Examining user acceptance of computer technology: An empirical study of student teachers

Journal of Computer Assisted Learning

Volumn 21, Issue 6, 2005, Pages 387-395

  Ma, Will Wai Kit ^a   Andersson, Robert ^b   Streitht, Karl Oskar ^b  

^a HONG KONG UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY   (Hong Kong)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SKÖVDE   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Computer technology acceptance; Ease of use; Student teacher; Subjective norm; Technology acceptance model; Usefulness

Indexed keywords

EID: 29144475183     PISSN: 02664909     EISSN: 13652729     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2005.00145.x     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Ajzen I. (1988) Attitudes, Personality, and Behavior. Dorsey Press, Chicago, IL.
2. Davies F.D. (1989) Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use and user acceptance. MIS Quarterly 13, 319-341.
3. Davis F.D. (1986) A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-user information systems: theory and results, Doctoral Dissertation, MIT Sloan School of Management, Cambridge, MA.
4. Davis F.D., Bagozzi R. & Warshaw P.R. (1989) User acceptance of computer technology: a Comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science 35, 982-1003.
5. Ferndahl E. (2002) Tillgång, användning, kunskap och attityd till IT. Stiftelsen för Kunskaps- och Kompetensutveckling.
6. Fishbein M. & Ajzen I. (1975) Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior: Introduction to Theory and Research. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
7. Fowelin P. & Lind E. (2003) IT i skolan. Stiftelsen för Kunskaps- och Kompetensutveckling.
8. Hu P.J.H., Clark T.H.K. & Ma W.W.K. (2003) Examining technology acceptance by school teachers: a longitudinal study. Information and Management 41, 227-241.
9. Hylén J. (2003) IT i skolan - en internationell jämförelse. Stiftelsen for Kunskaps- och Kompetensutveckling.
10. Jedeskog G. (1998) Datorer, IT och en förähdrad skola. Lund, Studentlitteratur.
11. Jöreskog K. & Sörbom D. (1999) Lisrel 8: User's Reference Guide, 2nd edition. Scientific Software International, Chicago, IL.
12. Lärarfö rbundet och Lärarnas Riksförbund (1996) Gemensamt kommentarmaterial. Avtal 2000.
13. Larsson S. & Lilja J. (2003) Ungdomsliv, identitet, alkohol och droger - En multidimensionell och preventive inriktad kunskapsöversikt med hermeneutisktsocialpsykologiskt fokus. Statens folkhälsoinstitut, Stockholm.
14. Legris P., Ingham J. & Collerette P. (2003) Why do people use information technology? A critical review of the technology acceptance model. Information and Management 40, 191-204.
15. Mahmood M.A. & Swanberg D.L. (2001) Factors affecting information technology usage: a meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Journal of Organizational Computing 11, 107-130.
16. Mathieson K. (1991) Predicting user intention: comparing the technology acceptance model with the theory of planned behavior. Information Systems Research 2, 173-191.
17. Moore G.C. & Benbasat I. (1991) Development of an instrument to measure the perception of adopting an information technology innovation. Information Systems Research 2, 192-223.
18. Nunnaly J. & Bernstein I. (1994) Psychometric Theory. McGraw-Hill, New York.
19. Rogers E.M. (1983) Diffusion of Innovations, 3rd edition. Free Press, New York.
20. Straub D.W. (1989) Validating instruments in MIS research. MIS Quarterly 13, 147-169.
21. Subramanian G.H. (1994) A replication of perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use measurement. Decision Sciences 25, 863-874.
22. Taylor S. & Todd P.A. (1995) Understanding information technology usage: a test of competing models. Information Systems Research 6, 144-176.
23. Venkatesh V. & Davis F.D. (2000) A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: four longitudinal studies. Management Science 46, 186-204.