Teachers' beliefs and their intention to use interactive simulations in their classrooms

South African Journal of Education

Volumn 30, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 439-456

  Kriek, Jeanne ^a   Stols, Gerrit ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH AFRICA   (South Africa)

^b UNIVERSITY OF PRETORIA   (South Africa)

Author keywords

Interactive simulations; PhET project; Physics; Teacher beliefs; Theory of Planned Behaviour

Indexed keywords

EID: 78549284000     PISSN: 02560100     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.15700/saje.v30n3a284     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Ahmad TBT, Madarsha KB, Zainuddin AM, Ismail NAH & Nordin MS 2010. Faculty's acceptance of computer based technology: Cross-validation of an extended model. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26:268-279. Available at: http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet.html, accessed on 01/05/2010.
2. Ajzen I 1991. The theory of planned behaviour. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50:179-211.
3. Albion PR 2001. Some factors in the development of self-efficacy beliefs for computer use among teacher education students. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 9:321-347.
4. Bagozzi RP, Davis FD & Warshaw PR 1992. Development and test of a theory of technological learning and usage. Human Relations, 45:660-686.
5. Bransford JD, Brown AL & Cocking RR 2000. How people learn: brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
6. Bruce B & Levin J 2001. Roles for new technologies in language arts: inquiry, communication, construction, and expression. In: J Jenson, J Flood, D Lapp & J Squire. The handbook for research on teaching the language arts. New York: Macmillan.
7. Cuban L 2001. Oversold and underused computers in the classroom. London: Harvard University Press.
8. Czerniak CM, Lumpe AT, Haney JJ & Beck J 1999. Teachers' Beliefs about Using Educational Technology in the Science Classroom. International Journal of Educational Technology, 1:1-18.
9. Davis FD 1989. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13:319-340.
10. Dede C 2000. Emerging influences of information technology on school curriculum. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 32:281-303.
11. Department of Education 2003. White paper on e-Education. Pretoria: Department of Education.
12. Finkelstein ND, Adams WK, Keller CJ, Kohl PB, Perkins KK, Podolefsky NS, Reid S & LeMaster R 2005. When learning about the real world is better done virtually: A study of substituting computer simulations for laboratory equipment. Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 10:10-103.
13. Fishbein M & Ajzen I 1975. Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: an introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
14. Francis JJ, Eccles MP, Johnston M, Walker A, Grimshaw J, Foy R, Kaner EFS, Smith L & Bonetti D 2004. Constructing questionnaires based on the Theory of Planned Behaviour: a manual for health services researchers. Available at: people.umass.edu/.../Francis% 20etal.TPB% 20research% 20manual.pdf, ccessed 30/09/09.
15. Gilbert JK, Justi R & Aksela M 2003. The visualisation of models: a metacognitive competence in the learning of chemistry. Paper presented at the 4th European Science Education Research Association, Noordwijkerhout.
16. Green IFR 2005. The emancipatory potential of a new information system and its effect on technology acceptance. Unpublished PhD thesis. Pretoria: University of Pretoria.
17. Hew KF & Brush T 2007. Integrating technology into K-12 teaching and learning: current knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research. Educational Technology Research and Development, 55:223-252.
18. Knowles M, Nieuwenhuis J & Smit B 2009. A narrative analysis of educators' lived experiences of motherhood and teaching. South African Journal of Education, 29:333-343.
19. Linn M & Hsi S 2000. Computers, teachers, peers: Science Learning Partners. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
20. Linn M, Eylon B & Davis E 2004. Internet Environments for Science Education. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
21. McCabe PT 2004. Contemporary ergonomics. Warrington: CRC Press.
22. Moore GC & Benbasat I 1991. Development of an instrument to measure perceptions of adopting an information technology innovation. Information Systems Research, 2:192-222.
23. Munby HA 1984. A qualitative approach to the study of a teacher's beliefs. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 21:27-38.
24. Nyaumwe L 2006. Investigating Zimbabwean mathematics teachers' dispositions on the 'O' Level calculator syllabus 4028. South African Journal of Education, 26:39-47.
25. Perkins K, Adams W, Dubson M, Finkelstein N, Reid S, Wieman C & LeMaster R 2006. PhET: Simulations for Teaching and Learning Physics. The Physics Teacher, 44:18-23.
26. Rogers EM 2003. Diffusion of innovations, 5th edn. New York, NY: Free Press.
27. Sheppard, BH, Hartwick, J & Warsaw, PR. 1988. The theory of reasoned action: a meta-analysis of past research with recommendation for modifications and future research. Journal of Consumer Research, 15:325-343.
28. Stols GH 2008. Why don't teachers use technology for instruction? Paper delivered at the 16th Annual Conference of the Southern African Association for Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, January 14-17, Maseru, Lesotho.
29. Triona LM & Klahr D 2003. Point and Click or Grab and Heft: Comparing the influence of physical and virtual instructional materials on elementary school students' ability to design experiments. Cognition & Instruction, 21:149-173.
30. Venkatesh V & Davis FD 2000. A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46:186-204.
31. Venkatesh V, Morris MG, Davis GB & Davis FD 2003. User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27:425-478.
32. Wieman CE, Perkins KK & Adams WK. 2008. Oersted Medal Lecture 2007: Interactive simulations for teaching physics: What works, what doesn't, and why. American Journal of Physics, 76:393-399.
33. Zacharia Z & Anderson OR 2003. The effects of an interactive computer-based simulation prior to performing a laboratory inquiry-based experiment on students' conceptual understanding of physics. American Journal of Physics, 71:618.