Investigation of the Factors Affecting Open and Distance Education Learners’ Intentions to Use a Virtual Laboratory

Keywords: virtual laboratories, open learning, distance education, technology acceptance


Laboratories, which are an integral part of education in disciplines that require hands-on training and application, can now be presented using new technologies, and application activities can be realized at a distance. In this study, virtual laboratories (VLs) are discussed, and factors affecting the students’ intention to use VLs are investigated. The study was conducted within laboratory applications of circuit analysis within an associate degree program of a distance teaching university in Turkey. In this study, which used exploratory sequential design approach, the learners’ intentions to use a VL were examined within the framework of the technology acceptance model (TAM). Content analysis was used for the analysis of qualitative data, and the partial least squares structural equation model was used for the analysis of quantitative data. As a result of the study, the developed TAM-based research model is a useful conceptual framework towards understanding and explaining the intentions of learners’ virtual laboratory usage. The results of this study will guide institutions to integrate VLs effectively into the education process and to increase and disseminate the use of VLs by learners.


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.

Camarero, C., Rodríguez, J., & José, R. S. (2012). An exploratory study of online forums as a collaborative learning tool. Online Information Review, 36(4), 568–586.

Chin, W. W. (1998). The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. In G. A. Marcoulides (Ed.), Modern methods for business research (pp. 295–336). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Routledge.

Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (4th ed.). Pearson.

Dalgarno, B. (2002). The potential of 3D virtual learning environments: A constructivist analysis. Electronic Journal of Instructional Science and Technology, 5(2), 1–19.

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), 982–1003.

Fathema, N., Shannon, D., & Ross, M. (2015). Expanding the technology acceptance model (TAM) to examine faculty use of learning management systems (LMSs) in higher education institutions. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 11(2), 210–232.

Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: Algebra and atatistics. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(3), 382–388.

Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2011). PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 19(2), 139–152.

Hair, J. F., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., & Mena, J. A. (2012). An assessment of the use of partial least squares structural equation modeling in marketing research. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40(3), 414–433.

Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. N. (1982). The role of the laboratory in science teaching: Neglected aspects of research. Review of Educational Research, 52(2), 201–217.

Hung, J. F., & Tsai, C. Y. (2020). The effects of a virtual laboratory and meta-cognitive scaffolding on students’ data modeling competences. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 19(6), 923–939.

Iqbal, S., & Bhatti, Z. A. (2015). An investigation of university student readiness towards M-learning using technology acceptance model. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 16(4).

Kang, M., & Shin, W. S. (2015). An empirical investigation of student acceptance of synchronous e-learning in an online university. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 52(4), 475–495.

Kennepohl, D. K. (2013). Learning from blended chemistry laboratories. In K. S. Iyer (Ed.), 2013 IEEE Fifth International Conference on Technology for Education (pp. 135–138).

Kennepohl, D. K. (2017). Providing effective teaching laboratories at an open university. International Journal on Innovations in Online Education, 1(4).

Khor, E. T. (2014). An analysis of ODL student perception and adoption behavior using the technology acceptance model. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 15(6), 275–288.

Meester, M. A. M., & Kirschner, P. A. (1995). Practical work at the Open University of the Netherlands. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 4(2), 127–140.

Ringle, C. M., Wende, S., & Becker, J.-M. (2015). SmartPLS (Version 3) [Computer software]. SmartPLS.

Stefanovic, M. (2013). The objectives, architectures and effects of distance learning laboratories for industrial engineering education. Computers & Education, 69, 250–262.

Sun, H. M., & Cheng, W. L. (2009). The input-interface of webcam applied in 3D virtual reality systems. Computers & Education, 53(4), 1231–1240.

Tan, P. J. B. (2015). English e-learning in the virtual classroom and the factors that influence ESL (English as a second language): Taiwanese citizens’ acceptance and use of the modular object-oriented dynamic learning environment. Social Science Information, 54(2), 211–228.

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

Wolski, R., & Jagodzinski, P. (2019). Virtual laboratory—Using a hand movement recognition system to improve the quality of chemical education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(1), 218–231.

How to Cite
Çivril, H., & Özkul, A. E. (2021). Investigation of the Factors Affecting Open and Distance Education Learners’ Intentions to Use a Virtual Laboratory. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 22(2), 143-165.
Research Articles