International Journal of Education and Development using Information and Communication Technology

(IJEDICT), 2023, Vol. 19, Issue 1, pp. 80-101

Investigating College Students’ and Instructors’ Perspectives on Adopting

Technologies for Public Speaking Skills Development in a Hispanic Serving
University

Ying Cheng, Maggie Boyraz, Julie L. Taylor and Rosemarie Gilbert

California State University, San Bernardino, USA
ABSTRACT

Technology has been shown to reduce students’ public speaking anxiety, enhance their delivery
skills, and increase presentation self-efficacy. However, students can only garner benefits if
technology designed for improving public speaking skills has been adopted and implemented. This
study aims to analyze the relationship between students’ communication competence, perceived
technology features, technology satisfaction, and intention to use technology designed for
improving public speaking. In addition, we examined instructors’ insights into incorporating such
technologies for public speaking into classrooms. Based on the technology acceptance model
(TAM), the study focuses on decision-making surrounding the adoption of two technologies for
public speaking (a video-based technology that facilitates real-time feedback from humans, and an
AI-based technology for automatic feedback) in a Hispanic-Serving Institution. A quantitative
survey with students (n = 80) and a qualitative survey with instructors (n = 11) were conducted.
Findings of a path analysis indicate that students with lower levels of competence in communication
tended to find public speaking technologies more useful. Moreover, students’ perceived technology
usefulness and ease of use were positively associated with intentions of future technology use
through technology satisfaction. Additionally, a qualitative analysis of instructors’ responses
revealed that technologies could be helpful for teaching public speaking if they assist rather than
replace instructors in offering feedback.

Keywords: Technology Acceptance Model; educational technology; underrepresented students;

Hispanic Serving Institution; public speaking

INTRODUCTION

Public speaking skills are vital for student success in classrooms, obtaining and sustaining
successful careers, and citizen participation (Baird & Parayitam, 2019; Coffelt, Grauman & Smith,
2019). Effective public speaking skills can aid in self and group advocacy in crucial professional
situations such as job interviews (Ab Rahman, Mohamed, Nasir, & Saidin, 2019). These skills can
also help students stand up for values and even shape values that support important causes such
as diversity and inclusion in both their classrooms and in the community. Albeit important,
instructors are often challenged not only to spend time with students one-on-one in practice
sessions, but also in assigning presentations to be completed in traditional classrooms and online
courses (Baker & Baker, 2022; Prentiss, 2021). Additionally, students may face challenges in
developing their presentation self-awareness due to speech anxiety and delayed feedback
(Prentiss, 2021).

One strategy to address these challenges is using technology designed to enhance public
speaking. Previous studies have found that the application of virtual reality, video streaming, 360-
degree videos, video annotation software, and artificial intelligence can improve college students’
public speaking competency, enhance their self-efficacy, and reduce public speaking anxiety
(Baker & Baker, 2022; Hager, Fiechtl & Gunn, 2020, Kedrowicz & Taylor, 2016). These
technologies have also been incorporated into commercially available applications, such as video-
based technology that facilitates real-time feedback from humans, and AI-based technology for
Perspectives on Adopting Technologies for Public Speaking Skills Development 81

automatic feedback, that universities can purchase to provide scalable treatment for enhancing
students’ public speaking skills. However, to ascertain the level of technology utilization,
understanding the acceptance around newer technologies for both faculty (who would implement
them) and students (who would use them) is necessary. More specifically, in a pandemic era in
which faculty and students were thrust into technology use, this study explores the motivations to
adopt auxiliary technology for pedagogical purposes. In other words, although technology was
required to implement online teaching during the COVID-19 pandemic, instructors could decide the
extent to which to incorporate specific technology applications in their courses. Second, whereas
students are required to use specific technology to complete a certain course task, they can choose
whether to continue utilizing that technology after the class is over for additional benefits.

The present study is based on the technology acceptance model (TAM; Davis, 1989) as the
theoretical framework because this model explains the process through which people adopt
technology. According to the TAM, people’s decision to adopt a certain technology is driven by their
perceptions of the usefulness and the ease of use of technology applications. Further extensions
of this model consider the antecedents to people’s perceptions of technology features (Abdullah &
Ward, 2016; Yalcin & Kutlu, 2019; Lee & Lehto, 2013) and the mediators linking perceived
technology features and people’s technology adoption decisions (Giese & Cote, 2000; Islam &
Sheikh, 2020; Joo, Lee & Ham, 2014). This study specifically focuses on communication
competence as the antecedent to people’s perceptions of technologies designed for improving
public speaking, given communication competence not only predicts people’s public speaking
performance but also their attitude toward communication technologies (Morreale, Staley,
Stavrositu & Krakowiak, 2015). The study also seeks to examine technology satisfaction as the
mediator linking perceived technology features and adoption intention because satisfaction is a key
predictor of consumers repurchase of a product or a service. This shares similarities with people’s
decision to adopt a certain technology after their initial usage.

Although the TAM has been applied to predict students’ adoption of various teaching innovation
technologies, this line of research has three limitations. First, few studies have applied this model
to understand the decision-making surrounding people’s intention to use technologies designed for
public speaking skills. Second, research on both students’ and instructors’ perceptions of
technology features and their decisions is scarce. Third, whereas research on the application of
TAM in the higher education context tends to focus on general students, the knowledge of what
predicts pedagogy technology adoption among underrepresented students is limited. Addressing
these limitations is practically important because it can help researchers and educational decision
makers to take advantage of technology to 1) improve students’ public speaking skills and
instructors’ effectiveness in teaching these skills which are challenging to fulfill in traditional
classrooms; and 2) close the digital divide between underrepresented students and their peers.
Theoretically, this inquiry broadens the TAM by applying it to a novel technology context and a
different population.

The purpose of this study is to examine the adoption decision of technologies for public speaking
skills development from the perspectives of both instructors and students in a Hispanic-serving
institution in the United States. Specifically, this study investigates the relationship between
communication competence, perceptions of technologies designed to improve public speaking,
technology satisfaction, and technology use intentions. The two technologies investigated here are
a video-based technology that facilitates real-time feedback from humans, and an AI-based
technology for automatic feedback. These technologies aim to develop students’ self-awareness
of their public speaking performance through video recording and providing feedback. This study
proposes that students’ perceptions of technology usefulness and ease of use are positively
associated with each other, which further predicts intentions of future technology through
technology satisfaction. Moreover, it is expected that students’ communication competence
positively predicts their perceptions of the usefulness of the technology. Additionally, this study
82 IJEDICT

aims to explore the technology features that instructors consider useful in enhancing students’
public speaking skills and the support they desire to facilitate the ease of using technologies.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Technology, Pedagogy, and Public Speaking

Technology can enhance teaching and learning due to its flexibility, customization, and ability to
integrate various resources (Hu, Wang & Jiang, 2021). According to a systematic review conducted
by Kirkwood and Price (2014), technology can facilitate classroom functionality, promote a
quantitative change in learning outcomes, and transform students’ learning experiences. For
example, in a study conducted by Copley (2007), students reported that podcast lectures made
resources more accessible and provided greater flexibility than face-to-face lectures, so that
students can learn at their own pace. Moreover, a 3-year longitudinal quasi-experiment conducted
by Connolly, MacArthur, Stansfield and McLellan (2007) found that compared to face-to-face
lectures, online asynchronous lectures increased students’ assessment scores, enabled students
to engage in higher order thinking processes, and encouraged greater critical awareness. The
authors argued that this difference might be because online asynchronous lectures required
students to engage in more written communication, which encouraged more reflection than among
face-to-face students.

The potential afforded by technology offers opportunities to enhance pedagogical practices that are
constrained in traditional classrooms, such as teaching public speaking. Constrained by class size
and time, traditional classrooms only offer limited opportunities for students to practice public
speaking (Chen, 2022). Additionally, the assessment of public speaking skills typically involves a
“one-shot” presentation in front of live audiences, which creates a high-stakes environment that
exacerbates students’ anxiety (Walton, 2018). Anxiety resulting from such presentations may
further restrict students’ cognitive resources to build awareness of their behaviors during a speech
and hinder subsequent self-reflections of presentation performance. Moreover, feedback is given
long after a speech, depriving students of the feedback context to identify the specific behaviors for
improvement. These challenges, however, can be tackled with the development of technologies
designed to enhance public speaking.

Recent technologies, such as virtual reality and 360-degree videos, create scenarios that allow
students to practice in front of simulated audiences providing unlimited rehearsal opportunities.
This way, students can learn to control their panic in these anxiety-inducing situations (Frisby,
Kaufmann, Vallade, Frey, & Martin, 2020; Reeves, Elliott, Curran, Dyer, & Hanna, 2021). For
example, using a pre-post experimental design, Chen (2022) found that a VR-based mobile
application in a foreign language learning course significantly reduced students’ self-reported public
speaking anxiety. Additionally, artificial intelligence (AI) and video-annotation software also enable
real-time, synchronized feedback that students can review in their presentation recordings to reflect
on their strengths and areas for improvement (Dupagne, Stacks & Giroux, 2007; Schneider, Börner,
Van Rosmalen & Specht, 2015). For example, Flink and Cooper-Larsen (2020) reported that the
use of an AI-based technology for automatic feedback, that is, an AI-based application which can
offer real-time presentation feedback, improved sales education students’ vocal delivery skills and
self-efficacy for sales presentations over time. As another example, Lewis and Jones (2019)
reported a virtual coaching session which was conducted using a video-based technology
assessment tool, enhanced the self-efficacy for principal preparation program students.

To benefit from technologies for enhancing public speaking, instructors need to first make decisions
about technology adoption in classrooms. Furthermore, even if instructors adopt a particular
technology, its effectiveness will be reduced if students have negative experiences with it and
Perspectives on Adopting Technologies for Public Speaking Skills Development 83

subsequently decline to use it. The following section reviews the theoretical framework that
illuminates the process through which people decide to adopt a particular technology.

Technology Acceptance Model and its Extension

One commonly used model to understand decision-making surrounding technology adoption is the
technology acceptance model (Davis, 1989). According to the TAM, people’s intention to adopt
technology is driven by the perceived usefulness of the technology and its perceived ease of use.
Specifically, perceived ease of use refers to the extent to which people consider that using a
particular technology would be worth the effort, and perceived usefulness describes the extent to
which people believe that using such technology would enhance their performance regarding a
certain task. In addition to their direct influence on the technology adoption intention, the TAM also
proposed that the perceived ease of use of a certain technological innovation positively predicted
the perceived usefulness of such technology (Davis, 1989). Consistent with the TAM, a meta-
analysis of more than 60 studies on technology adoption showed that perceived ease of use had a
small effect size on adoption intention, whereas perceived usefulness had a medium effect size on
intention of technology adoption (King & He, 2006). Additionally, empirical studies have shown that
both perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness positively predicted the intention to adopt
information and communication technology by educators (Teeroovengadum, Heeraman &
Jugurnath, 2017), such as immersive 360° videos (Vallade, Kaufmann, Frisby & Martin, 2020), e-
learning systems (Lee, 2006), and remote learning (Mailizar, Burg & Maulina, 2021).

Based on the original TAM, researchers have extended this framework in several ways. One
extension of the TAM focuses on the explanatory mechanisms of the relationship between
perceived technology features and adoption intention. In this line of research, one critical
mechanism is technology satisfaction, which captures the level of positive affective judgment when
people find the use of technology is consistent with their existing needs and experiences (Giese &
Cote, 2000; Islam & Sheikh, 2020; Joo, Lee & Ham, 2014). According to this extension, both
perceived technology usefulness and perceived ease of use can increase users’ satisfaction with
the technology, which further drives their decision to adopt the technology. Specifically, before
using a particular technology to complete a task, people have an initial expectation of fulfilling
certain requirements. Through working on the task, people gain experience about the technology
and develop perceptions about its performance. The more positive the perception of that
technology’s performance, the more likely the individuals will believe the technology can help them
fulfill the expected requirements, which then leads to greater satisfaction (Adeyemi & Issa, 2020;
Thong, Hong & Tam, 2006). Meanwhile, when people perceive the use of a particular technology
as low effort or they are fluent in it, they will have a more positive effect toward this technology.
Given that positive affect can be manifested as satisfaction (LaTour & Peat, 1980), perceived ease
of use is expected to be positively associated with satisfaction. Furthermore, in the marketing
literature, satisfaction has been found to be a major reason that people re-purchase a product
(Szymanski & Henard, 2001). Given the similarity between repurchasing products and adopting a
particular technology after the initial usage, satisfaction is expected to be positively associated with
technology adoption for future use. Consistent with this rationale, Al-hawari & Mouakket (2010)
reported that participants’ perceived usefulness of e-learning and its ease of use positively
predicted their satisfaction with e-learning, which further predicted their likelihood of continuing to
engage in e-learning.

Another extension of the TAM focuses on the antecedents to people’s perceptions of technology
features. Previous studies have identified psychological (e.g., self-efficacy), social (e.g., subjective
norms), and contextual factors (e.g., technology functionality) as predictors of perceived technology
usefulness and its ease of use (Abbasi, Altmann & Hossain, 2011; Dishaw & Strong, 1999; Lee &
Lehto, 2013).
84 IJEDICT

In the context of adopting technology designed to enhance public speaking skills, this study focused
on communication competence as an antecedent to how people perceive the features of public
speaking technologies. Communication competence refers to “adequate ability to pass along or
give information; the ability to make known by talking or writing” (McCroskey & McCroskey, 1988,
p. 3). The relationship between communication competence and perceived usefulness of
technologies to enhance public speaking skills is inconclusive. On one hand, people who are more
competent in communication may be more knowledgeable and skilled at using technologies to
achieve a desired goal (Morreale, Staley, Stavrositu, & Krakowiak, 2015). Subsequently, they are
more likely to recognize the usefulness of these technologies to polish their (already proficient)
public speaking skills. On the other hand, people who are less competent may consider that public
speaking skill technologies provide a low(er)-stakes environment to practice, which is typically
lacking in traditional classrooms.

Limitations in Previous Literature on TAM

Although the TAM has received robust empirical support in adopting pedagogy technologies, the
existing literature is limited in three ways. First, whereas much of the research has focused on
technologies such as Moodle, designed for course management (Al-hawari & Mouakket, 2010;
Modise & Molotsi, 2022; Mtani & Mbelwa, 2022) or remote learning, limited research has
investigated what drives people’s adoption of technology designed for improving a particular
skillset, such as public speaking skills (Vallade, Kaufmann, Frisby & Martin, 2020, provides an
exception). The research on this topic is critical for leveraging the advantages of technology to
improve students’ public speaking skills and instructors’ effectiveness in this skill. The specific
pedagogy technologies examined in our study were a video-based technology that facilitates real-
time feedback from humans, and an AI-based technology for automatic feedback. The two
technologies build their core features of giving and receiving feedback, which bridges teaching and
learning from both instructors’ and students’ perspectives. Moreover, both technologies have been
shown to be effective at improving students’ self-efficacy of public speaking. Detailed descriptions
of the technologies are presented in the methods section.

Second, whereas most research on TAM and pedagogy technologies focused on either the
students’ or instructors’ perspectives (Mtani & Mbelwa, 2022), the literature that explores how both
students and instructors perceive and experience the same technology is scarce. This knowledge
is important because the successful implementation of a particular technology needs the buy-in
from both the instructors (the “gatekeepers” who decide which technology to be adopted) and the
students (the actual users).

Third, only a few studies on TAM have examined the facilitators and barriers that influence the
decision-making surrounding adopting pedagogy technologies among underrepresented students.
Underrepresented students are those who are disadvantaged economically, minorized, and/or first-
generation (Hurd, Tan & Loeb, 2016). This population has been historically and systematically
oppressed and disenfranchised within the field of higher education due to their race, ethnicity,
gender, class, sexuality, and/or ability (Okstad & Hutchings, 2022). For instance, compared with
their privileged peers, underrepresented students have been persistently experiencing a digital
divide, defined as “unequal access to computers and the Internet that breaks along familiar
socioeconomic fault lines, such as income, education, race and age” (Wilhelm & Thierer, 2000; p.
40). This digital divide has caused disparities in how underrepresented students perceive and use
technology. For example, in a survey of 226 Hispanic college freshmen, Slate, Manuel and Brinson
(2002) found statistically significant differences between students whose primary language spoken
at home was English and students whose primary language spoken at home was Spanish, in their
attitudes toward and use of the Internet and computer technology. Consequently, the digital divide
can hinder underrepresented students from benefiting from technology in an equal way as their
privileged peers (Bell, Aubele & Perruso, 2022). Bell et al., (2022) found that many students
Perspectives on Adopting Technologies for Public Speaking Skills Development 85

enrolled in institutions with high rates of low-income and first-generation students do not have
access to adequate technology. Limited access to Internet quality and effective technology tools is
one of the challenges that students enrolled in HSIs can face, which can impact their success rate
related to using online tools for educational purposes.

To narrow the digital divide so that underrepresented students can use pedagogical technologies
to acquire knowledge and skills for social mobility, understanding what predicts the technology
adoption decision of this population is critical. Therefore, this study examines adopting technologies
designed for improving public speaking among students in a Hispanic-serving institution. Hispanic-
Serving Institutions are public and private two and four year colleges and universities with Latino
enrollments of 25% or more full-time equivalent students (Laden, 2004). We choose to focus on
the Hispanic student population because Hispanic constitutes the largest minority group in the
United States (US Census Bureau, 2020).

RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND HYPOTHESES

To address the literature gaps, this study seeks to understand what influences the intention of
future use of two public speaking technologies (video-based that facilitates real-time feedback from
humans, and an AI-based technology for automatic feedback) from both students’ and instructors’
perspectives in a Hispanic-serving institution. Specifically, based on the TAM and its extensions,
this study examines the process through which communication competence is associated with the
intent to use technologies for enhancing public speaking skills through perceived technology
features (i.e., perceived ease of use, perceived usefulness) and satisfaction with technology from
a students’ perspective. The hypothesized path model is presented in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Diagrammatic representation of the hypothesized mediation model with path

coefficients.

Note: n=63 (listwise deletion) †p<.10; **p<.01, ***p<.001

Specifically, given that little research has examined the association between students’
communication competence and their perception of technology features, this study explored the
following research question:
86 IJEDICT

RQ1: What is the nature of the association between students’ communication competence and
their perceived technology usefulness?

Furthermore, following the predictions of TAM, its extensions, and the robust association between
perceived ease of use, perceived usefulness, and technology satisfaction, to the intention to use
the technology, this study propose the following hypotheses:

H1: Students’ perceived ease of use will be positively associated with their perceptions of
technology usefulness.
H2: Students’ perceived ease of use is positively associated with their technology
satisfaction.
H3: Students’ perceived technology usefulness is positively associated with their
technology satisfaction.
H4: Students’ technology satisfaction is positively associated with their intention to use the
technologies.

Additionally, to gain insights into technology features that instructors consider useful and the help
they need to implement the technology smoothly, this study explores the following research
questions:

RQ2: What features of public speaking technologies do instructors find helpful in teaching
public speaking skills?
RQ3: What support do instructors wish to receive to implement technologies for public
speaking?

METHODS

This study applied a mixed-method design to examine public speaking technology adoption.
Surveys tailored to either instructors or students were administered through Qualtrics in 2019. The
surveys included both open-ended and Likert-scale type questions. In all, 80 students and 11
instructors completed the surveys.

Participants and Sampling

The study was conducted in a Hispanic-serving institution (HSI) on the west coast of the United
States. The HSI university enrolls 66% Hispanics, 5% African American, 5% Asian, 12% Caucasian
students, 5% non-resident international students, and 6% students from other groups (mixed
races). Additionally, regarding the socioeconomic background, approximately 80% of the students
at this university are first generation university attendees, and 58% of undergraduates are low-
income (receiving Pell grants).

The instructor participants were recruited via email from those who voluntarily attended a workshop
on technologies designed for improving public speaking skills in Fall 2018. The technologies
introduced in this workshop included video-based technology that facilitates real-time feedback
from humans, and an AI-based technology for automatic feedback. All instructor attendees were
encouraged to implement one of the public speaking technologies in at least one course and
disseminate our survey to their students during that term. Only those who met both criteria
(implementing the technology and asking students for feedback) were considered eligible instructor
participants and were offered a nominal stipend upon completion.

In all, eleven instructors participated in the survey that evaluated their perceptions about using
technologies for teaching public speaking. Most participants reported being female (63.6%), 25–29
Perspectives on Adopting Technologies for Public Speaking Skills Development 87

years old (54.5%), and non-tenure track instructors (81.8%). The instructor sample consisted of
more Caucasians (45.4%) than the student sample.

Because instructor participants were asked to share the survey with students in appropriate
courses to be considered eligible for the study, student participants were recruited via purposeful
snowball sampling. Students may have received extra credit for their participation, which was based
on instructor's discretion per IRB protocol. A sample of 80 students responded to the survey
assessing their public speaking technology use. Among the participants, 18 of them indicated the
use of the AI-based technology in their classes and 65 indicated the use of the video-based
technology. Most of the student sample were females (65.0%) and domestic students in the U.S.
(92.5%). Most of them reported being 18–24 years old (82.5%) and Hispanic (67.5%). The
demographic information of the samples is provided in Table 1 below.

Table 1: Descriptive Information on Demographic Characteristics

Student Sample Instructor Sample

Age n % n %
18-24 66 83.5 0 0
25–29 10 12.7 6 54.5
30-34 2 2.5 1 9.1
35-39 0 0.0 1 9.1
40-44 0 0.0 0 0.0
45-49 0 0.0 0 0.0
50-54 1 1.3 1 9.1
55-59 0 0.0 0 0.0
60 or more 0 0.0 2 18.2

Sex
Male 26 33.3 2 18.2
Female 52 66.7 7 63.6
Other 0 0.0 2 18.2

Ethnicity
African American 1 1.3 1 9.1
Asian/Asian American 4 5.0 1 9.1
Caucasian 13 16.5 5 45.4
Hispanic 54 68.3 4 36.4
Native American 1 1.3 0 0.0
Other 6 7.6 0 0.0

Domestic Student
No 4 5.1 - -
Yes 74 94.9 - -

Tenured/Tenure-Track
No - - 9 81.8
Yes - - 2 18.2
88 IJEDICT

Procedures

In both the instructor and student surveys, participants provided consent before answering
questions. Both surveys first asked participants to identify the technology designed for enhancing
public speaking skills (that is, a video-based technology that facilitates real-time feedback from
humans, or an AI-based technology for automatic feedback) used in their courses. Participants
were then asked questions about perceptions regarding the technology they selected. Specifically,
the survey to instructors included open-ended questions on their thoughts of using technologies for
enhancing students’ public speaking skills and the desired support for implementing technologies
for public speaking in their classes. The survey version for students assessed the perceived
technology usefulness, perceived ease of use, perceived communication competence, perceived
technology satisfaction, and the intention of using technology. Demographic information was
collected at the end of both surveys. If participants did not indicate that any technology for public
speaking was used in their classes, they were required to only answer those questions related to
intentions and demographic characteristics. The average time to complete the survey was about
10-15 minutes for both instructors and students. The above procedures were approved by the
Institutional Review Board of the university in which the authors are affiliated.

Technology Context

As mentioned previously, this study focused on students’ and instructors’ perceptions and adoption
decisions of two technologies designed for improving public speaking skills:
• A video-based technology that facilitates real-time feedback from humans is an application
that can be integrated with a learning management system (e.g., Canvas) that focuses on
video assignments, such as public speaking presentations. This application allows 1)
students to record their performance using any smartphone or laptop and then upload the
video to the cloud, and 2) instructors to record students’ live presentations. When viewing
the video, instructors or students can leave time-coded comments that are synchronized
to the precise moment of the presentation in the video.
• An AI-based technology for automatic feedback is a cloud-based presentation recording
application that evaluates ten delivery elements (e.g., pitch variability, pace, pauses) during
a live presentation. The evaluation is generated by comparing a presentation to a database
of presentation videos that AI judges as effective. Based on the evaluation, this application
then provides personalized feedback for improvement. Another feature of the AI-based
technology for automatic feedback is that it simulates audiences that give real-time non-
verbal responses (e.g., head nodding, yawning) to the presenter during the live
presentation based on the vocal delivery skills.

Measures

Instructor Survey

Usefulness of technology. To assess how instructors evaluated the usefulness of technologies

for public speaking, the survey included an open-ended question: “What are your overall thoughts
about using the specific technology to improve students’ public speaking skills in the course(s) you
have taught?”

Technology support. To identify the support that could improve the ease of use of technologies
for public speaking, an open-ended question asked: “What kind of pedagogy support do you think
you would need to incorporate technology into the classroom?”
Perspectives on Adopting Technologies for Public Speaking Skills Development 89

Student Survey

Unless otherwise stated, all variables were measured on 5-point scales and scored so that higher
scores indicate more of that variable. See Table 2 below for items used in this study.

Table 2: Data Collection Instrument

CONSTRUCT
ITEMS
Perceived Present a talk to a group of strangers
communication
competence Talk with an acquaintance

Talk in a large meeting of friends

Talk in a small group of strangers

Talk with a friend

Talk in a large meeting of acquaintances

Talk with a stranger

Present a talk to a group of friends

Talk in a small group of acquaintances

Talk in a large meeting of strangers

Talk in a small group of friends

Present a talk to a group of acquaintances
Perceived Using the video-based technology this quarter has improved my performance in public
technology speaking
usefulness
Using the video-based technology this quarter has improved my effectiveness in public
speaking
Using the video-based technology has been useful for me to enhance my public
speaking performance.
Perceived ease Learning to use the video-based technology is easy for me
of use
I find the video-based technology easy to use
It is easy for me to become skillful at using the video-based technology
Using the video-based technology is clear and understandable.
Perceived I am satisfied with the function of the video-based technology
technology
satisfaction I am satisfied with my interactions with the video-based technology
I am satisfied with the content of the video-based technology
Intention of I intend to continue using the video-based technology in the future for other public
future use of speaking projects
public speaking
technology I will continue to use the video-based technology frequently

I will try to use the video-based technology in other public speaking projects.
90 IJEDICT

Perceived communication competence. This variable was measured by asking participants to

indicate their ability to communicate in eight situations (McCroskey & McCroskey, 1988), such as
“present a talk to a group of strangers”, and “talk in a large meeting of friends.” Participants’
responses were recorded with a slider using a 100-point scale with 0 being completely incompetent
and 100 being competent (M = 74.39, SD = 17, ɑ = .89). For means and standard deviations see
Table 3 below.

Table 3: Student Sample (n=80) Means and Standard Deviations

Intention of future
Perceived Perceived Perceived use
communication technology Perceived ease technology of public speaking
competence usefulness of use satisfaction technology
Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
74.39 17 3.89 .85 4.31 .84 4.37 .87 3.61 .95

Perceived technology usefulness. This variable was measured with three Likert-scale items
adapted from Davis (1993) (M = 3.89, SD = 0.85, ɑ = .93). Sample items included “Using a video-
based technology that facilitates real-time feedback from humans improves my performance in
public speaking” and “Using a video-based technology that facilitates real-time feedback from
humans increases my effectiveness in public speaking”.

Perceived ease of use. This variable was measured with four Likert-scale items adapted from
Davis (1993) (M = 4.31, SD = 0.84, ɑ = .93). Sample items included “Learning to use a video-based
technology that facilitates real-time feedback from humans is easy for me” and “I find a video-based
technology that facilitates real-time feedback from humans easy to use.”

Perceived technology satisfaction. This variable was measured with three Likert-scale items
adapted from Islam (2014) (M = 4.37, SD = 0.87, ɑ = .95). Sample items included “I am satisfied
with the function of a video-based technology that facilitates real-time feedback from humans” and
“I am satisfied with my interactions with a video-based technology that facilitates real-time feedback
from humans”.

Intention of future use of public speaking technology. This variable was measured with three
Likert-scale items (M = 3.61, SD = 0.95, ɑ = .89). Sample items included “I intend to continue using
a video-based technology that facilitates real-time feedback from humans in the future for other
public speaking projects” and “I will continue to use a video-based technology that facilitates real-
time feedback from humans frequently.”

DATA ANALYSIS

Instructor Survey (Qualitative Data)

Instructor surveys included qualitative questions as a way of gaining a better understanding of

perceptions and experiences of the technologies that were not gathered from the quantitative
survey questions. The open-ended questions were analyzed using a qualitative thematic analysis
approach. In all, there were three open ended questions that resulted in eleven responses per
question (33 in total). Data were thematized by questions to provide qualitative context to the
quantitative data analysis (Tracy, 2019).
Perspectives on Adopting Technologies for Public Speaking Skills Development 91

Student Survey (Quantitative Data)

To test the hypothesized model on students’ intention to use technologies for enhancing public
speaking skills, a path analysis using AMOS was conducted. The fit indices of the hypothesized
model were assessed against the standards of a good model fit including root mean squared error
of approximation (RMSEA) less than 0.06, standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) less
than 0.08, and comparative fit index (CFI) in the range of .90. (Hu & Bentler, 1999). If the
hypothesized model had a good fit, the study would then examine the coefficient of each
hypothesized path.

RESULTS

RQ1 and H1–H4 were addressed by quantitative data collected from the student’s survey on their
technology use intention, whereas RQ2–RQ3 were examined by qualitative data collected from the
instructor’s survey.

Students’ Technology Use Intention

Given that the number of students using the AI-based technology for automatic feedback was
insufficient to conduct a quantitative analysis, the data reported focused on those who used the
video-based technology that facilitates real-time feedback from humans. The model fit of the
hypothesized model was adequate, 𝜒2 (5) = 9.50, p = .09, CFI = .97, SRMR = .07. Hence, the study
proceeded to test the coefficients of each direct path.

R1 explored the nature of the association between communication competence and perceived
technology usefulness. The results revealed that communication competence was negatively
associated with perceived technology usefulness, although the association was marginally
significant (β = -.17, p = .077).

H1 predicted a positive association between perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness.
Consistent with this hypothesis, the data showed that when participants perceived the video-based
technology that facilitates real-time feedback from humans as easier to use, they also found this
technology to be more useful (β = .61, p < .001).

H2 predicted that perceived usefulness will be positively associated with technology satisfaction,
whereas H3 predicted that perceived ease of use will be positively associated with technology
satisfaction. Consistent with these hypotheses, the results revealed that when participants
perceived the video-based technology that facilitates real-time feedback from humans as useful (β
= .27, p < .001) and easy to use (β = .72, p < .001), they were more satisfied with this technology.

H4 predicted that technology satisfaction will be positively associated with intention for future use
of technology. Consistent with H4, the data showed that when participants reported greater
satisfaction with the video-based technology that facilitates real-time feedback from humans, they
were more likely to use this technology in the future (β = .36, p = .002).

Instructors’ Perceptions of Technology Use

A thematic analysis was used to examine instructors’ perception of using technologies for
enhancing students’ public speaking skills (Tracy, 2019).

RQ2 focused on the technology features that instructor participants found useful for improving
public speaking. The most prominent themes that emerged from instructor participants’ qualitative
92 IJEDICT

responses were promoting self-reflection, facilitating peer-to-peer interactions, and assisting in

providing feedback.

Promoting Self-Reflection

Participants stated that technology, especially the video-based technology that facilitates real-time
feedback from humans, enhanced students' experience because it allowed students to see how
they improved over time by reflecting on their video recordings. For instance, one participant stated:
“It is a good resource for students to see how they perform and reflect on potential
improvement.”

Similarly, an instructor reported appreciating how the video-based technology that facilitates real-
time feedback from humans, noting that it:

“allows the students to view their work in private first” and recognizing that students
“take pride in seeing how they improve” and believe “learning to post business videos
[will be] beneficial in their future.”

Facilitating Peer-to-Peer Feedback

One key feature of the video-based technology that facilitates real-time feedback from humans
appeared to be its opportunities for peer-to-peer interaction, especially evaluating other students’
presentations. For example, an instructor participant said that the video-based technology that
facilitates real-time feedback from humans

“... allows students to collaborate in an ongoing discussion in real time. There can be a
back and forth, without the delay of a standard discussion board. This program is helpful
for any type of class, but specifically a public speaking course where speeches must be
evaluated.”

Assisting in Providing Feedback

Another useful feature was the instructors’ ability to annotate students’ presentations. For example,
an instructor stated,

“I like the fact that when using … students have feedback that is time-stamped and can
view their performance with comments and rubric in order to improve.”

That is, a video-based technology that facilitates real-time feedback from humans seemed to
provide more in the realm of pedagogical capacities (real time or time-stamped feedback, rubrics,
peer-to-peer feedback, annotations, etc.) than an AI-based technology for automatic feedback,
which may explain the discrepancies in perceived usefulness.

In contrast, the AI-based technology for automatic feedback received more critiques from instructor
participants because its auto-generated feedback only focused on the delivery style (not the
content). As a result, participants reported that the AI-based technology for automatic feedback
was unable to recognize truly effective elements of verbal delivery, making this tool merely serve
as a “stopwatch” or a recorder. For instance, an instructor described how the technology is

“not worth the cost, in time or in dollars … I babbled and made nonsense noises for nearly
a minute and was granted an excellent score for my pitch and pauses. Their computerized
audience was pleased with my speech.”
Perspectives on Adopting Technologies for Public Speaking Skills Development 93

Another instructor echoed the concern about the AI-based technology for automatic feedback
assessment of verbal delivery and stated,

“I literally spoke nonsense vocalizations with differing levels of pitch and pausing. I was
given very high marks.”

Another major concern with the AI-based technology for automatic feedback was its inability to
consider the impact of the content on style choice and the possible cultural bias. For instance, one
instructor participant said,

“their pause and pitch ratings do not take into consideration cultural factors (some cultures
speak with different pitches) or deliberate choices (a student might choose to make a point
through adjusting their pausing). The program faults them for this.”

A similar comment was made by another participant,

“It does not take into account the incredible diversity of speaking styles and stylistic
decisions among students. For example, some students choose to pause for longer than
what your program deems acceptable. Some students deliberately choose to use flatter
vocal variety for effect. Your program tells us this is not good.”

Taken together, public speaking technologies were considered as useful by instructors if their
features could facilitate reviewers (either peers or instructors) to offer feedback that promoted self-
reflection instead of replacing people to give feedback.

In RQ3 we were interested in the type of support that instructors desired that could assist them in
implementing public speaking technologies in their courses. Based on the qualitative responses,
most respondents brought up the need of having an Information Technology (IT) staff member
available to provide guidance and answer questions in a timely manner. One respondent explained
a situation where a staff member had helped them in being supported in the process of
incorporating technology in the classroom:

“Dr. X was a great help throughout this process. In the future, I would appreciate more of
his type of support. Not only was he there to answer practical questions, he also provided
suggestions for how to use the software.”

These comments are important for institutions to hear as institutional support can be assumed as
the foundational need for new technological implementations.

DISCUSSION

Using both quantitative and qualitative data interpretation, this study reveals decision-making
surrounding the intention to adopt technologies for enhancing public speaking skills from the
perspectives of both students and instructors in a Hispanic-serving institution. Specifically, this
study gained insights into the features that instructors deemed useful in technologies designed for
improving public speaking skills and the support that can facilitate their implementation of these
technologies in classrooms. Notably, although the literature on the effect of technology (e.g., virtual
reality) on enhancing public speaking performance is emerging (Reeves, Elliott, Curran, Dyer, &
Hanna, 2021), this study is one of the few studies that explores the users’ experience of using such
technologies. Additionally, findings from this study demonstrated the critical role of perceived
technology usefulness and ease of use in linking communication competence and students’
intention to use technologies designed for improving public speaking skills. Overall, these findings
provide practical implications for designing technologies to promote instructors’ and students’
94 IJEDICT

willingness to adopt these technologies to enhance public speaking, by identifying the factors that
can influence their technology adoption decision. Theoretically, this study extends the application
scope of the TAM to an underrepresented population and a novel technology context.

Consistent with the hypothesis and the extension of TAM (Estriegana, Medina-Merodio, &
Barchino, 2019), students’ perceived technology usefulness and ease of use positively predicted
their satisfaction with technologies for enhancing public speaking skills, which further predicted
their intention for future use. This process demonstrates that the evaluation of whether technology
features can help students fulfill their needs and are compatible with students’ previous experience
are critical to motivate their decision to adopt technologies designed to improve public speaking. In
fact, satisfaction with a particular technology has been proposed as the most prominent predictor
of users’ intention to use the technology in the long run (Franque, Oliveira, Tam, & Santini, 2021).
This study extends the existing literature by identifying the role of user satisfaction in the adoption
decision-making in a novel technological context.

Moreover, as an antecedent to perceptions of the technology features, communication competence

was found to negatively predict students’ perceived usefulness of technologies for enhancing public
speaking skills. In other words, college students who are less proficient in communication can
recognize the usefulness of a particular technology for enhancing public speaking and thus are
motivated to adopt the technology, which is the prerequisite to benefit from technology. This result
is consistent with the extension of the TAM proposing that people’s perceptions of technology can
be formed through individual differences and personal needs of use (Al-Nuaimi & Al-Emran, 2021 ).
Moreover, whereas previous research has focused on the individual difference in general skills in
technology use such as self-efficacy and computer anxiety (Granić, 2022), this study examines
users’ communication skill, which is a specific knowledge domain that the technology is designed
to improve.

From the instructor’s perspective, the study revealed that technologies could be helpful for teaching
public speaking if they facilitate instructors to offer feedback instead of replacing instructors to
provide feedback. Specifically, instructors believed that technologies designed for public speaking
skill improvement were beneficial for them to provide time-stamped feedback. However, the lack of
consideration of the content and the presentation context was considered as a major drawback for
technologies offering AI-generated feedback. The qualitative results also demonstrated that
instructors considered technologies to be useful to enhance students’ public speaking skills as they
enabled students to reflect on their presentation performance and facilitated their peer-to-peer
feedback and interactions. Notably, instructors perceived a technology to be useful not only
because it facilitated their teaching efficiency but also because such a technology could benefit
students’ learning experiences. These findings extend previous research on educational
technology because previous research has only found video recording technologies to be useful
for instructors if these technologies increased teaching efficiency (Hager, Fiechtl & Gunn, 2020).

Regarding the type of technology support that can facilitate the ease of use, instructors are
expected to have information technology specialists available to handle potential technical issues
and provide suggestions on how technologies can be incorporated into certain teaching activities.
This result was consistent with Ardley & Hallare (2020) who also called for the need for extensive
training by all instructor users and for accessible technical support.

IMPLICATIONS

The study offers both theoretical and practical implications. Theoretically, this study extends the
application of the TAM to a novel context of technologies for improving public speaking skills. Within
this context, the findings enrich the understanding of which users’ characteristics (e.g., self-efficacy,
experience) could shape their perceptions of a given technology by identifying communication
Perspectives on Adopting Technologies for Public Speaking Skills Development 95

competence as a predictor of perceived technology usefulness. Moreover, different from prior

research that examined technology adoption among general student populations, this study has
focused on a sample of underrepresented population from a Hispanic-serving institution. The
finding that the data were consistent with the TAM demonstrated the robustness of this theoretical
framework.

Practically, the study also provides implications for technology design and technology training
programs on campus. First, the quantitative results from students revealed that students who were
less competent in communication were more likely to perceive the usefulness of a technology
designed for improving public speaking. This result reflects the desire of students who need the
most help for developing communication competence to use technology to enhance their skills. As
such, instructors can incorporate technology into a required presentation project so that students
who need the most help for developing communication competence can recognize a certain
technology, experience its advantages, and be willing to adopt the technology for improvement.
Additionally, the quantitative results showed that perceived ease of use served as a stronger
predictor of technology satisfaction compared to perceived technology usefulness. This result
suggests the importance of enhancing the usability of a technology, so that underrepresented
students who are challenged by the digital divide can use and benefit from technologies in an equal
way as their peers. For example, software developers can simplify the user interface that only
includes controls directly connected to the users’ major needs.

From the qualitative data, the results provide suggestions for software developers to design
technology features that convince instructors of the effectiveness of technologies in teaching public
speaking. First, software developers may consider incorporating features that promote social
presence (e.g., peer reviews, time-stamped feedback) and enable self-reflection on presentation
performance. Second, developers may also consider creating technology functions that aid
instructors in providing feedback instead of offering automated feedback. The third implication is
related to facilitating instructors’ technology implementation. When introducing technology related
to training public speaking skills, universities should provide information technology specialists who
could solve technical issues related to technology implementation for instructors. Universities may
also organize learning communities among instructors interested in adopting new technologies so
that they can share advice and experiences on the best practices regarding integrating
technologies into teaching activities.

LIMITATIONS

There are a few limitations of this study. First, the small size of the student and the instructor
samples may limit the generalizability of the study findings. Responses to open-ended questions
were gathered only from a few instructors to obtain their insights, and the study did not test the
associations between perceived technology features and technology adoption decision among the
instructor sample. A larger sample size of instructors will be necessary to test these associations.
Second, because the study is a cross-sectional survey, the causal order in the relationship between
perceived technology features and intentions of future technology use cannot be established. Third,
this study only focused on video-based technology that facilitates real-time feedback from humans
and an AI-based technology for automatic feedback, to examine the TAM and its extension. Future
research may examine whether our findings can be replicated for other technologies designed to
enhance public speaking skills.

FUTURE DIRECTIONS

As an exploratory study, our findings offer ample opportunities for future research. Two specific
research ideas follow. First, because the data were collected before the COVID-19 pandemic,
future research on how students and instructors perceive technologies for improving public
96 IJEDICT

speaking skills after the pandemic is warranted. Second, our results revealed that when students
perceived technology as useful and convenient, they were more satisfied with the technology. Thus,
a future study could explore what denotes or defines technology as “useful” and then how
instructors can apply those principles when using technology in their assignments.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, this study applies the TAM to understand the decision-making of adopting
technologies designed for improving public speaking skills from both the students’ and the
instructors’ perspectives in a Hispanic-Serving Institution. From the students’ perspective, it was
found that those who needed more help with developing their communication competence were
more likely to perceive the usefulness of public speaking technologies. Moreover, students’
perceptions of technology usefulness and ease of use were positively associated with technology
satisfaction, which further predicted their intentions of future technology use. From the instructors’
perspective, technologies were considered helpful for teaching public speaking if they could assist
instructors in giving feedback. Additionally, having an information technology specialist on campus
could facilitate instructors’ experience of implementing a new technology in their classrooms. These
results not only extend the application of TAM to a novel technology and an underrepresented
population but also provide practical suggestions for designing technologies for enhancing public
speaking skills. Future research may recruit a larger sample to examine whether the findings can
be replicated to other technologies and different populations after the pandemic. It is also beneficial
to explore the features that students consider useful for technologies designed for enhancing public
speaking skills.

REFERENCES

Ab Rahman, F., Mohamed, A. H., Nasir, N. S. A., & Saidin, K. (2019). “Exploring perceptions of
employers on communication skills among fresh graduates”, Practitioner Research, vol.
1, pp. 69-85. https://e-journal.uum.edu.my/index.php/pr/article/view/8192

Abbasi, A., Altmann, J., & Hossain, L. (2011). “Identifying the effects of co-authorship networks
on the performance of scholars: A correlation and regression analysis of performance
measures and social network analysis measures”, Journal of Informetrics, vol. 5, no. 4,
pp. 594-607. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2011.05.007

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, vol. 56, pp. 238-256.

Adeyemi, I. O., & Issa, A. O. (2020). “Integrating information system success model (ISSM) and
technology acceptance model (TAM): proposing students’ satisfaction with university
Web portal model”. Record and Library Journal, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 69-79. Retrieved from
https://garuda.kemdikbud.go.id/documents/detail/1712101

Al-hawari, M. A., & Mouakket, S. (2010). “The influence of technology acceptance model (TAM)
factors on students’ e-satisfaction and e-retention within the context of UAE e-learning”.
Education, Business and Society: Contemporary Middle Eastern Issues, vol. 3, no. 4, pp.
299–314. https://doi.org/10.1108/17537981011089596

Al-Nuaimi, M. N., & Al-Emran, M. (2021). “Learning management systems and technology
acceptance models: A systematic review”, Education and Information Technologies, vol.
26, no. 5, pp. 5499-5533. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10513-3
Perspectives on Adopting Technologies for Public Speaking Skills Development 97

Ardley, J., & Hallare, M. (2020). “The feedback cycle: Lessons learned with video annotation
software during student teaching”. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, vol. 49,
no. 1, pp. 94-112. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047239520912343

Baird, A. M., & Parayitam, S. (2019). Employers’ ratings of importance of skills and competencies
college graduates need to get hired: Evidence from the New England region of USA.
Education+ Training, vol. 61, np. 5, pp. 622-634. https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-12-2018-
0250

Baker, M. J., & Baker, W. H. (2022). “Qualitative oral presentation feedback: Comparisons from
business professionals, instructors, and student peers”. Business and Professional
Communication Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.1177/23294906221120015

Bell, T., Aubele, J. W., & Perruso, C. (2022). “Digital divide issues affecting undergraduates at a
Hispanic-serving institution during the pandemic: A mixed-methods approach”. Education
Sciences, vol. 12, no. 2, p. 115. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12020115

Bhattacherjee, A. (2001). “Understanding information systems continuance: An expectation-

confirmation model”. MIS quarterly, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 351-370.
https://doi.org/10.2307/3250921

Chen, Y. C. (2022). “Effects of technology-enhanced language learning on reducing EFL learners’

public speaking anxiety”. Computer Assisted Language Learning, Online advanced
publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2022.2055083

Coffelt, T. A., Grauman, D., & Smith, F. L. M. (2019). “Employers’ perspectives on workplace
communication skills: The meaning of communication skills”. Business and Professional
Communication Quarterly, vol. 82, no. 4, pp. 418–439.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2329490619851119

Copley, J. (2007). “Audio and video podcasts of lectures for campus‐based students: production
and evaluation of student use”. Innovations in education and teaching international, vol.
44, no. 4, pp. 387-399. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703290701602805

Connolly, T. M., MacArthur, E., Stansfield, M., & McLellan, E. (2007). “A quasi-experimental study
of three online learning courses in computing”. Computers & Education, vol. 49, no. 2, pp.
345-359. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2005.09.001

Davis, F. D. (1989). “Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance”. MIS
Quarterly, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 319-340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008

Davis, F.D., (1993). User acceptance of information technology: system characteristics, user
perceptions and behavioral impacts. International journal of man-machine studies, vol.
38, no. 3, pp.475-487.

Dishaw, M. T., & Strong, D. M. (1999). “Extending the technology acceptance model with task–
technology fit constructs”. Information & management, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 9-21.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-7206(98)00101-3

Dupagne, M., Stacks, D. W., & Giroux, V. M. (2007). “Effects of video streaming technology on
public speaking students' communication apprehension and competence”. Journal of
Educational Technology Systems, vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 479-490.
https://doi.org/10.2190/5947-4W72-303L-Q578
98 IJEDICT

Estriegana, R., Medina-Merodio, J. A., & Barchino, R. (2019). “Student acceptance of virtual
laboratory and practical work: An extension of the technology acceptance model.”
Computers & Education, vol. 135, pp. 1-14.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.02.010

Flink, N. A., & Cooper-Larsen, D. (2020). “Using an artificial real-time response audience in online
sales education to improve self-efficacy in sales presentations: An online classroom
innovation”. Atlantic Marketing Journal, vol. 9, no. 2, Article 2. Retrieved from
https://digitalcommons.kennesaw.edu/amj/vol9/iss2/2/

Franque, F.B., Oliveira, T., Tam, C. & Santini, F.d.O. (2021), "A meta-analysis of the quantitative
studies in continuance intention to use an information system", Internet Research, vol. 31
no. 1, pp. 123-158. https://doi.org/10.1108/INTR-03-2019-0103

Frisby, B. N., Kaufmann, R., Vallade, J. I., Frey, T. K., & Martin, J. C. (2020). “Using virtual reality
for speech rehearsals: An innovative instructor approach to enhance student public
speaking efficacy”. Basic Communication Course Annual, vol. 32, no. 1, p. 6. Retrieved
from https://ecommons.udayton.edu/bcca/vol32/iss1/6/

Giese, J. L., & Cote, J. A. (2000). “Defining consumer satisfaction”. Academy of marketing
science review, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 1-22. Retrieved from
http://www.proserv.nu/b/Docs/Defining%20Customer%20Satisfaction.pdf

Granić, A. (2022). “Educational Technology Adoption: A systematic review”. Education and

Information Technologies, vol. 135, pp. 1-20.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.02.010

Hager, K. D., Fiechtl, B. J., & Gunn, S. (2020). “Assessing student performance using video
recordings in field-based experiences”. Journal on Empowering Teaching Excellence, vol.
4, no. 2, p. 4. https://doi.org/10.26077/60ee-875f

Hu, Li‐tze, & Peter M. Bentler. (1999) "Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure
analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives." Structural equation modeling: a
multidisciplinary journal, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 1-55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118

Hu, F., Wang, X., & Jiang, P. (2021). “Research on Flipped Classroom Model of Information
Technology Based on Online Teaching System”. In 2021 IEEE 3rd International
Conference on Computer Science and Educational Informatization (CSEI) (pp. 14-17).
IEEE. doi:10.1109/CSEI51395.2021.9477645

Hurd, N. M., Tan, J. S., & Loeb, E. L. (2016). “Natural mentoring relationships and the adjustment
to college among underrepresented students”. American journal of community
psychology, vol. 57, no. 3-4, pp. 330-341. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajcp.12059

Islam, A. Y. M. A. (2014). “Validation of the technology satisfaction model (TSM) developed in

higher education: The application of structural equation modeling”. International Journal
of Technology and Human Interaction, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 44-57.
doi:10.4018/ijthi.2014070104

Islam, A. Y. M. A., & Sheikh, A. (2020). “A study of the determinants of postgraduate students’
satisfaction of using online research databases”. Journal of Information Science, vol. 46,
no. 2, pp. 273-287. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165551519834714
Perspectives on Adopting Technologies for Public Speaking Skills Development 99

Joo, Y. J., Lee, H. W., & Ham, Y. (2014). “Integrating user interface and personal innovativeness
into the TAM for mobile learning in Cyber University”. Journal of Computing in Higher
Education, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 143-158. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-014-9081-2

King, & He, J. (2006). “A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model”. Information &
Management, vol. 43, no. 6, pp. 740-755. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2006.05.003

Kedrowicz, A. & Taylor, J. L. (2016). “Shifting rhetorical norms and electronic eloquence: TED
talks as formal presentation.” Journal of Business and Technical Communication, vol. 30,
no. 3, pp. 352-377. https://doi.org/10.1177/1050651916636373

Kirkwood, & Price, L. (2014). “Technology-enhanced learning and teaching in higher education:
what is ‘enhanced’ and how do we know? A critical literature review”. Learning, Media
and Technology, vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 6-36. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2013.770404

Laden, B. V. (2004). “Hispanic-serving institutions: What are they? Where are they?”. Community
College Journal of Research and Practice, vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 181-198.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10668920490256381

LaTour, S. A., & Peat, N. C. (1980). “The role of situationally-produced expectations, others'
experiences, and prior experience in determining consumer satisfaction”. ACR North
American Advances. Retrieved from
https://www.acrwebsite.org/volumes/9741/volumes/v07/NA-07

Lee, Y. (2006). “An empirical investigation into factors influencing the adoption of an e-learning
system”. Online Information Review, vol. 30, no. 5, pp. 517-541.
https://doi.org/10.1108/14684520610706406

Lee, D. Y., & Lehto, M. R. (2013). “User acceptance of YouTube for procedural learning: An
extension of the Technology Acceptance Model”. Computers & Education, vol. 61, pp.
193-208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.10.001

Lewis, T. E., & Jones, K. D. (2019). “Increasing principal candidates’ self-efficacy through virtual
coaching”. Journal of Organizational & Educational Leadership, vol. 4, no. 3, p. 4.
Retrieved from https://digitalcommons.gardner-webb.edu/joel/vol4/iss3/4/

Mailizar, M., Burg, D. & Maulina, S. (2021). “Examining university students’ behavioural intention
to use e-learning during the COVID-19 pandemic: An extended TAM model”. Education
and Information Technologies, vol. 26, pp. 7057-7077. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-
021-10557-5

McCroskey, J. C., & McCroskey, L. L. (1988). “Self-report as an approach to measuring

communication competence”. Communication Research Reports, vol. 5, pp. 108-113.
doi:10.1080/08824098809359810

Modise, M. & Molotsi, A. (2022). “The perceptions of new lecturers towards adopting a learning
management system for facilitating modules online in a South African ODeL institution”.
International Journal of Education & Development using Information & Communication
Technology, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 27-41.
100 IJEDICT

Morreale, Staley, C., Stavrositu, C., & Krakowiak, M. (2015). “First-year college students’
attitudes toward communication technologies and their perceptions of communication
competence in the 21st century”. Communication Education, vol. 64, no. 1, pp. 107-131.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2014.978799

Mtani, H. & Mbelwa, J. (2022). “Factors affecting Learning Management Systems usage in higher
learning institutions in Tanzania: A case of University of Dodoma”. International Journal
of Education and Development using Information and Communication Technology, vol.
18, no. 1, pp. 7-26.

Okstad, J. J., & Hutchings, Q. R. (2022). “Transitions, engagements, and environments:

Supporting underrepresented students through e-Learning”. In Teaching and Learning for
Social Justice and Equity in Higher Education (pp. 135-162). Palgrave Macmillan, Cham.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-88608-0_6

Prentiss, S. (2021). “Speech anxiety in the communication classroom during the COVID-19
pandemic: supporting student success”. Frontiers in Communication, vol. 6, pp. 1-4.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2021.642109

Reeves, R., Elliott, A., Curran, D., Dyer, K., & Hanna, D. (2021). “360 Video virtual reality
exposure therapy for public speaking anxiety: A randomized controlled trial”. Journal of
Anxiety Disorders, vol. 83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.janxdis.2021.102451

Schneider, J., Börner, D., Van Rosmalen, P., & Specht, M. (2015). “Presentation trainer, your
public speaking multimodal coach”. In Proceedings of the 2015 ACM on International
Conference on Multimodal Interaction (pp. 539-546). Retrieved from
https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/2818346.2830603?casa_token=VmR6NNw68_IAAAA
A:Saw55xJiGyHL8dk_HGlQWBJbnQzesx2P6XqIRFcSLUA-
kfWeVlvosUTQ5NaNY48QzwOc0IKStggW

Slate, J.R., Manuel, M., & Brinson Jr., K.H. (2002). “The ‘digital divide’: Hispanic college students’
views of educational uses of the Internet”. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher
Education, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 75-93. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930120105081

Szymanski, D. M., & Henard, D. H. (2001). “Customer satisfaction: A meta-analysis of the

empirical evidence”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 16-
35. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070301291002

Teeroovengadum, V., Heeraman, N. & Jugurnath, B. (2017). “Examining the antecedents of ICT
adoption in education using an extended technology acceptance model (TAM)”.
International Journal of Education and Development Using ICT, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 4-23.

Thong, J. Y., Hong, S. J., & Tam, K. Y. (2006). “The effects of post-adoption beliefs on the
expectation-confirmation model for information technology continuance”. International
Journal of Human-Computer Studies, vol. 64, no. 9, pp. 799-810.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2006.05.001

Tracy, S. J. (2019). Qualitative research methods: Collecting evidence, crafting analysis,

communicating impact (2nd ed.). John Wiley & Sons.

US Census Bureau. (2020). Hispanic heritage month 2020. Census.Gov. [Online] Available from:
https://www.census.gov/newsroom/facts-for-features/2020/hispanic-heritage-month.html
Perspectives on Adopting Technologies for Public Speaking Skills Development 101

Vallade, J. I., Kaufmann, R., Frisby, B. N., & Martin, J. C. (2020). “Technology acceptance model:
investigating students’ intentions toward adoption of immersive 360° videos for public
speaking rehearsals”, Communication Education, vol. 70, no. 2, pp. 127-145.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2020.1791351

Walton, J. D. (2018). “ ‘Your fears are appreciated here’: Exploring a humanistic approach to
public speaking instruction”, Administrative Issues Journal, vol. 8, no.1, p. 4. Retrieved
from https://dc.swosu.edu/aij/vol8/iss1/4/

Wilhelm, A. G., & Thierer, A. D. (2000). “Should Americans be concerned about the digital divide”.
Insight on the News, vol. 16, no. 33, pp. 40-42.

Yalcin, E. M., & Kutlu, B. (2019). “Examination of students' acceptance of and intention to use
learning management systems using extended TAM”, British Journal of Educational
Technology, vol. 50, no. 5, pp. 2414-2432. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12798

_____________________________________________________________________________

Copyright for articles published in this journal is retained by the authors, with first publication
rights granted to the journal. By virtue of their appearance in this open access journal, article
are free to use with proper attribution, in educational and other non-commercial settings.