2.3.1.1
In order to understand the user, the user’s needs have to be identified where the system is used in the real context (Roto, 2007). These features could influence the user’s satisfaction in the workplace and should be acknowledged because some of these features may motivate the user to be more encouraged to use the technology (Zhang et al., 1999). Herzberg's (1966) classic motivation-hygiene theory holds a viewpoint which reflects on users’ needs and motivational factors that influence the use of technology in the workplace. These are factors such as challenging work, recognition, achievement and personal growth that give positive satisfaction. Herzberg (1966) found hygiene factors (e.g. status, job security and work conditions) to satisfy basic physiological, safety and social needs as determined earlier by Maslow (1943). These factors do not give positive satisfaction, though dissatisfaction results from their absence. The factors are external to the tasks itself, and include aspects such as company policies and supervisory practices. Zhang et al. (1999) propose that these motivational features will contribute to the user satisfaction and will, therefore encourage the use of the technology. Additional to this, classic needs theories (Maslow, 1943; Herzberg, 1966) suggest that people are motivated by internal needs together with process theories that elucidate cognitive processes used by people to motivate themselves and emphasize employee’s perceptions and expectations of work. It was also found that positive attitudes toward information systems improved the use of the system (DeSantis, 1983; Zhang et al., 1999; Zhang & Li, 2004; Zhang, Li & Sun, 2006).
E. de Kock - MSc Dissertation
26 These factors could relate to the description of UX where the motivational factors are related to the user’s needs (such as inter alia achievement, autonomy and challenges) and in addition the hygiene factors are related to the context (i.e. institutional policies and standards) (Tuch & HornbÆk, 2015).
UX goes beyond just measurement of usability, it also focuses on the user’s true needs (Partala & Kallinen, 2012). Therefore, it has to be recognised what the needs and values of the user are in order to evaluate the product design (Väänänen-vainio-mattila, Hassenzahl, Landau, Fort, et al. 2008). The current study distinguishes between pragmatic quality (usefulness and ease of use of the system) and hedonic quality (e.g. originality, innovativeness). Pragmatic quality addresses the human need for control and security, where the hedonic quality could address the human need for novelty, change, challenge or social power (Hassenzahl et al., 2000; Partala & Kallinen, 2012). The user’s perception (e.g. perceived usability) influences the use and behaviour when using the system (Hassenzahl & Tractinsky, 2006; Gamage, Tretiakov & Crump, 2011). Hassenzahl (2004) proposed that the “hedonic quality refers to the users’ self; it relates to stimulation, i.e. the product’s ability to stimulate and enable personal growth, and identification, i.e. the product’s ability to address the need of expressing one’s self through objects one owns” (Karapanos et al., 2010:2). Adjacent to this is the influence of perceived visual attractiveness that seems to be important for user satisfaction in research done by (Tractinsky, Katz & Ikar, 2000). Two of the factors that influence individuals' decisions to use technology as a tool for productive work are perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use (Salajan et al., 2011). This will consequently have an impact on the user’s acceptance of the LMS (Al-Busaidi & Al-Shihi, 2010).
Since the academic lecturer certainly wants to produce effective facilitation through technology (Koehler & Mishra, 2009), this needs to translate into specific requirements for what content the product will support and what functionality the product will offer to the user (Gamage, Tretiakov & Crump, 2011; Garrett, 2011). In order to design or create an effective learning environment, the facilitator (academic) requires an analysis of the expected learning outcome, identification of the relevant support mechanisms and a choice of the appropriate instructional methodologies. The facilitator furthermore needs to have knowledge of the technology being used (Kizito, 2003).
Results from a study done by Hassenzahl (2008) indicated that a feeling of competence was the most significant psychological need, followed by autonomy and relatedness. Supported by Partala and Kallinen (2012) psychological needs indicated that feelings of autonomy, competence and high self-esteem seemed to correlate with the most satisfying experiences and missing in the unsatisfying experiences.
E. de Kock - MSc Dissertation
27
Skills of the user
2.3.1.2
Academic lecturing staff members often have insufficient expertise in integrating technologies into facilitation and instruction of the educational course material. Most academic lecturing staff members have limited technology integrated learning experiences, having never completed academic coursework that was facilitated through technology (Koehler & Mishra, 2009). Therefore, the inclusion of technology in pedagogy complicates teaching. Technology is ever-changing and difficult to master and academic lecturing staff members have to receive training and support in order to be innovative in their use of technology for facilitation of their coursework (Siritongthaworn, Krairit, Dimmitt & Paul, 2006; Panda & Mishra, 2007). In order to integrate the use of technology in their teaching, academic facilitators need to understand the complex interaction among three bodies of knowledge, namely content (subject matter), pedagogics (instruction and understanding how the student thinks and learns) and technology (Mishra & Koehler, 2006). It was on the bases of these three knowledge fundamentals that the TPACK framework has been proposed by Mishra & Koehler (2006) and they have extended the idea of Shulman’s (1986) classic concept of “Pedagogical Content Knowledge” (PCK) by adding the descriptions of teachers’ comprehension of educational technologies – hence the conception of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK). TPACK is an understanding that progresses from interactions among content, pedagogy, and technology knowledge. The skill to construct teaching with the understanding of concepts using technologies; using pedagogical techniques to use technology effectively to teach content; knowledge of using technology to teach difficult concepts; knowledge of the target group’s prior knowledge. The TPACK framework could support techniques to unravel the possible means of integration of knowledge through technology in education. This provides an alternative to the simplified way to use technology just as an add-on.