How ready are our students for technology-enhanced learning? Students at a university of technology respond

Article
  • 26 Downloads

Abstract

This study focused on perceived technology knowledge and acceptance of Iranian university students. Survey data were collected from 215 freshmen students of 12 majors from a state university of technology in Tehran, Iran. The survey was comprised of 29 items arranged into two scales, namely technology knowledge and technology acceptance (with three sub-scales: perceived technology self-efficacy, ease of use, and usefulness) as the dependent variables. Descriptive and MANOVA analyses were conducted to explore participants’ perception towards these factors, the possible impact of gender, computer ownership, and major of study as independent variables on technology knowledge and acceptance, and the correlation between the dependent variables. The majority of participants perceived themselves as novice or slightly-better-than-novice users of technology. While the results yielded a generally positive technology self-efficacy, the respondents appeared largely uncertain about usefulness and ease of use of technology. The findings supported that male participants demonstrated more self-efficacy towards technology compared to the females. A statistically significant difference was found in technology knowledge of respondents majoring at computer engineering with the rest of the participants. Further, students with a personal computer demonstrated higher levels of technology knowledge and perceived technology easy to use. Pearson product moment correlation coefficients indicated that technology knowledge positively correlated with the three constructs of technology acceptance. Addressing students’ technology proficiency and acceptance is a critical step for designing and/or redefining technology-enhanced courses and programs.

Keywords

Technology proficiency Perceived technology usefulness Technology self-efficacy Freshmen students 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.Google Scholar
  2. Bates, R., & Khasawneh, S. (2007). Self-efficacy and college students’ perceptions and use of online learning systems. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(1), 175–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Comprehensive National Scientific Plan. (2016). Supreme Council of Cultural Revolution. Retrieved from https://isacmsrt.ir/files/site1/pages/naghshe_jame_elmi.pdf
  4. Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1992). Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation to use computers in the workplace. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22(14), 1111–1132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Donovan, J., Green, T., & Hansen, L. E. (2011). One-to-one laptop teacher education: Does involvement affect candidate technology skills and dispositions? Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 44, 121–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Edmunds, R., Thorpe, M., & Conole, G. (2012). Student attitudes toward and use of ICT in course study, work and social activity: A technology acceptance model approach. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(1), 71–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fletcher, K. M. (2005). Self-efficacy as an evaluation measure for programs in support of online learning literacies for undergraduates. Internet and Higher Education, 8(4), 307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hatlevik, O. E., Guðmundsdottir, G. B., & Loi, M. (2015). Digital diversity among upper secondary students: A multilevel analysis of the relationship between cultural capital, self efficacy, strategic use of information and digital competence. Computers & Education, 81, 345–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hinton, P. R., Brownlow, C., McMurray, I., & Cozens, B. (2004). SPSS explained. New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.Google Scholar
  11. Internet World Stats Usage and Population Statistics. (2017). Iran Internet usage, broadband and telecommunication reports. Retrieved from http://www.internetworldstats.com/me/ir.htm
  12. Joo, Y. J., Lim, K. Y., & Kim, J. (2013). Locus of control, self-efficacy, and task value as predictors of learning outcome in an online university context. Computers & Education, 62, 149–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kao, C. P., & Tsai, C. C. (2009). Teachers’ attitudes toward web-based professional development, with relation to Internet self-efficacy and beliefs about web-based learning. Computers & Education, 53, 66–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kim, H. J., & Jang, H. Y. (2015). Factors influencing students’ beliefs about the future in the context of tablet-based interactive classrooms. Computers & Education, 89, 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lee, D. Y., & Lehto, M. R. (2013). User acceptance of YouTube for procedural learning: An extension of the Technology Acceptance Model. Computers & Education, 61, 193–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Liaw, S. S., & Huang, H. M. (2013). Perceived satisfaction, perceived usefulness and interactive learning environments as predictors to self-regulation in e-learning environments. Computers & Education, 60, 14–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lowerison, G., Sclater, J., Schmid, R. F., & Abrami, P. C. (2006). Student perceived effectiveness of computer technology use in post-secondary classrooms. Computers & Education, 47, 465–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. McCoy, C. (2010). Perceived self-efficacy and technology proficiency in undergraduate college students. Computers & Education, 55, 1614–1617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Pamuk, S., & Peker, D. (2009). Turkish pre-service science and mathematics teachers’ computer related self-efficacies, attitudes, and the relationship between these variables. Computers & Education, 53, 454–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Papastergiou, M. (2010). Enhancing physical education and sport science students’ self-efficacy and attitudes regarding Information and Communication Technologies through a computer literacy course. Computers & Education, 54, 298–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Peng, H., Tsai, C. C., & Wu, Y. T. (2006). University students’ self-efficacy and their attitudes toward the Internet: The role of students’ perceptions of the Internet. Educational Studies, 32(1), 73–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Roblyer, M. D. (2003). Integrating educational technology into teaching (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  23. Roca, J. C., Chiu, C. M., & Martinez, F. J. (2006). Understanding e-learning continuance intention: An extension of the Technology Acceptance Model. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 64, 683–696.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Shaikhi Fini, A. A. (2008). Survey on professors and student’s attitude about virtual learning in Iran universities. WSEAS Transactions on Advances in Engineering Education, 5(4), 252–257.Google Scholar
  25. Shashaani, L., & Khalili, A. (2001). Gender and computers: Similarities and differences in Iranian college students’ attitudes toward computers. Computers & Education, 37, 363–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sun, J. C. Y., & Rueda, R. (2012). Situational interest, computer self-efficacy and self-regulation: Their impact on student engagement in distance education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(2), 191–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Tarhini, A., Hone, K., & Liu, X. (2015). A cross-cultural examination of the impact of social, organizational and individual factors on educational technology acceptance between British and Lebanese university students. British Journal of Educational Technology, 46(4), 739–755.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Teo, T. (2009). Modeling technology acceptance in education: A study of pre-service teachers. Computers & Education, 52, 302–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Teo, T., Milutinovic, V., & Zhou, M. (2016). Modeling Serbian pre-service teachers’ attitudes towards computer use: A SEM and MIMIC approach. Computers & Education, 94, 77–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Wang, Y. S., Wu, M. C., & Wang, H. Y. (2009). Investigating the determinants and age and gender differences in the acceptance of mobile learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(1), 92–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Warschauer, M. (2002). A developmental perspective on technology in language education. TESOL Quarterly, 36, 453–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Warschauer, M. (2008). Whither the digital divide? In D. L. Kleinman, K. A. Cloud-Hansen, C. Matta, & J. Handesman (Eds.), Controversies in science and technology: From chromosomes to cosmos (pp. 140–151). New Rochelle, NY: Liebert.Google Scholar
  33. Wiebe, G., & Kabata, K. (2010). Students’ and instructors’ attitudes toward the use of CALL in foreign language teaching and learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 23(3), 221–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Wojciechowski, R., & Cellary, W. (2013). Evaluation of learners’ attitude toward learning in ARIES augmented reality environments. Computers & Education, 68, 570–585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Yaghoubi, J., Malek Mohammadi, I., Iravani, H., Attaran, M., & Gheidi, A. (2008). Virtual students’ perceptions of e-learning in Iran. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 7(3), 89–95.Google Scholar
  36. Zamani, B. E., & Gholizadeh Shoghlabad, R. (2010). Acceptance of the Internet by Iranian business management students. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(5), E96–E100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Foreign LanguagesAmirkabir University of TechnologyTehranIran
  2. 2.Department of Foreign LanguagesIran University of Science and TechnologyTehranIran

Personalised recommendations