Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Mixed-Methodological Technology Adoption Study

Cognitive Belief-Behavioral Model Assessments in Predicting Computer Usage Factors in the Classroom

  • Chapter
Book cover Technology Acceptance in Education

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to: a) investigate student teachers’ and experienced classroom teachers’ computer usage beliefs, intentions, and self-reported computer usage in the classroom using a mixed methodology approach (i.e., quantitative and qualitative), and b) examine the efficacy of the technology acceptance model (TAM) and the decomposed theory of planned behavior (DTPB) for predicting computer usage intentions. This study consisted of a sample of 160 student teachers and 158 experienced teachers from classes within a large urban university. All participants completed a Computer Usage Intention Survey. This survey was developed using a theoretical framework of the technology acceptance model (TAM) (Davis, 1989, 1993; Davis, Bagozzi, & Warshaw, 1989). The survey determined participants’ beliefs, future intentions usage (for the coming 6 months) and self-reported usage (for the past three months) of integrating computer applications (e.g. Word Processing, Spreadsheets, Database, Multimedia, Internet, Games, Drill and Practice, Simulations, Tutorials, Problem Solving, and educational subject-specific software) into subjectspecific lessons. After completion of the Computer Usage Intentions Survey, a purposeful sample of the study’s participants was selected for semi-structured interviews. This sample consisted of a total of 19 participants, 10 student teachers and 9 experienced classroom teachers. The interview questionnaire was developed using a theoretical framework of the decomposed theory of planned behavior (Taylor & Todd, 1995). Although the TAM was a good predictor of intentions, the DTPB emerged as the most important model for predicting teachers’ intentions. Similarities as well as significant differences were found between student teachers’ and experienced teachers’ computer usage.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 49.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  • Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In J. Kuhl & J. Beckmann (Eds.), Action control: From cognition to behavior (pp. 11–39). New York: Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anfara, V. A., Jr., Brown, K. M., & Mangione, T. L. (2002). Qualitative analysis on stage: Making the research process more public. Educational Researcher, 31(7), 28–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker, H. J. (1994). How exemplary computer-using teachers differ from other teachers: Implications for realizing the potential of computers in schools. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 26(3), 291–321.

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker, H. J. (1998). Running to catch a moving train: Schools and information technologies. Theory Into Practice, 37(1), 20–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benson, L. F., Farnsworth, B. J., Bahr, D. L., Lewis, V. K., & Shaha, S. H. (2004). The impact of training in technology assisted instruction on skills and attitudes of pre-service teachers. Education, 124(4), 649–663.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bliss, T. J., & Bliss, L. L. (2003). Attitudinal responses to teacher professional development for the effective integration of educational technology. Journal of In-Service Education, 29(1), 81–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brent, R., Brawner, C. E., & Van Dyk, P. (2002). Factors influencing student teachers’ use of technology. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 19(2), 61–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brzycki, D., & Dudt, K. (2005). Overcoming barriers to technology use in teacher preparation programs. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13(4), 619–641.

    Google Scholar 

  • Compeau, D. R., & Higgins, C. A. (1995). Computer self-efficacy: Development of a measure and initial test. MIS Quarterly, 19(2), 189–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Constas, M. A. (1992). Qualitative analysis as a public event: The documentation of category development procedures. American Educational Research Journal, 29(2), 253–266.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classrooms. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Culp, K. M., Honey, M., & Mandinach, E. (2005). A retrospective on twenty years of education technology policy. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 32(3), 279–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13, 319–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, F. D. (1993). User acceptance of information technology: System characteristics, user perceptions and behavioral impacts. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 38, 475–487.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, F. D., & Venkatesh, V. (1996). A critical assessment of potential measurement biases in the technology acceptance model: Three experiments. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 45, 19–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dawson, C., & Rakes, G. C. (2003). The influence of principals’ technology training on the integration of technology into schools. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 36(1), 29–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dishaw, M. T., & Strong, D. M. (1999). Extending the technology acceptance model with task-technology fit constructs. Information & Management, 36, 9–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doering, A., Hughes, J., & Huffman, D. (2003). Preservice teachers: Are we thinking with technology? Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 35(3), 342–361.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doll, W. J., Hendrickson, A., & Deng, X. (1998). Using Davis’s perceived usefulness and ease-of-use instruments for decision making: A confirmatory and multigroup invariance analysis. Decision Sciences, 29(4), 839–869.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drennan, J., Kennedy, J., & Pisarski, A. (2005). Factors affecting student attitudes toward flexible online learning in management education. The Journal of Educational Research, 98(6), 331–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Driscoll, M. (2001). Computers for what? Examining the roles of technology in teaching and learning. Educational Research and Evaluation, 7(2–3), 335–349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, V. B., Chronister, G., & Hendrie, C. (2006). The information edge. Education Week Technology Counts, The Information Edge: Using Data to Accelerate Achievement, 8–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ertmer, R. A., Addison, P., Lane, M., Ross, E., & Woods, D. (1999). Examining teachers’ beliefs about the role of technology in the elementary classroom. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 32(1), 54–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gao, Y. (2005). Applying the technology acceptance model (TAM) to educational hypermedia: A field study. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 14(3), 237–247.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, S., & Nocente, N. (1998). Addressing instructional technology needs in faculties of education. The Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 64(3), 320–331.

    Google Scholar 

  • Granger, C. A., Morbey, M. L., Lotherington, H., Owston, R. D., & Wideman, H. H. (2002). Factors contributing to teachers’ successful implementation of IT. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18, 480–488.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hadley, M., & Sheingold, K. (1993). Commonalities and distinctive patterns in teachers’ integration of computers. American Journal of Education, 101, 261–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, L. (2006). Modeling technology integration for preservice teachers: A PT3 case study. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 6(4), 436–455.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hendrickson, A. R., & Collins, M. R. (1996). An assessment of structure and causation of IS usage. The DATA BASE for Advances in Information Systems, 27(2), 61–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Igbaria, M., Guimaraes, T., & Davis, G. B. (1995). Testing the determinants of microcomputer usage via a structural equation model. Journal of Management Information Systems, 11(4), 87–114.

    Google Scholar 

  • Igbaria, M., Schiffman, S. J., & Wieckowski, T. J. (1994). The respective roles of perceived usefulness and perceived fun in the acceptance of microcomputer technology. Behaviour & Information Technology, 13(6), 349–361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karahanna, E., & Straub, D. W. (1999). The psychological origins of perceived usefulness and ease-ofuse. Information & Management, 35, 237–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kay, R. (1993). An exploration of theoretical and practical foundations for assessing attitudes toward computers: The computer attitude measure (CAM). Computers in Human Behavior, 9, 371–386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kay, R. H. (2006). Evaluating strategies used to incorporate technology into preservice education: A review of the literature. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38(4), 383–408.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelleher, T., & O’Malley, M. (2006). Applying the technology acceptance model to assess outcomes in a globally linked strategic communication project. Journalism & Mass Communication Educator, 60(4), 402–414.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lanahan, L. (2002). Beyond school-level Internet access: Support for instructional use of technology (NCES 2002–029). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, National Center for Education Statistics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, M. J. W., & Chan, A. (2005). Exploring the potential of podcasting to deliver mobile ubiquitous learning in higher education. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 18(1), 94–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lederer, A. L., Maupin, D. J., Sena, M. P., & Zhuang, Y. (2000). The technology acceptance model and the world wide web. Decision Support Systems, 29, 269–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ma, W. W. K., Anderson, R., & Streith, K. O. (2005). Examining user acceptance of computer technology: An empirical study of student teachers. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21, 387–395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marcinkiewicz, H. R. (1994). Computers and teachers: Factors influencing computer use in the classroom. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 26(2), 220–237.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mathieson, K. (1991). Predicting use intentions: Comparing the technology acceptance model with the theory of planned behavior. Information Systems Research, 2(3), 173–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mims, C., Polly, D., Shepherd, C., & Inan, F. (2006). Examining PT3 projects designed to improve preservice education. TechTrends, 50(3), 16–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moon, J. W., & Kim, Y. G. (2001). Extending the TAM for a world wide web context. Information & Management, 38, 217–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Motiwalla, L. F. (2007). Mobile learning: A framework and evaluation. Computers & Education, 49, 581–596.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moursund, D., & Bielefeldt, T. (1999). Will new teachers be prepared to teach in a digital age? Retrieved October 25, 2009, from http://www.mff.org/publications/publications.taf?page=154

  • Mouza, C. (2003). Learning to teach with new technology: Implications for professional development. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 35(2), 2772–2289.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mowrer-Popiel, E., Pollard, C., & Pollard, R. (1994). An analysis of the perceptions of preservice teachers toward technology and its use in the classroom. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 21(2), 131–138.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ong, C. S., & Lai, J. Y. (2006). Gender differences in perceptions and relationships among dominants of e-learning acceptance. Computers in Human Behavior, 22, 816–829.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ngai, E. W. T., Poon, J. K. L., & Chan,Y. H. C. (2007). Empirical examination of the adoption on WebCT using TAM. Computers & Education, 48, 250–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pan, C. C., Sivo, S., Gunter, G., & Cornell, R. (2005). Students’ perceived ease of use of an e-learning management system: An exogenous or endogenous variable? Journal of Educational Computing Research, 33(3), 285–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pituch, K. A., & Lee, Y. K. (2006). The influence of system characteristics on e-learning use. Computers & Education, 47, 222–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raaij, E. M. V., & Schepers, J. J. L. (2008). The acceptance and use of a virtual learning environment in China. Computers & Education, 50, 838–852.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schnackenberg, H. L., Luik, K., Nisan, Y. C., & Servant, C. (2001). A case study of needs assessment in teacher in-service development. Educational Research and Evaluation, 7(2–3), 137–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Selim, H. M. (2003). An empirical investigation of student acceptance of course websites. Computers & Education, 40, 343–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smarkola, C. (2007). Technology acceptance predictors among student teachers and classroom teachers. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 37(1), 65–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smarkola, C. (2008a). Efficacy of a planned behavior model: Beliefs that contribute to computer usage intentions of student teachers and experienced teachers. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(3),1196–1215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smarkola, C. (2008b). Developmentally responsive technology use in education: Are teachers helping students meet gradelevel national technology standards? Journal of Educational Computing Research, 38(4), 387–409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smerdon, B., Cronen, S., Lanahan, L., Anderson, J., Iannotti, N., & Angeles, J. (2000). Teachers’ tools for the 21st century: A report on teachers’ use of technology (NCES Publication No. 2000–102).

    Google Scholar 

  • Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, National Center for Statistics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swanson, C. B. (2006). Tracking U.S. trends. Education Week Technology Counts, The Information Edge: Using Data to Accelerate Achievement, 50–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Szajna, B. (1996). Empirical evaluation of the revised technology acceptance model. Management Science, 42(1), 85–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed methodology: Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, S., & Todd, P. (1995). Understanding information technology usage: A test of competing models. Information Systems Research, 6(2), 144–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Triandis, H. C. (1971). Attitude and attitude change. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trotter, A. (2006). National effort. Education Week Technology Counts, The Information Edge: Using Data to Accelerate Achievement, 48–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Congress. (2000). Goals 2000 educational act. Retrieved October 26, 2009, from http://www.ed.gov/legislation/GOALS2000/TheAct

  • U.S. Congress Office of Technology Assessment. (1995). Teachers and technology: Making the connection (OTA-EHR-616). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Department of Education. (2002). No child left behind act of 2001. Retrieved October 26, 2009, from http://www.ed.gov/nclb/overview/intro/progsum/progsum.pdf

  • U.S. Department of Education. (2004). Toward a new golden age in American education-How the Internet, the law and today’s students are revolutionizing expectations: National education technology

    Google Scholar 

  • plan 2004. Office of Educational Technology. Retrieved October 26, 2009, from http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/os/technology/plan/2004/plan_pg3.html#execsum.

  • Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wedman, J., & Diggs, L. (2001). Identifying barriers to technology-enhanced learning environments in teacher education. Computers in Human Behavior, 17(4), 421–430.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Willis, E. M., & Sujo de Montes, L. (2002). Does requiring a technology course in preservice teacher education affect student teacher’s technology use in the classroom? Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 18(3), 76–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Windschitl, M., & Sahl, K. (2002). Tracing teachers’ use of technology in a laptop computer school: The interplay of teacher beliefs, social dynamics, and institutional culture. American Educational Research Journal, 39(1), 165–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yuen, A. H. K., & Ma, W. W. K. (2002). Gender differences in teacher computer acceptance. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 10(3), 365–382.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Claudia Smarkola
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Nanyang Technological University, Singapore

    Timothy Teo

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2011 Sense Publishers

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Smarkola, C. (2011). A Mixed-Methodological Technology Adoption Study. In: Teo, T. (eds) Technology Acceptance in Education. SensePublishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6091-487-4_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Societies and partnerships

Search

Navigation