The digitalization of society has brought about many new challenges for education in the 21^st century. While various strategies for dealing with these rapid changes exist globally, we concede that digital tools are no longer dispensable in our daily lives (Ferrari, 2012; OECD, 2019). These changes have also affected education systems, as schools, teachers, and students alike are compelled to (further) develop their digital competencies in this regard (European Commission, 2020). International studies indicate that large differences exist across as well as within various countries in terms of the level of digitalization of schools as well as the digital competencies of students (Eickelmann 2019; OECD, 2020). It is therefore not surprising that the variety of starting points globally led to a variety of response mechanisms in reaction to the pandemic. In mid-March 2020, school were ordered to close in many countries as a relevant containment measure owing to the rising infection rates (Viner et al. 2020).

Research has shown great differences in the capabilities and attitudes which teachers have in accepting and using digital tools in their lessons (Granić & Marangunić, 2019). With the outbreak of the pandemic, however, teachers no longer had the liberty to choose whether to incorporate digital tools into their teaching, as the circumstances made this inevitable. Teachers are central in this new environment and are especially affected by it, which makes their experiences particularly interesting and relevant. We aim to better understand how this unique situation has affected the acceptance of (and experience with) digital tools in the context of distance teaching.

Our study is based on an extended version of Davis’ (1986) widely accepted technology acceptance model (TAM). The TAM consists of three areas, which themselves are made up of at least one variable. The core of the model consists of the variables perceived usefulness and perceived ease-of-use. In addition, the model describes the variable attitude towards using as a direct product of the former two variables in explaining user motivation for usage of a certain technology. Notwithstanding, these three core variables fail to fully explain the actual use of technologies. This is due to the influence of an array of external factors that determine user acceptance. Previous research has discussed and highlighted in detail the interaction and relevance of considering further external variables such as subjective standards (perception of how important the use of technology is to other people) or self-efficacy (one’s own ability to deal with technology) (Burton-Jones & Hubona, 2006; Lee et al., 2003).

To gather a better understanding of the acceptance and usage of digital tools in distance teaching, we apply a refined TAM (Teo et al., 2008) as well as previous research to conduct and analyze longitudinal interviews with teachers from Germany, where no such studies have been done on the subject to date. Our study departs here and examines the following overarching research question:

Which factors influence teachers with regard to accepting and using digital tools for distance teaching during the Covid-19 pandemic?

To answer our research question, we conducted an interview study in Germany, more specifically, in the federal state of Baden-Wuerttemberg. Here, the federal government suspended all school activities beginning on March 16th 2020, which was initially supposed to last for one month—till the end of the Easter vacation. Due to this decree, teachers were required to produce appropriate learning content and transmit this to students in order to enable distance learning. However, in actuality, schools in Baden-Wuerttemberg remained closed for nearly three months, re-opening for smaller groups of students in mid-June. We wanted to capture the situation without delay or falsification caused by the dynamics involved with remembered experience over time (Becker et al., 2002). Thus, we conducted interviews during this unique time with the teachers of secondary schools who were coerced into undertaking distance teaching using digital tools. The first round of interviews in May and June of 2020 focused the experience which 15 teachers had with this unfamiliar situation. With a semi-structured interview guide, we asked the interviewees about their personal experiences with the adoption of digital in their distance teaching. The sample had given their consent to participate in a second round of interviews which will be conducted in May of 2021, though no one could have foreseen the development and long impact of the pandemic at the time. We are especially curious to learn more about perceived challenges and barriers as well as best-practice examples and success stories of the last year. Furthermore, we want to inquire into planned adoption and acceptance of digital tools upon returning to traditional, face-to-face teaching. After this second round of interviews, we will perform a qualitative content analysis on the transcripts according to Mayring (2015) with deductive categories based on the literature review (e.g. perceived usefulness, tools applied, infrastructure, etc.) as well as inductive categories that emerge from the transcribed interview material.

After analyzing all interviews from 2020, results indicate contrary to previous literature, that Covid-19 as an external factor has a universal impact on all variables along the TAM and thereby positively and directly affects the acceptance and usage of digital tools in teaching. Furthermore, we have identified three vital external factors: (1) regulations and specifications, (2) technological infrastructure and (3) the heterogeneity of students and teachers. With the second collection of interviews, we want to better understand how teachers’ usage and acceptance of specific digital tools developed across time and what we can learn from this unique situation. Additionally, we expect changes in core variables of user motivation as well as clearer explanations related to the identified external factors. We expect to find valuable information concerning further external variables which had not been mentioned before and are interested in understanding how the last year has affected the acceptance and usage of digital tools amongst our sample. With this, we hope to conclude the pandemic to be a catalyst for change and advance digitalization of education.

Becker, H., Berger, P., & Luckmann, …, Mills, T. (2002). Observation and Interviewing: Options and Choices in Qualitative Research. In T. May (Ed.), Qualitative Research in Action (pp. 200–224). SAGE Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781849209656.n9 Burton-Jones, A., & Hubona, G. S. (2006). The mediation of external variables in the technology acceptance model. Information & Management, 43(6), 706–717. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2006.03.007 Davis, F. D. (1986). A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-user information systems: Theory and results [PhD]. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Mass. https://tinyurl.com/y5xgfetl Eickelmann, B. (2019). Measuring secondary school students’ competence in computational thinking in ICILS 2018 – Challenges, concepts, and potential implications for school systems around the world. In S. C. Kong & H. Abelson (Eds.), Computational thinking education (pp. 53–64). Singapore: Springer. European Commission. (2020). Digital Education Action Plan (2021-2027): Resetting education and training for the digital age. https://tinyurl.com/sdq2zbc Ferrari, A. (2012). Digital Competence in Practice: An Analysis of Frameworks. Publications Office of the European Union. https://tinyurl.com/yyovsjfe Granić, A., & Marangunić, N. (2019). Technology acceptance model in educational context: A systematic literature review. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(5), 2572–2593. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12864 Lee, Y., Kozar, K. A., & Larsen, K. R.T. (2003). The Technology Acceptance Model: Past, Present, and Future. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 12. https://doi.org/10.17705/1CAIS.01250 Mayring, P. (2015). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Grundlagen und Techniken [Qualitative content analysis. Fundamentals and Techniques] (12th ed.). Weinheim: Beltz Verlag. OECD. (2019). How’s Life in the Digital Age? https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264311800-en OECD. (2020). PISA 2018 Results (Volume V). https://doi.org/10.1787/ca768d40-en Teo, T., Lee, C. B., & Chai, C. S. (2008). Understanding pre-service teachers’ computer attitudes: Applying and extending the technology acceptance model. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24(2), 128–143. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2007.00247.x Viner, R. M., Russell, S. J., Croker, H., …, Booy, R. (2020). School closure and management practices during coronavirus outbreaks including COVID-19: a rapid systematic review. The Lancet Child & Adolescent Health, 4 (5), 397-404. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2352-4642(20)30095-X