emergency distance learning impacted student emotions during COVID-19. Computers in human behavior reports, 7, 100199. 10.1016/j.chbr.2022.100199
  58. Onur, Z. K. (2021). The use of zoom in teaching Turkish as a foreign language during the COVID-19 epidemic teacher opinions. Journal of Sustainable Education Studies, 2(3), 1527.
  59. Panteli, N., & Dawson, P. (2001). Video conferencing meetings: Changing patterns of business communication. New Technology, Work and Employment, 16(2), 8899. 10.1111/1468-005X.00079
  60. Park, N., Rhoads, M., Hou, J., & Lee, K. M. (2014). Understanding the acceptance of teleconferencing systems among employees: An extension of the technology acceptance model. Computers in Human Behavior, 39, 118127. 10.1016/j.chb.2014.05.048
  61. Park, Y., Son, H., & Kim, C. (2012). Investigating the determinants of construction professionals’ acceptance of web-based training: An extension of the technology acceptance model. Automation in Construction, 22, 377386. 10.1016/j.autcon.2011.09.016
  62. Riedl, R. (2022). On the stress potential of videoconferencing: definition and root causes of Zoom fatigue. Electronic Markets, 32(1), 153177. 10.1007/s12525-021-00501-3
  63. Saheb, T. (2020). An empirical investigation of the adoption of mobile health applications: integrating big data and social media services. Health and Technology, 10(5), 10631077. 10.1007/s12553-020-00422-9
  64. Schepers, J., & Wetzels, M. (2007). A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model: Investigating subjective norm and moderation effects. Information & Management, 44(1), 90103. 10.1016/j.im.2006.10.007
  65. Smyth, R. (2005). Broadband videoconferencing as a tool for learner-centred distance learning in higher education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(5), 805820. 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2005.00499.x
  66. Sonmez, A., & Ozdamar, N. (2024). Examining the factors related to learners’ intention and usage continuity of online learning. Open Praxis, 16(2), 195207. 10.55982/openpraxis.16.2.570
  67. Soria-Barreto, K., Ruiz-Campo, S., Al-Adwan, A. S., & Zuniga-Jara, S. (2021). University students intention to continue using online learning tools and technologies: An international comparison. Sustainability, 13(24), Article 13813. 10.3390/su132413813
  68. Steelman, Z. R., & Soror, A. A. (2017). Why do you keep doing that? The biasing effects of mental states on IT continued usage intentions. Computers in Human Behavior, 73, 209223. 10.1016/j.chb.2017.03.027
  69. Taş, M., & Kiraz, A. (2023). A Model for the acceptance and use of online meeting tools. Systems, 11(12), Article 558. 10.3390/systems11120558
  70. Taylor, S., & Todd, P. A. (1995). Understanding information technology usage: A test of competing models. Information Systems Research, 6(2), 144176. 10.1287/isre.6.2.144
  71. Teo, T. (2009). Modelling technology acceptance in education: A study of pre-service teachers. Computers & Education, 52(2), 302312. 10.1016/j.compedu.2008.08.006
  72. Teo, T., Faruk Ursavaş, Ö., & Bahçekapili, E. (2011). Efficiency of the technology acceptance model to explain pre-service teachers’ intention to use technology: A Turkish study. Campus-Wide Information Systems, 28(2), 93101. 10.1108/10650741111117798
  73. Teo, T., Huang, F., & Hoi, C. K. W. (2018). Explicating the influences that explain intention to use technology among English teachers in China. Interactive Learning Environments, 26(4), 460475. 10.1080/10494820.2017.1341940
  74. 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), 16451653. 10.1016/j.compedu.2011.03.002
  75. Teo, T., Ursavaş, Ö. F., & Bahçekapılı, E. (2012). An assessment of pre-service teachers’ technology acceptance in Turkey: A structural equation modeling approach. Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 21(1), 191202.
  76. Terzis, V., & Economides, A. A. (2011). The acceptance and use of computer based assessment. Computers & Education, 56(4), 10321044. 10.1016/j.compedu.2010.11.017
  77. Terzis, V., Moridis, C. N., & Economides, A. A. (2013). Continuance acceptance of computer based assessment through the integration of user’s expectations and perceptions. Computers & Education, 62, 5061. 10.1016/j.compedu.2012.10.018
  78. Thompson, R. L., Higgins, C. A., & Howell, J. M. (1991). Personal computing: Toward a conceptual model of utilization. MIS Quarterly, 15(1), 125143. 10.2307/249443
  79. Tırpan, E. C., & Bakırtaş, H. (2024). Technology Acceptance Model 3 in Understanding Employee’s Cloud Computing Technology. Global Business Review, 25(1), 117136. 10.1177/0972150920957173
  80. Torres, C. C. (2021). Adaptation and validation of technostress creators and technostress inhibitors inventories in a Spanish-speaking Latin American country. Technology in Society, 66, Article 101660. 10.1016/j.techsoc.2021.101660
  81. Ursavaş, Ö. F. (2014). Modeling and examining teachers’ ICT acceptance (Publication No. 356715) [Doctoral dissertation, Gazi University, Türkiye].
  82. Venkatesh, V. (2000). Determinants of perceived ease of use: Integrating control, intrinsic motivation, and emotion into the technology acceptance model. Information Systems Research, 11(4), 342365. 10.1287/isre.11.4.342.11872
  83. Venkatesh, V., & Bala, H. (2008). Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on interventions. Decision Sciences, 39(2), 273315. 10.1111/j.1540-5915.2008.00192.x
  84. Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186204. 10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926
  85. Verkijika, S. F. (2019). Digital textbooks are useful but not everyone wants them: The role of technostress. Computers & Education, 140, 103591. 10.1016/j.compedu.2019.05.017
  86. Wang, X., & Yu, X. (2024). Art Students’ Technostress, Perceived Usefulness, Satisfaction, and Continuance Intention to Use Mobile Educational Applications. Sage Open, 14(2). 10.1177/21582440241260206
  87. Wu, R., & Yu, Z. (2023). The influence of social isolation, technostress, and personality on the acceptance of online meeting platforms during the COVID-19 pandemic. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 39(17), 33883405. 10.1080/10447318.2022.2097779
  88. Yazici, H. J. (2025). Learner acceptance of video conferencing technologies and e-professionalism. Education and Information Technologies, 30, 18211847. 10.1007/s10639-024-12880-z
  89. Zobeidi, T., Homayoon, S. B., Yazdanpanah, M., Komendantova, N., & Warner, L. A. (2023). Employing the TAM in predicting the use of online learning during and beyond the COVID-19 pandemic. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, Article 1104653. 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1104653
Language: English
Page range: 467 - 484
Submitted on: Dec 3, 2024
Accepted on: Mar 5, 2025
Published on: Aug 11, 2025
Published by: International Council for Open and Distance Education (ICDE)
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services

© 2025 Baki Bulduk, Erhan Ünal, published by International Council for Open and Distance Education (ICDE)
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.