Advertisement

Parents’ Acceptance of Participation in the Integration of Technology into Children’s Instruction

  • Mengping TsueiEmail author
  • Yung-Yu Hsu
Regular Article

Abstract

The purposes of this study were to explore the parents’ acceptance of participation in integration of technology into children’s instruction. The Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) was adopted as the framework in the study. There were 876 fifth-grader’s parents in Taipei, Taiwan participated in the study. The research results show that parents’ beliefs and parent–teacher communication can be used to directly and indirectly predict the perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use integration of information technology into instruction. The parents–child interactions can directly predict the perceived usefulness in TAM model and indirectly predict perceived ease of use. In the TAM model, the perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness could predict their attitude toward use and the intentions to use of the integration of technology into instruction for children. Finally, we discuss the implications of our findings for parents, teachers, and future studies.

Keywords

Integration of technology into instruction Parents’ beliefs Parent–teacher communication Technology acceptance model 

Notes

References

  1. Alvarez, M., Torres, A., Rodriguez, E., Padilla, S., & Rodrigo, M. J. (2013). Attitudes and parenting dimensions in parents’ regulation of Internet use by primary and secondary school children. Computers & Education, 67, 69–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bailey, L. B. (2006). Interactive homework: A tool for fostering parent-child interactions and improving learning outcomes for at-risk young children. Early Childhood Education Journal, 34(2), 155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ballantine, J. H. (1999). Getting involved in our children’s education. Childhood Education, 75(3), 170–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blau, I., & Hameiri, M. (2012). Teacher-families online interactions and gender differences I parental involvement through school data system: Do mothers want to know more than fathers about their children? Computers & Education, 59, 701–709.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Boomsma, A. (1987). The robustness of maximum likelihood estimation in structural equation models. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Bryan, J., Burstein, K., & Bryan, T. (2001). Students with learning disabilities: Homework problems and promising practices. Educational Psychologist, 36(3), 167–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cangur, S., & Ercan, I. (2015). Comparison of model fit indices used in structural equation modeling under multivariate normality. Journal of Modern Applied Statistical Methods, 14(1), 152–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chao, R. K. (1994). Beyond parental control and authoritarian parenting style: Understanding Chinese parenting through the cultural notion of training. Child Development, 65, 1111–1120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chen, H. M., Yu, C., & Chang, C. S. (2007). E-homebook system: A web-based interactive education interface. Computers & Education, 49(2), 160–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cranmer, S. (2006). Children and young people’s uses of the Internet for homework. Learning Media and Technology, 31, 301–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. British Educational Communications and Technology Agency (BECTA) (2008). Harnessing technology: Next generation learning. 2008-2014. BECTA, Cobventry. Retrieved from https://www.becta.org.uk
  13. Daniel, G. (2011). Family-school partnerships: Towards sustainable pedagogical practice. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 39, 165–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Davies, C. (2011). Digitally strategic: How young people respond to parental views about the use of technology for learning in the home. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 27, 324–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Desforges, C., & Abouchar, A. (2003). The impact of parent involvement, parent support and family education on pupil achievement: A literature review. Research Report RR433. Australia: Queen’s.Google Scholar
  18. DfEE(1998). Homework: Guidelines for primary and secondary schools. London: DFEE Standards and Effectiveness Unit.Google Scholar
  19. Epstein, J. L. (1992). School and family partnerships. In M. C. Alkin (Ed.), Encyclopedia of educational research (6th ed., pp. 1139–1151). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  20. Fay-Stammbach, T., Hawes, D. J., & Meredith, P. (2014). Parenting influences on executive function in early childhood: A review. Child Development Perspectives, 8(4), 258–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Boston: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  22. Fleming, J., Greentree, S., Cocotti-Muller, D., Elias, K., & Morrison, S. (2006). Safety in cyberspace. Youth and Society, 38, 135–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gong, M., Xu, Y., & Yu, Y. (2004). An enhanced technology acceptance model for web-based learning. Journal of Information Systems Education, 15(4), 365–374.Google Scholar
  25. Ho, E. S., & Willms, J. D. (1996). Effects of parental involvement on eighth-grade achievement. Sociology of Education, 69, 126–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ho, L., Hung, C., & Chen, H. (2013). Using theoretical models to examine the acceptance behavior of mobile phone messaging to enhance parent-teacher interactions. Computers & Education, 61, 105–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hohlfeld, T. N., Ritzhaupt, A. D., & Barron, A. E. (2010). Connecting schools, community, and family with ICT: Four-year trends related to school level and SES of public schools in Florida. Computers & Education, 55(1), 391–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hollingworth, S., Mansaray, A., Allen, K., & Rose, A. (2011). Parents’ perspectives on technology and children's learning in the home: Social class and the role of the habitus. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 27, 347–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hoyle, R. H., & Panter, A. T. (1995). Writing about structural equation models. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications (pp. 158–176). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  30. Hung, C.-L. (2008). A Research on willingness of parent-teacher Interaction through internet with TAM: A case study on JAPS. Unpublished masters’ theses, Yuan Ze University, Taiwan.Google Scholar
  31. Hwang, W. Y., Liu, Y. F., Chen, H. R., Huang, J. W., & Li, J. Y. (2015). Role of parents and annotation sharing in children’s learning behavior and achievement using e-readers. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 18, 292–307.Google Scholar
  32. Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D.(1993). LISREL 8.5: A guide to the program and application. Chicago, IL: SPSS.Google Scholar
  33. Kong, S. C. (2018). Parents’ perceptions of e-learning in school education: Implications for the partnership between schools and parents. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 27(1), 15–31.  https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2017.1317659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kong, S. C., & Li, K. M. (2009). Collaboration between school and parents on fostering information literacy: Learning in the information society. Computers and Education, 52(2), 275–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Larsson, L. (2002). Digital literacy checklist. In H. Services (Ed.), Health Services. University of Washington, Washington.Google Scholar
  36. Legrisa, P., Inghamb, J., & Collerettec, P. (2003). Why do people use information technology? A critical review of the technology acceptance model. Information & Management, 40, 191–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lewin, C., & Luckin, R. (2010). Technology to support parental engagement in elementary education: Lessons learned from the UK. Computers and Education, 54(3), 749–758.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Li, C.-C., & Tung, C.-J. (2001). A highway of communication between teachers and parents-network homebook. Audio-Visual Education Bimonthly, 49(1), 26–33.Google Scholar
  39. Lou, S. J., Shih, R. C., Liu, H. T., Guo, Y. C., & Tseng, K. H. (2010). The influences of the sixth graders' parents’ internet literacy and parenting style on internet parenting. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology-TOJET, 9(4), 173–184.Google Scholar
  40. Lueder, D. C. (1998). Creating Partnerships with Parents: An educator’s guide. Lancaster, PA: Technomic Pub. Co.Google Scholar
  41. Martinez-Torres, M., Toral Marín, S., Garcia, F., Vazquez, S., Oliva, M., & Torres, T. (2008). A technological acceptance of e-learning tools used in practical and laboratory teaching, according to the European higher education area. Behaviour & Information Technology, 27(6), 495–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Ngai, E. W. T., Poon, J. K. L., & Chan, Y. H. C. (2007). Empirical examination of the adoption of WebCT using TAM. Computers & Education, 48, 250–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (McGraw-Hill series in psychology). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  44. Ofcom. (2014). The Communications Market Report. Retrieved March 19, 2015, from https://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/research/cmr/cmr14/2014_UK_CMR.pdf.
  45. Olmstead, C. (2013). Using technology to increase parent involvement in schools. TechTrends, 57(6), 28–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Paiva, J. C., Morais, C., & Moreira, L. (2017). Activities with parents on the computer: An ecological framework. Educational Technology & Society, 20(2), 1–14.Google Scholar
  47. Plowman, L., & McPake, J. (2013). Seven myths about young children and technology. Childhood Education, 89, 27–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Shin, W., & Li, B. (2017). Parental mediation of children’s digital technology use in Singapore. Journal of Children and Media, 11(1), 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Sonck, N., Nikken, P., & de Haan, J. (2013). Determinants of internet mediation: A comparison of the reports by Dutch parents and children. Journal of Children and Media, 7(1), 96–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Tam, V. C., & Chan, R. M. (2009). Parental involvement in primary children’s homework in Hong Kong. School Community Journal, 19(2), 81–100.Google Scholar
  51. Teo, T., & Zhou, M. (2017). The influence of teachers’ conceptions of teaching and learning on their technology acceptance. Interactive Learning Environments, 25(4), 513–527.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2016.1143844.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Turow, J., & Nir, L.(2000). The internet and the family: The view from parent, the view from kids. Report from the Annenberg Public Policy Center, Philadelphia, PA and Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  53. Vandenhouten, C. L., Lepak, S. G., Reilly, J., & Berg, P. R. (2014). Collaboration in e-learning: A study using the flexible e-learning framework. Online Learning: Official Journal of the Online Learning Consortium, 18(3), 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Yan, W. F., & Lin, Q. Y. (2005). Parent involvement and mathematics achievement: Contrast across racial and ethnic groups. Journal of Educational Research, 99(2), 116–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Zaman, B., Nouwen, M., Vanattenhoven, J., de Ferrerre, E., & Looy, J. V. (2016). A qualitative inquiry into the contextualized parental mediation practices of young children’s digital media use at home. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 60(1), 1–22.  https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2015.1127240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© De La Salle University 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Graduate School of Curriculum and Instructional Communications TechnologyNational Taipei University of EducationTaipeiTaiwan, ROC
  2. 2.Taipei Municipal San-Xing Elementary SchoolTaipeiTaiwan

Personalised recommendations