BEHAVIORAL ASPECT OF ACCOUNTING TEACHERS’ INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY USAGE

Year 2013, Volume: 1 Issue: 2, 108 - 121, 07.07.2015

Emine Yılmaz Gökhan Özer

https://doi.org/10.18825/iremjournal.109064

Abstract

This study aims to examine behavioral process of accounting teachers’ information technology (IT) acceptance. To this end, we collected data from accounting teachers working in trade high schools. Research model and hypotheses were developed in the light of Theory of Reasoned Action. Accordingly, relationships among attitudes, subjective norms, intentions towards information technology usage and IT usage behaviors were investigated. Explanatory factor analysis and structural equation modeling were used to analyze relationships among variables. The results of analyses show that accounting teachers’ IT usage behavior is significantly and positively determined by their intention towards IT usage. Secondly, it was found that accounting teachers’ attitudes and subjective norms towards IT usage have significant and positive impact on teachers’ intention towards IT usage.

Keywords

information technology; Theory of Reasoned Action; accounting teachers

References

• Ajzen, I. & Fishbein, M. 1980. Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs. NJ: Prentice-Hall.
• Ajzen, I. 2002. Perceived behavioral control, self-efficacy, locus of control, and the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32: 665-683.
• Baker, S.A., Morrison, D.M., Carter W.B. & Verdon, M.S. 1996. Using the Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) to Understand the Decision to Use Condoms in an STD Clinic Population, Health Education and Quarterly, 23(4): 528-42.
• Barrett, P. 2007. Structural equation modelling: Adjudging model fit, Personality and Individual Differences, 42(5): 815-824.
• Bentler, P.M. & Bonett, D.G. 1980. Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures, Psychological Bulletin, 88(3): 588.
• Çelen, F.K., Çelik, A. & Seferoğlu, S.S. 2011. Türk Eğitim Sistemi ve PISA Sonuçları, Akademik Bilişim, İnönü Üniversitesi, Malatya.
• Chen, I.Y.L., Chen, N.S. & Kinshuk. 2009. Examining the Factors Influencing participants’ Knowledge Sharing Behavior in Virtual Learning Communities” Educational Technology & Society, 12(1): 134–148
• 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): 928-1003.
• Fishbein, M. & Ajzen, I. 1975. Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
• Ajzen, I. & Fishbein, M. 2005. The influence of attitudes on behavior. In D. Albarracín, B. T. Johnson, & M. P. Zanna (Eds.), The handbook of attitudes (pp. 173-221). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
• Girgin, T. 2003. Acceptance of mobil data services; an application of Technology acceptance theories (Master Thesis), Marmara University.
• Harrington, D. 2008. Confirmatory factor analysis. Oxford University Press, USA.
• Hooper, D., Coughlan, J. & Mullen, M. 2008. Structural equation modelling: guidelines for determining model fit, Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6(1): 53-60.
• Hsu, C.L. & Lin, J.C.C. 2008. Acceptance of blog usage: The roles of technology acceptance, social influence and knowledge sharing motivation, Information & Management, 45(1): 65-74.
• Hu, L.T. & Bentler, P.M. 1999. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives, Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1):1-55.
• Hu, P.J.H., Clark, T.H. & Ma, W.W. 2003. Examining technology acceptance by school teachers: a longitudinal study, Information & Management, 41(2): 227-241.
• Hughes, J. 2004. Technology learning principles for preservice and in-service teacher education, Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 4(3): 345-362.
• Igbaria, M., Parasuraman, S. & Baroudi, J.J. 1996. A motivational model of microcomputer usage, Journal of management information systems, 13(1): 127-143.
• Jöreskog, K. & D. Sörbom. 1993. LISREL 8: Structural Equation Modeling with the SIMPLIS Command Language. Chicago, IL: Scientific Software International Inc.
• Kayaduman, H., Sırakaya M. & Seferoğlu, S.S. 2011. Eğitimde FATİH projesinin öğretmenlerin yeterlik durumları açısından incelenmesi. XIII. Akademik Bilişim Konferansı (AB11), 2-4 Şubat 2011, İnönü Üniversitesi, Malatya. Available at: http://yunus.hacettepe.edu.tr/~sadi/yayin/AB11_Celen-Celik_Seferoglu_PISA-Sonuclari.pdf, Accessed November 11, 2012.
• Kukafka, R., Johnson, S.B., Linfante, A. & Allegrante, J.P. 2003. Grounding a new information technology implementation framework in behavioral science: a systematic analysis of the literature on IT use, Journal of biomedical informatics, 36(3): 218-227.
• Kuo, F.Y. & Young, M.L. 2008. Predicting knowledge sharing practices through intention: A test of competing models, Computers in Human Behavior, 24(6): 2697–2722.
• Lee, J., Cerreto, F.A. & Lee, J. 2010. Theory of planned behavior and teachers’ decisions regarding use of educational technology, Educational Technology & Society, 13(1): 152-164.
• Lee, M.K.O., Cheung, C.M.K. & Chen, Z. 2005. Acceptance of internet based learning medium: the role of extrinsic and intrinsic motivation, Information & Management, 42(8): 1095–1104.
• Leonard, L.N.K., Timothy, P.C. & Kreie, J. 2004. What Influences IT ethical Behavior Intentions-Planned Behavior, Reasoned Action, Perceived Importance, or Individual Characteristics?, Information Management, 42:143–158.
• Liker, J.K. and Sindi, A.A. 1997. User Acceptance of Expert Systems: A Test of the Theory of Reasoned Action. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 14: 147-173.
• Ma, W.W.K., Andersson, R. & Streith, K.O. 2005. Examining user acceptance of computer technology: An empirical study of student teachers, Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21(6): 387-395.
• Madden, T., Ellen, I., Pamela S. & Ajzen, I. 1992. A Comparison of the Theory of Planned Behaviour and the Theory of Reasoned Action, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18(1): 3–9.
• Malhotra, Y. & Galletta, D.F. 1999. Extending the technology acceptance model to account for social influence: theoretical bases and empirical validation. In System Sciences. HICSS-32. Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Hawaii International Conference on. IEEE.
• McDonald, R.P. & Ho, M.H.R. 2002. Principles and practice in reporting structural equation analyses, Psychological methods, 7(1): 64-82.
• Mumtaz, S. 2000. Factors affecting teachers' use of information and communications technology: a review of the literature. Journal of information technology for teacher education, 9(3): 319-342.
• Bayram, N. 2010. Yapısal Eşitlik Modellemesine Giriş: AMOS Uygulamaları. Bursa: Ezgi Kitabevi.
• Özer, G. & Yılmaz, E. 2010. An application to the accountants’ information technology usage with the Theory of Reasoned Action, İktisat İşletme ve Finans, 25(290): 65-88.
• Özer, G. & Yılmaz, E. 2011. Comparison of the theory of reasoned action and the theory of planned behavior: an application on accountants’ information technology usage, African Journal of Business Management, 5(1): 50-58.
• Rehman, T., McKemey, K., Yates, C.M., Cooke, R.J., Garforth, C.J., Tranter, R.B., Park, J.R., & Dorward, P.T. 2007. Identifying and understanding factors influencing the uptake of new technologies on dairy farms in SW England using the theory of reasoned action, Agricultural Systems, 94(2): 281-293.
• Russell, M., Bebell, D. O'Dwyer L. & O'Connor, K. 2003. Examining teacher technology use implications for preservice and inservice teacher preparation, Journal of Teacher Education, 54(4): 297-310.
• Shih, H. 2004. An Empirical Study on Predicting User Acceptance of E-shopping on the Web. Information Management, 41: 351–368.
• Sugar, W., Crawley, F. & Fine, B. 2004. Examining teachers’ decisions to adopt new technology, Educational Technology and Society, 7(4): 201-213.
• Taylor, S. & Todd, P. 1995. Understanding information technology usage: A test of competing models, Information Systems Research, 6(2): 144–176.
• Teo, T. 2011. Factors influencing teachers’ intention to use technology: Model development and test, Computers & Education, 57(4): 2432-2440.
• Teo, T., Lee, C.B. & Chai, C.S. 2008b. Understanding pre-service teachers’ computer attitudes: Applying and extending the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24: 128–143.
• Teo, T., Luan, W.S. & Sing, C.C. 2008a. A cross-cultural examination of the intention to use technology between Singaporean and Malaysian pre-service teachers: an application of the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), Educational Technology & Society, 11(4): 265-280.
• Tezci, E. 2009. Teachers’ effect on ICT use in education: The Turkey sample, Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1(1): 1285-1294.
• Tezci, E. 2010. Attitudes and knowledge level of teachers in ICT use: The case of Turkish teachers, International Journal of Human Sciences, 7(2): 19-44.
• Turkish Ministry of Education, 2011. FATIH Project, Available at: http://fatihprojesi.meb.gov.tr/tr/icerikincele.php?id=6, Accessed November 11, 2012.
• Vijayasarathy, L.R. 2004. Predicting consumer intentions to use on-line shopping: the case for an augmented technology acceptance model, Information & Management, 41(6): 747-762.
• Wu, I.L. 2003. Understanding senior management’s behavior in promoting the strategic role of IT in process reengineering: use of the theory of reasoned action, Information & Management, 41(1): 1-11.
• Yang, H.D. & Yoo, Y. 2004. It’s all about attitude: revisiting the technology acceptance model, Decision Support Systems, 38: 19–31.
• Yilmaz, E., Aktaş, S., Özer, G. & Özcan, M. 2013. The Factors Affecting Information Technology Usage Behavior of Tax Office Employees in the Black Sea Region of Turkey, Business and Economics Research Journal, 4(2): 1-9.
• Yousafzai, S.Y., Foxall, G.R. & Pallister, J.G. 2010. Explaining Internet banking behavior: theory of reasoned action, theory of planned behavior, or technology acceptance model?, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 40(5): 1172-1202.