The impact of subjective norm and facilitating conditions on pre-service teachers' attitude toward computer use: A structural equation modeling of an extended technology acceptance model

Journal of Educational Computing Research

Volumn 40, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 89-109

  Teo, Timothy ^a  

^a NANYANG TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY   (Singapore)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 67651039753     PISSN: 07356331     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2190/EC.40.1.d     Document Type: Article

References (65)

1. Agarwal, R., & Prasad, J. (1999). Are individual differences germane to the acceptance of new information technologies? Decision Sciences, 30(2), 361-391.
2. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179-211.
3. Arbuckle, J. L. (2006). AMOS (Version 7.0) [Computer Program]. Chicago: SPSS.
4. Bellone, L. M., & Czerniak, C. M. (2001, December). Teacher's beliefs about accommodating students' learning styles in Science classes. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 6(2).
5. Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136-162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
6. Carmines, E. G., & McIver, J. P. (1981). Analyzing models with unobserved variables. In G. W. Bohrnstedt & E. F. Borgatta (Eds.), Social measurement: Current issues. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
7. 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(2), 237-253.
8. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
9. Compeau, D. R., & Higgins, C. A. (1995). Computer self-efficacy: Development of a measure and initial test. MIS Quarterly, 19(2), 189-211.
10. Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319-340.
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. Demetriadis, S., Barbas, A., Molohides, A., Palaigeorgiou, G., Psillos, D., Vlahavas, I., et al. (2003). Culture in negotiation: Teachers' acceptance/resistance attitudes considering the infusion of technology into schools. Computer & Education, 41, 19-37.
14. Dishaw, M. T., & Strong, D. M. (1999). Extending the technology acceptance model with task-technology fit constructs. Information & Management, 36(1), 9-21.
15. Drennan, J., Kennedy, J., & Pisarksi, A. (2005). Factors affecting student attitudes toward flexible online learning in management education. The Journal of Educational Research, 98(6), 331-340.
16. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intension and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
17. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 48, 39-50.
18. Gao, Y. (2005). Applying the Technology Acceptance Model to educational hypermedia: A field study. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 14(3), 237-247.
19. Gong, M., Xu, Y., & Yu, Y. (2004). An enhanced Technology Acceptance Model for web-based learning. Journal of Information Systems Education, 15(4), 365-374.
20. Groves, M. M., & Zemel, P. C. (2000). Instructional technology adoption in higher education: An action research case study. International Journal of Instructional Media, 27(1), 57-65.
21. Hair, J. F. Jr., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2006). Multivariate data analysis (6th ed.). New Jersey: Prentice-Hall International.
22. Hoelter, J. (1983). The analysis of covariance structures: Goodness-of-fit indices. Sociological Methods and Research, 11, 325-344.
23. Hong, W., Thong, J. Y. L., Wong, W. M., & Tam, K. Y. (2002). Determinants of user acceptance of digital libraries: An empirical examination of individual differences and system characteristics. Journal of Management Information Systems, 18(3), 97-124.
24. 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.
25. Igbaria, M. (1990). End-user computing effectiveness: A structural equation model. Omega, 18(6), 637-652.
26. Kadijevich, D., & Haapasalo, L. (2008). Factors that influence student teacher's interest to achieve educational technology standards. Computers & Education, 50(1), 262-270.
27. Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.
28. 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(3), 1-14.
29. Liaw, S. S., & Huang. H. M. (2003). An investigation of user attitudes toward search engines as an information retrieval tool. Computers in Human Behavior, 9(6), 751-765.
30. Luan, W. S., Fung, N. S., Nawawi, M., & Hong, T. S. (2005). Experienced and inexperienced Internet users among pre-service teachers: Their use and attitudes toward the Internet. Educational Technology & Society, 8(1), 90-103.
31. 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.
32. Marcinkiewicz, H. R., & Regstad, N. G. (1996). Using subjective norms to predict teachers' computer use. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 13(1), 27-33.
33. McDonald, R. P., & Ho, M. R. (2002). Principles and practice in reporting structural equation analyses. Psychological Methods, 7, 64-82.
34. Mirani, R., & King, W. R. (1994). Impacts of end-user and information center characteristics on end-user computing support. Journal of Management Information Systems, 11(1), 141-166.
35. Ngai, E. W. T., Poon, J. K. L., & Chan, Y. H. C. (2007). Empirical examination of the adoption of WebCT using TAM. Computers and Education, 48, 250-267.
36. Pan, C., Sivo, S. A., & Brophy, J. (2003). Students' attitude in a web-enhanced hybrid course: A structural equation modeling inquiry. Journal of Educational Media and Library Sciences, 41(2), 181-194.
37. Pelgrum, W. J. (2001). Obstacles to the Integration of ICT in Education: Results from a Worldwide Educational Assessment. Computers & Education, 37, 163-178.
38. Plouffe, C., Hulland, J., & Vandenbosch, M. (2001). Richness versus parsimony in modeling technology adoption decisions: Understanding merchant adoption of a smart card-based payment system. Information Systems Research, 12(2), 208-222.
39. Riemenschneider, C. K., Harrison, D. A., & Mykytn P. P. Jr. (2003). Understanding IT adoption decisions in small business: Integrating current theories. Information & Management, 40(4), 269-285.
40. Rovai, A. P., & Childress, M. D. (2002). Explaining and predicting resistance to computer anxiety reduction among teacher education students. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 35(2), 226-235.
41. Sadik, A. 2006). Factors influencing teachers' attitudes toward personal use and school use of computers: New evidence from a developing nation. Evaluation Review, 30(1), 86-113.
42. Segars, A. H. (1997). Assessing the unidimensionality of measurement: A paradigm and illustration within the context of information systems research, Omega, International Journal of Management Science, 25(1), 107-121.
43. Shapka, J. D., & Ferrari, M. (2003). Computer-related attitudes and actions of teacher candidates. Computers in Human Behavior, 19(3), 319-334.
44. Smarkola, C. (2007). Technology acceptance predictors among student teachers and experienced classroom teachers. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 31(1), 65-82.
45. Sugar, W., Crawley, F., & Fine, B. (2004). Examining teachers' decisions to adopt new technology. Educational Technology and Society, 7(4), 201-213.
46. Taylor, S., & Todd, P. A. (1995). Understanding information technology usage: A test of competing models. Information Systems Research, 6(2), 144-176.
47. Teo, T. (2006). Attitudes toward computers: A study of post-secondary students in Singapore. Interactive Learning Environments, 14(1), 17-24.
48. Teo, T. (2007). Perceived importance, enjoyment, and anxiety as correlates of computer attitudes. Psychological Reports, 100(1), 127-135.
49. Teo, T. (2008). Is there an attitude problem? Re-considering the role of attitude in the TAM. British Journal of Educational Technology. DOI: 101111/J.1467-8535.2008.00913x
50. Teo, T. (2009). Modelling technology acceptance in education: A study of pre-service teachers. Computers & Education, 52(1), 302-312.
51. Teo, T., Lee, C. B., & Chai, C. S. (2008). Understanding pre-service teachers' computer attitudes: Applying and extending the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM). Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24(2), 128-143.
52. Teo, T., Wong, S. L., & Chai, C. S. (2008). 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). Journal of Educational Technology and Society, 11(4), 265-280.
53. Thompson, R. L., Higgins, C. A., & Howell, J. M. (1994). Influence of experience on personal computer utilization: Testing a Conceptual Model. Journal of Management Information Systems, 1(1), 167-187.
54. Tsitouridou, M., & Vryzas, K. (2003). Early childhood teachers' attitudes towards computer and information technology: The case of Greece. Information Technology in Childhood Education Annual, 1, 187-207.
55. 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.
56. Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186-204.
57. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425-478.
58. Williams, P. (2002). The learning Web: The development, implementation and evaluation of Internet-based undergraduate materials for the teaching of key skills. Active Learning in Higher Education, 3(1), 40-53.
59. Wong, S. L., Ng, S. F., Nawawi, M., & Tang, S. H. (2005). Experienced and inexperienced internet users among pre-service teachers: Their use and attitudes toward the Internet. Journal of Educational Technology and Society, 8(1), 90-103.
60. Yi, M. Y., & Hwang, Y. (2003). Predicting the use of web-based information systems: Self-efficacy, enjoyment, learning goal orientation, and the Technology Acceptance Model. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 59(4), 431-449.
61. Yildirim, S. (2000). Effects of an educational computing course on pre-service and inservice teachers: A discussion and analysis of attitudes and use. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 32(4), 479-495.
62. Yousafzai, S. Y., Pallister, J., & Foxall, G., (2007). Technology acceptance: A meta-analysis of the TAM: Part 1. Journal of Modelling in Management, 2(3), 251-280.
63. Yuen, H. K., Law, N., & Chan, H. (1999) Improving IT training for serving teachers through evaluation. In G. Cumming, T. Okamoto, & L. Gomez (Eds.), Advanced research in computers and communications in education (Vol. 2, pp. 441-448). Amsterdam: IOS Press.
64. Yushau, B. (2006). Computer attitude, use, experience, software familiarity and perceived pedagogical usefulness: The case of mathematics professors. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 2(3), 1-7.
65. Zayim, N., Yildirim, S., & Saka, O. (2006). Technology adoption of medical faculty in teaching: Differentiating factors in adopter categories. Educational Technology & Society, 9(2), 213-222.