Intention as a Mediator between Attitudes, Subjective Norms, and Cyberloafing among Preservice Teachers of English
Abstract
Learning and teaching is fostered to a great deal by technology. Cell phones and internet can be utilized as effective tools in providing extended and diversified learning opportunities as well as promoters of learning and teaching. However, early internet-enabled cell phones or more recent smartphones have also become easily accessible avenues of distraction and escape. This study explored if and how intention to cyberloaf acts as a mediator in the relationship between attitudes, subjective norms, and cyberloafing with a focus on descriptive and prescriptive norms with respect to instructors and classmates separately. The research was undertaken at a foundation university in Ankara, Turkey with 214 preservice English teachers. The sample consisted of 152 (71.03%) females and 62 (28.97%) males. Cyberloafing scale developed by Kalaycı (2010), adapted versions of Askew et al.’s (2014) attitudes towards cyberloafing scale, subjective descriptive norms scale, cyberloafing intentions scale, and Blanchard and Henle’s (2008) norms scale were used as data collection instruments. Mediation analyses were performed using SPSS 22 with the utilization of SPSS macro, PROCESS v 3.4 (Hayes, 2017). The results of the regression analyses indicated that subjective norms and attitudes significantly predicted cyberloafing; and intentions to cyberloaf was found to be a significant but partial mediator between the variables. The results have significant implications both for academic research on cyberloafing and for educational practices.
Keywords
cyberloafing, attitude, subjective norms, behavioral intention, mediator
Supporting Institution
None
Project Number
This study was conducted by the researchers who are the members of LET-IN (LanguagE Teaching INnovations Research & Development Group)
References
- Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In J. Kuhl & J. Beckman (Eds.), Action-control: From cognition to behavior (pp. 11–39). Heidelberg: Springer.
- Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179-211. doi:10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
- Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood-Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
- Akbulut, Y., Dursun, O. O., Dönmez, O., & Şahin, Y. L. (2016). In search of a measure to investigate cyberloafing in educational settings. Computers in Human Behavior, 55, 616-625.
- Arabacı, I. B. (2017). Investigation Faculty of Education Students' Cyberloafing Behaviors in Terms of Various Variables. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology-TOJET, 16(1), 72-82.
- Askew, K., Buckner, J. E., Taing, M. U., Ilie, A., Bauer, J. A., & Coovert, M. D. (2014). Explaining cyberloafing: The role of the theory of planned behavior. Computers in Human Behavior, 36, 510–519. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2014.04.006
- Askew, K., Ilie, A., Bauer, J. A., Simonet, D. V., Buckner, J. E., & Robertson, T. A. (2019). Disentangling how coworkers and supervisors influence employee cyberloafing: what normative information are employees attending to? Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 26(4), 526-544.
- Bağrıaçık Yılmaz, A. (2017). Lisansüstü öğrencilerinin siber aylaklık düzeylerinin çesitli değiskenler açısından incelenmesi: karma bir çalışma [Investigation of cyberloafing levels of graduate students in terms of various variables: a mixed method study]. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Kırsehir Egitim Fakültesi Dergisi (KEFAD), 18(2), 113-134.
- Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182.
- Bassett, J., Cleveland, A., Acorn, D., Nix, M., & Snyder, T. (2017). Are they paying attention? Students’ lack of motivation and attention potentially threaten the utility of course evaluations. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 42(3), 431-442.
