Greek Pre-service Teachers’ Intentions to Use Computers as In-service Teachers

Yıl 2017, Cilt: 8 Sayı: 1, 56 - 75, 16.01.2017

Emmanuel Fokides

Öz

The study examines the factors affecting Greek pre-service teachers’ intention to use
computers when they become practicing teachers. Four variables (perceived usefulness,
perceived ease of use, self-efficacy, and attitude toward use) as well as behavioral intention
to use computers were used so as to build a research model that extended the Technology
Acceptance Model (TAM) and structural equation modeling was used for parameter
estimation and model testing. Self-reported data were gathered from 487 pre-service
teachers studying at the Departments of Primary School Education in Greece. Results
revealed a good model fit and of the nine hypotheses formulated, seven were supported.
Overall, the TAM, with the addition of computer self-efficacy beliefs, adequately
represented the relationships among the factors. It also possesses the explanatory power
to predict pre-service teachers’ intention to use computers when they become practicing
teachers since a high percentage (68%) of the variance in behavioral intention to use
computers was explained, while the most influential factors were perceived usefulness and
attitude toward computers. Implications for practice are also discussed.

Anahtar Kelimeler

attitudes toward computers, perceived ease of use, pre-srvice teachers, self-efficacy, structural equation modelling, technology acceptance model

Kaynakça

• Ajzen, I. & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behaviour. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
• Ajzen, I. & Fishbein, M. (1977). Attitude-behavior relations: A theoretical analysis and review of empirical research. Psychological Bulletin, 84(5), 888-918. doi: 10.1037/0033- 2909.84.5.888
• Akbulut, Y. (2009). Investigating underlying components of the ICT indicators measurement scale: the extended version. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 40(4), 405-427.
• Askar, P. & Umay, A. (2001). Pre-service elementary mathematics teachers’ computer selfefficacy, attitudes towards computers, and their perceptions of computer-enriched learning environments. In C. Crawford, et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference 2001 (pp. 2262-2263). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
• Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice-Hall, Inc.
• Barbeite, F. G. & Weiss, E. M. (2004). Computer self-efficacy and anxiety scales for an Internet sample: testing measurement equivalence of existing measures and development of new scales. Computers in Human Behavior, 20(1), 1-15. doi: 10.1016/S0747- 5632(03)00049-9
• Bentler, P. M. & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological bulletin, 88(3), 588. doi: 10.1037/0033- 2909.88.3.588
• Burnham, K. P. & Anderson, D. R. (1998). Model selection and inference: A practical information-theoretic approach. New York: Springer-Verlag. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4757- 2917-7
• Celik, V. & Yesilyurt, E. (2013). Attitudes to technology, perceived computer self-efficacy, and computer anxiety as predictors of computer supported education. Computers & Education, 60(1), 148-158. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2012.06.008
• Chen, Y. C., Lin, Y. C., Yeh, R. C., & Lou, S. J. (2013). Examining factors affecting college students’ intention to use web-based instruction systems: toward an integrated model. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 12(2), 111-121.
• Cheung, W. & Huang, W. (2005). Proposing a framework to assess Internet usage in university education: An empirical investigation from a student’s perspective. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36, 237-253. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2005.00455.x
• Chin, W. W. (1988). Issues and opinion on structural equation modeling. MIS Quarterly, 22, viixvi.
• Chin, W. W., Marcolin, B. L., & Newsted, P. R. (2003). A partial least squares latent variable modeling approach for measuring interaction effects: Results from a Monte Carlo simulation study and an electronic-mail emotion/adoption study. Information Systems Research, 14(2), 189-217. doi: 10.1287/isre.14.2.189.16018
• Compeau, D. R. & Higgins, C. A. (1995). Computer self-efficacy: Development of a measure and initial test. MIS Quarterly, 19(2), 189-211. doi: 10.2307/249688
• Comrey, A. L. & Lee, H. B. (2013). A first course in factor analysis. New York: Psychology Press.
• Costello, A. B. & Osborne, J. W. (2005). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 10(7):1-9.
• 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. doi: 10.1006/imms.1993.1022
• Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319-340. doi: 10.2307/249008
• 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. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.35.8.982
• Dawson, J. F. (2014). Moderation in management research: What, why, when, and how. Journal of Business and Psychology, 29(1), 1-19. doi: 10.1007/s10869-013-9308-7
• DeVellis, R. F. (2003). Scale development: Theory and applications (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: SAGE Publications.
• Everitt, B. S. (1975). Multivariate analysis: The need for data, and other problems. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 126(3), 237-240. doi: 10.1192/bjp.126.3.237
• Fornell, C., Tellis, G. J., & Zinkhan, G. M. (1982). Validity assessment: A structural equations approach using partial least squares. In B. J. Walker, et al. (Eds.), An assessment of marketing thought & practice (pp. 405-409). Chicago: American Marketing Association.
• Gaskin, J. (2013). SEM series part 5a: Confirmatory factor analysis. Retrieved on 9 December 2016 from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCYmyzRZnIY Accessed 4/1/2016.
• Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis: International version (7th Ed). New Jersey: Pearson.
• Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2006). Multivariate data analysis (Vol. 6). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
• Hall, G. E. (1979). The concerns-based approach to facilitating change. Educational Horizons, 57, 202–208.
• Harman, D. (1967). A single factor test of common method variance. Journal of Psychology, 35, 359-378.
• Hogarty, K. Y., Hines, C. V., Kromrey, J. D., Ferron, J. M., & Mumford, K. R. (2005). The quality of factor solutions in exploratory factor analysis: The influence of sample size, communality, and overdetermination. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 65(2), 202-226. doi: 10.1177/0013164404267287
• Hsu, M. K., Wang, S. W., & Chiu, K. K. (2009). Computer attitude, statistics anxiety, and selfefficacy on statistical software adoption behaviour: An empirical study of online MBA learners. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 412-420. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2008.10.003
• Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55. doi: 10.1080/10705519909540118
• Huang, H. M., & Liaw, S. S. (2005). Exploring user’s attitudes and intentions toward the web as a survey tool. Computers in Human Behavior, 21(5), 729-743. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2004.02.020
• Jang, S. J. (2008). The effects of integrating technology, observation and writing into a teacher education method course. Computers & Education, 50(3), 853-865. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2006.09.002
• Kaiser, H. F. (1960). The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement 20, 141-51. doi: 10.1177/001316446002000116
• Klem, L. (2000). Structural equation modeling. In L. Grimm & P. Yarnold (Eds.), Reading and understanding multivariate statistics, Vol. II. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
• Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.
• Koehler, M., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK)? Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 60-70.
• Lai, M. L. (2008). Technology readiness, internet self-efficacy and computing experience of professional accounting students. Campus-Wide Information Systems, 25(1), 18-29. doi: 10.1108/10650740810849061
• Lowry, P. B., & Gaskin, J. (2014). Partial least squares (PLS) structural equation modeling (SEM) for building and testing behavioral causal theory: When to choose it and how to use it. Professional Communication, IEEE Transactions, 57(2), 123-146. doi: 10.1109/TPC.2014.2312452
• Luan, W. S., & Teo, T. (2011). Student teachers’ acceptance of computer technology. In T. teo (Ed.), Technology acceptance in education (pp. 43-61). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. doi: 10.1007/978-94-6091-487-4_3
• Macharia, J. K. N., & Pelser, T. G. (2012). Key factors that influence the diffusion and infusion of information and communication technologies in Kenyan higher education. Studies in Higher Education. doi: 10.1080/03075079.2012.729033
• Marakas, G. M., Yi, M. Y., & Johnson, R. D. (1998). The multilevel and multifaceted character of computer self-efficacy: Toward clarification of the construct and an integrative framework for research. Information Systems Research, 9, 126-163. doi: 10.1287/isre.9.2.126
• Margaryan, A., Littlejohn, A., & Vojt, G. (2011). Are digital natives a myth or reality? University students’ use of digital technologies. Computers & Education, 56(2), 429-440. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2010.09.004
• McDonald, R. P. & Ho, M. R. (2002). Principles and practice in reporting structural equation analyses. Psychological Methods, 7(1), 64-82. doi: 10.1037/1082-989X.7.1.64
• Mueller, J., Wood, E., Willoughby, T., Ross, C., & Specht, J. (2008). Identifying discriminating variables between teachers who fully integrate computers and teachers with limited integration. Computers & Education, 51(4), 1523-1537. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2008.02.003
• O'Brien, R. M. (2007). A caution regarding rules of thumb for variance inflation factors. Quality & Quantity, 41(5), 673-690. doi: 10.1007/s11135-006-9018-6
• Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T., Glazewski, K. D., Newby, T. J., & Ertmer, P. A. (2010). Teacher value beliefs associated with using technology: Addressing professional and student needs. Computers & Education, 55(3), 1321-1335. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2010.06.002
• Paraskeva, F., Bouta, H., & Papagianni, A. (2008). Individual characteristics and computer selfefficacy in secondary education teachers to integrate technology in educational practice. Computers & Education, 50(3), 1084-1091. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2006.10.006
• Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
• Preacher, K. J. & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40(3), 879-891. doi: 10.3758/BRM.40.3.879
• Rauniar, R., Rawski, G., Yang, J., & Johnson, B. (2014). Technology acceptance model (TAM) and social media usage: An empirical study on Facebook. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 27(1), 6-30. doi: 10.1108/JEIM-04-2012-0011
• Rogers, E. (1995). Diffusion of innovations (4th ed.). New York: Free Press.
• Schumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (2010). A beginner' guide to structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). New York: Routledge.
• Schoolnet, E. (2013). Survey of schools: ICT in education. Benchmarking access, use and attitudes to technology in European schools. Liége: European Union.
• Selwyn, N. (1997). Students' attitudes toward computers: Validation of a computer attitude scale for 16-19 education. Computers & Education, 28, 35-41. doi: 10.1016/S0360- 1315(96)00035-8
• Tabachnick B. G., & Fidell L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics. Boston: Pearson. Taylor, S. & Todd, P. A. (1995). Understanding information technology usage: A test of competing models. Information Systems Research, 6(2), 144-176. doi: 10.1287/isre.6.2.144
• Teo, T. (2014). Unpacking teachers’ acceptance of technology: Tests of measurement invariance and latent mean differences. Computers & Education, 75, 127-135. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2014.01.014
• Teo, T. (2010). Explaining the intention to use technology among volitional users in education: An evaluation of the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) using structural equation modeling. International Journal of Instructional Media, 37(4), 379-389.
• Teo, T. (2009). Modelling technology acceptance in education: A study of pre-service teachers. Computers & Education, 52(1), 302-312. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2008.08.006
• Teo, T. & Noyes, J. (2011). An assessment of the influence of attitude and perceived enjoyment on the intention to use technology among pre-service teachers: A structural equation modelling approach. Computers & Education, 57(2), 1645-1653. doi: 10.1016/j. compedu.2011.03.002
• Teo, T. & Zhou, M. (2014). Explaining the intention to use technology among university students: a structural equation modeling approach. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 26(2), 124-142. doi: 10.1007/s12528-014-9080-3
• Tung, F. C., & Chang, S. C. (2008). Nursing students’ behavioural intention to use online courses: A questionnaire survey. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 45, 1299-1309. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2007.09.011
• Venkatesh, V., Morris, M., Davis, G., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425-478.
• Wallace, L. G., & Sheetz, S. D. (2014). The adoption of software measures: A technology acceptance model (TAM) perspective. Information and Management, 51, 249-259. doi: 10.1016/j.im.2013.12.003
• Wong, K. T., Teo, T., & Russo, S. (2013). Interactive whiteboard acceptance: Applicability of the UTAUT model among student teachers. The Asia Pacific Education Researcher, 22(1), 1- 10. doi: 10.1007/s40299-012-0001-9