The Role of Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) in Developing Turkish Pre-Service EFL Teachers’ Technology Adoption

Abstract

As 21st century has witnessed drastic changes in educational technology, the education of pre-service teachers has gained more significance. Educators are then sought to be digitally literate who are also accepting new technologies to utilize web tools competently. That said, this current quantitative driven-mix method research scrutinizes the role of the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) in enhancing the pre-service English as a Foreign Language (EFL) teachers’ technology adoption in this changing educational landscape. Accordingly, an online questionnaire together with structured interview are used to gather data from 94 pre-service EFL teachers at a public university in Türkiye due to the restrictions of the Covid-19 pandemic during 2020-21 academic year. Quantitative data are analyzed through SPSS 27.0 to detect construct-dependent and -independent frequency levels whereas qualitative data are analyzed in lieu of grounded theory by means of thematic analysis. As a result of the quantitative data analysis, it is revealed that the Turkish pre-service EFL teachers’ levels of technology acceptance are moderately high, albeit there is no significant difference regarding age, gender, and personal computer ownership. On the other hand, qualitative data results provide a deeper insight into participants’ perceptions on related concepts. The results are mainly noted as the growing need for modifications in teacher education programs in order to familiarize more with technology and web tools as well as to improve their future technology-integrated language teaching practices.

Keywords

• Technology acceptance model
• technology adoption
• pre-service teachers
• technology integrated learning
• teacher education
• TAM
• EFL
• ELT

References

1. Adıguzel, T., Capraro, R. M., & Willson, V. L. (2011). An Examination of Teacher Acceptance of Handheld Computers. International Journal of Special Education, 26(3), 12-27.
2. Akar, M. (2019). A Structural Model for Relationship Between Web Pedagogic Content Knowledge and Technology Acceptance of Preservice Teachers. Malaysian Online Journal of Educational Technology, 7(1), 1-14.
3. Akarsu, B., & Güven, E. (2014). Fen ve Teknoloji Öğretmen Adaylarının Teknolojik Pedagojik Alan Bilgilerinin Incelenmesi. Gaziantep University Journal of Social Sciences, 13(2), 515-524.
4. Angeli, C., & Valanides, N. (2008, March). TPCK in Pre-Service Teacher Education: Preparing Primary Education Students to Teach with Technology. AERA Annual Conference. New Yok.
5. Arabacıoğlu, T., & Dursun, F. (2015). Öğretmen Adaylarının Web Pedagojik Içerik Bilgisi Algı Düzeylerinin Incelenmesi. Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, 23(1), 197- 210.
6. Ata, R., & Yıldırım, K. (2019). Exploring Turkish Pre-service Teachers’ Perceptions and Views of Digital Literacy. Education Sciences, 9(1), 40.
7. Baturay, M. H., Gökçearslan, Ş., & Ke, F. (2017). The Relationship among Pre-Service Teachers' Computer Competence, Attitude towards Computer-Assisted Education, and Intention of Technology Acceptance. International Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning, 9(1), 1-13.
8. Baydas, O., & Goktas, Y. (2017). A Model for Preservice Teachers’ Intentions to Use ICT in Future Lessons. Interactive Learning Environments, 25(7), 930-945.

9. Beatty, K., & Nunan, D. (2004). Computer-Mediated Collaborative Learning. System, 32(2), 165-183.
10. Bell, R. L., Maeng, J. L., & Binns, I. C. (2013). Learning in Context: Technology Integration in a Teacher Preparation Program Informed by Situated Learning Theory. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(3), 348-379.
11. Blake, R. J. (2013). Brave New Digital Classroom: Technology and Foreign Language Learning. Georgetown University Press.
12. Bozdoğan, D., & Özen, R. (2014). Use of ICT Technologies and Factors Affecting Pre- Service ELT Teachers' Perceived ICT Self-Efficacy. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology-TOJET, 13(2), 186-196.
13. Bryne, B. M. (2010). Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS: Basic Concepts, Applications and Programming (2nd Ed.). New York: Taylor & Francis.
14. Buss, R. R., Wetzel, K., Foulger, T. S., & Lindsey, L. (2015). Preparing Teachers to Integrate Technology into K–12 Instruction: Comparing a Stand-Alone Technology Course with a Technology-Infused Approach. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 31(4), 160-172.
15. Clough, P., & Nutbrown, C. (2012). A Student′s Guide to Methodology. Sage.
16. Cowie, B., & Jones, A. (2009). Teaching and Learning in the ICT Environment. In L. J. Saha, & A. G. Dworkin (Eds.), International Handbook of Research on Teachers and Teaching (pp. 791-801). Springer, Boston, MA.
17. Çetin, O., Çalışkan, E., & Menzi, N. (2012). The Relationship between Technological Competencies and Attitudes of Pre-Service Teachers towards Technology. Elementary Education Online, 11(2).
18. Davis, F. D. (1985). A Technology Acceptance Model For Empirically Testing New End-User Information Systems: Theory and Results. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
19. Davis, S. G. (1986). Parades and Power: Street Theatre in Nineteenth-Century Philadelphia. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
20. 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.
21. Davis, F. D. (1993). User Acceptance of Information Technology: System Characteristics, User Perceptions and Behavioral Impacts. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 38(3), 475-487.
22. Efe, R. (2011). Science Student Teachers and Educational Technology: Experience, Intentions, and Value. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 14(1), 228- 240.
23. Ertmer, P. A. (1999). Addressing First- and Second-Order Barriers to Change: Strategies for Technology Integration. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(4), 47-61.
24. Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T. (2010). Teacher Technology Change: How Knowledge, Confidence, Beliefs, and Culture Intersect. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(3), 255-284.
25. European Commission (2007). A European Approach to Media Literacy in the Digital Environment. Retrieved on June 23, 2021 from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal- content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52007DC0833&from=EN
26. Funkhouser, B. J., & Mouza, C. (2013). Drawing on Technology: An Investigation of Preservice Teacher Beliefs in the Context of an Introductory Educational Technology Course. Computers & Education, 62, 271-285.
27. Garrett, R. K. (2009). Echo Chambers Online?: Politically Motivated Selective Exposure among Internet News Users. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14(2), 265-285.
28. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory. Strategies for Qualitative Research. Chicago: Aldine.
29. Göktaş, Y., Yıldırım, Z., & Yıldırım, S. (2008). A Review of ICT Related Courses in Pre-Service Teacher Education Programs. Asia Pacific Education Review, 9(2), 168-179.
30. Granito, M., & Chernobilsky, E. (2012). The Effect of Technology on a Student's Motivation and Knowledge Retention. NERA Conference Proceedings, 17. MIT Press.
31. Hancı-Azizoğlu, E. B., & Kavaklı Ulutaş, N. (2021a). Creative Digital Writing: A Multilingual Perspective. In M. Montebello (Ed.), Digital Pedagogies and the Transformation of Language Education (pp. 250-266). Hershey PA, IGI Global.
32. Hancı-Azizoğlu, E. B., & Kavaklı Ulutaş, N. (2021b). Rewriting the Future through Rhetorical Technology. In E. B. Hancı-Azizoğlu, & N. Kavaklı Ulutaş (Eds.), Futuristic and Linguistic Perspectives on Teaching Writing to Second Language Students (pp. 1-15). Hershey PA, IGI Global.
33. Hixon, E., & Buckenmeyer, J. (2009). Revisiting Technology Integration in Schools: Implications for Professional Development. Computers in the Schools, 26(2), 130-146.
34. 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.
35. Ilter, B. G. (2015). How does Technology Affect Language Learning Process at an Early Age?. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 199, 311-316.
36. International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) (2008). Essential Conditions: Necessary Conditions to Effectively Leverage Technology for Learning. Retrieved on June 22, 2021 from https://www.iste.org/standards/for-educators
37. Heverly, R. (2007). Growing up Digital: Control and the Pieces of a Digital Life. In T. McPherson (Ed.), Digital Youth, Innovation and the Unexpected (pp. 199-218). MIT Press.
38. International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE). (2000). National Educational Technology Standards for Students: Connecting Curriculum and Technology. Eugene, OR: Author.
39. Johnson, B. (2001). Toward a New Classification of Nonexperimental Quantitative Research. Educational Researcher, 30(2), 3-13.
40. Johnson, R. B., & Christensen, L. (2019). Educational Research: Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed Approaches. Boston: Sage Publications.
41. Kavaklı Ulutaş, N., & Hancı-Azizoğlu, E. B. (2021). Digital Storytelling: A Futuristic Second- Language-Writing Method. In B. Hancı-Azizoğlu, & N. Kavaklı Ulutaş (Eds.), Futuristic and Linguistic Perspectives on Teaching Writing to Second Language Students (pp. 66- 83). Hershey PA, IGI Global.
42. Kavaklı Ulutaş, N., & Ölmez, R. (2021). The Role of Technology Acceptance Model in Constructing Unbounded Learning Environments for Second Language Learners. In S. M. C. Loureiro, & J. Guerreiro (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Developing a Post- Pandemic Paradigm for Virtual Technologies in Higher Education (pp. 282-298). Hershey PA, IGI Global.
43. Kavaklı Ulutaş, N., & Abuşka, A. (2022). Understanding L2 Teachers’ Engagement with Digital Multimodal Composing (DMC) in the Changing Educational Landscape. In E. Duruk (Ed.), The New Normal of Online Language Education (pp. 127-144). Eğiten Kitap.
44. Kavaklı Ulutaş, N. (2023). Revisiting the Past to Shape the Future: Assessment of Foreign Language Abilities. In D. Köksal, N. Kavaklı Ulutaş, & S. Arslan (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Perspectives in Foreign Language Assessment (pp. 1-10). Hershey PA, IGI Global.
45. Kavaklı Ulutaş, N., & Abuşka, A. (2023). Language Teachers’ Investment in Digital Multimodal Composing (DMC) as a Manifold Application of Computer-Mediated Communication. In H. P. Bui, & R. Kumar (Eds.), Multidisciplinary Applications of Computer-Mediated Communication (pp. 17-30). Hershey PA, IGI Global.
46. Kavanoz, S., Yüksel, H. G., & Özcan, E. (2015). Pre‐Service Teachersʹ Self‐Efficacy Perceptions on Web Pedagogical Content Knowledge. Computers & Education, 85, 94‐101.
47. Kırmızı, Ö. (2014). Measuring Technology Acceptance Level of Turkish Pre-Service English Teachers by Using Technology Acceptance Model. Educational Research and Reviews, 9(23), 1323-1333.
48. Koc, M. (2013). Student Teachers' Conceptions of Technology: A Metaphor Analysis. Computers & Education, 68, 1-8.
49. Lei, J. (2009). Digital Natives as Preservice Teachers: What Technology Preparation is Needed?. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 25(3), 87-97.
50. Li, L. (2010). A Critical Review of Technology Acceptance Literature. Referred Research Paper, 4.
51. Lightfoot, A. (2019). ICT and English Language Teacher Education. The Routledge Handbook of English Language Teacher Education, 52-67.
52. 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.
53. Mackey, A., & Gass, S. M. (2005). Second Language Research: Methodology and Design. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
54. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A Framework for Teacher Knowledge. Teachers’ College Record, 108(6), 1017- 1054.
55. Morris, M. G., & Venkatesh, V. (2000). Age Differences in Technology Adoption Decisions: Implications for a Changing Workforce. Personnel Psychology, 53(2), 375-403.
56. Mouza, C., Karchmer-Klein, R., Nandakumar, R., Ozden, S. Y., & Hu, L. (2014). Investigating the Impact of an Integrated Approach to the Development of Preservice Teachers' Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK). Computers & Education, 71, 206-221.
57. Muijs, D. (2004). Doing Quantitative Research in Education with SPSS. London, UK: Sage Publications.
58. Nazzal, A., Thoyib, A., Zain, D., & Hussein, A. S. (2021). The Influence of Digital Literacy and Demographic Characteristics on Online Shopping Intention: An Empirical Study in Palestine. The Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and Business, 8(8), 205-215.
59. Ölmez, R. (2022). An Analysis of Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) in Developing Pre-Service EFL Teachers’ Web Pedagogical Content Knowledge (WPACK) and Critical Digital Literacy (CDL). Unpublished MA Thesis. Institute of Social Sciences, Izmir Demokrasi University.
60. Ölmez, R., & Kavaklı Ulutaş, N. (2023). A Diachronic View into an Understanding of Technology Acceptance: Where to Go through TAM for Teacher Education from Global to Local?. Indonesian Journal of English Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics (IJELTAL), 7(2), 359-377.
61. Özdamlı, F., Hürsen, Ç., & Özçinar, Z. (2009). Teacher Candidates’ Attitudes towards the Instructional Technologies. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1(1), 455-463.
62. Rahimi, M., & Pourshahbaz, S. (Eds.). (2018). English as a Foreign Language Teachers' TPACK: Emerging Research and Opportunities. IGI Global.
63. Ryan, T., & Bagley, G. (2015). Nurturing the Integration of Technology in Education. Journal of Theory & Practice in Education (JTPE), 11(1).
64. Sadaf, A., Newby, T. J., & Ertmer, P. A. (2012). Exploring Factors that Predict Preservice Teachers’ Intentions to Use Web 2.0 Technologies Using Decomposed Theory of Planned Behavior. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 45(2), 171-196.
65. Sang, G., Valcke, M., Van Braak, J., & Tondeur, J. (2010). Student Teachers’ Thinking Processes and ICT Integration: Predictors of Prospective Teaching Behaviors with Educational Technology. Computers & Education, 54(1), 103-112.
66. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those Who Understand: Knowledge Growth in Teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14.
67. Teo, T., Chai, C. S., Hung, D., & Lee, C. B. (2008). Beliefs about Teaching and Uses of Technology among Pre‐ Service Teachers. Asia‐ Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 36(2), 163-174.
68. Teo, T., & Van Schalk, P. (2009). Understanding Technology Acceptance in Pre-Service Teachers: A Structural-Equation Modeling Approach. Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 18(1), 47-66.
69. Teo, T. (2011). Factors Influencing Teachers’ Intention to Use Technology: Model Development and Test. Computers & Education, 57(4), 2432-2440.
70. Teo, T., & Ursavas, O. F. (2012). Technology Acceptance of Pre-Service Teachers in Turkey: A Cross-Cultural Model Validation Study. International Journal of Instructional Media, 39(3), 187-196.
71. Teo, T. (2014). Unpacking Teachers' Acceptance of Technology: Tests of Measurement Invariance and Latent Mean Differences. Computers & Education, 75, 127-135.
72. Teo, T. (2015). Comparing Pre-Service and In-Service Teachers' Acceptance of Technology: Assessment of Measurement Invariance and Latent Mean Differences. Computers & Education, 83, 22-31.
73. Teo, T., Fan, X., & Du, J. (2015). Technology Acceptance among Pre-Service Teachers: Does Gender Matter?. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 31(3).
74. Tondeur, J., Van Braak, J., Sang, G., Voogt, J., Fisser, P., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. (2012). Preparing Pre-Service Teachers to Integrate Technology in Education: A Synthesis of Qualitative Evidence. Computers & Education, 59(1), 134-144.
75. Trocchia, P. J., & Janda, S. (2000). A Phenomenological Investigation of Internet Usage among Older Individuals. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 17(7), 605-614.
76. UNESCO. (2005). Guidelines for Quality Provision in Cross-Border Higher Education. Paris, UNESCO.
77. Varma, S. (2010). Prior Computer Experience and Technology Acceptance. State University of New York, Albany.
78. Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (1996). A Model of the Antecedents of Perceived Ease of Use: Development and Test. Decision Sciences, 27(3), 451-481.
79. Venkatesh, V. (2000). Determinants of Perceived Ease of Use: Integrating Control, Intrinsic Motivation, and Emotion into the Technology Acceptance Model. Information Systems Research, 11(4), 342-365.
80. Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186-204.
81. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward a Unified View. MIS Quarterly, 425-478.
82. Venkatesh, V., & Bala, H. (2008). Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions. Decision Sciences, 39(2), 273-315.
83. Venkatesh, V., Thong, J. Y., & Xu, X. (2012). Consumer Acceptance and Use of Information Technology: Extending the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology. MIS Quarterly, 157-178.
84. Wang, C., & Chen, C. (2009). The Impact of Knowledge and Trust on E-Consumers' Online Shopping Activities: An Empirical Study. Journals of Computer, 4(1), 11- 18.
85. Wong, K. T. (2013). Understanding Student Teachers' Behavioural Intention to Use Technology: Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) Validation And Testing. Online Submission, 6(1), 89-104.
86. Yesiltas, E. (2016). An Analysis of Social Studies Teachers' Perception Levels Regarding Web Pedagogical Content Knowledge. International Education Studies, 9(4), 108- 123.