An examination of teacher acceptance of handheld computers

International Journal of Special Education

Volumn 26, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 12-27

  Adiguzel, Tufan ^a   Capraro, Robert M ^b   Willson, Victor L ^b  

^a BAHCESEHIR UNIVERSITY   (Turkey)

^b TEXAS A AND M UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 80055002803     PISSN: 08273383     EISSN: 19177844     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (64)

1. Adiguzel, T., Vannest, K. J., & Parker, R. E. (2009). Are handheld computers dependable? A new data collection system for classroom-based observations. Journal of Special Education Technology, 24(4), 31-46.
2. Adiguzel, T., Vannest, K. J., & Zellner, R. (2009). The use and efficacy of handheld computers for school-based data collection: A literature review. Computers in the Schools, 26, 187-206.
3. Ajzen, I. (1988). Attitudes, personality, and behavior. Chicago: Dorsey Press.
4. Arbuckle, J.L. (2005). Amos 6.0 User's Guide. Chicago: SPSS Inc.
5. Avizienis, A. M., Laprie, J. C., & Randell, B. (2001). Fundamental concepts of dependability. Retrieved February 15, 2011, from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.24.6074
6. Bell, A. (2006). Handheld computers in schools and media centers. Worthington, OH: Linworth.
7. Booth, J., Wilkie, D., & Foster, J. (1994). Staff attitudes to computer-assisted learning in a university department of psychology: A qualitative analysis. Retrieved on February 15, 2008, from http://ctiwebct.york.ac.uk/ltsncipabstracts/cip94/booth.html
8. Brown, W.E., Lovett, M., Bajzek, D.M., & Burnette, J.M. (2006). Improving the feedback cycle to improve learning in introductory biology using the digital dashboard. Reprinted from the Proceedings of World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education 2006 with permission of AACE.
9. Bruckner, R.M., & Tjoa, A.M. (2001). Managing time consistency for active data warehouse environments. Lecture Notes in Computer Sciences, 2114, 254-263.
10. Chin, W.W., & Todd, P.A. (1995). On the use, usefulness, and ease of use of structural equation modeling in MIS research: A note of caution. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 19, 237-246.
11. Chou, C.P., & Bentler, P.M. (1995). Estimates and tests in structural equation modeling. In Rick H. Hoyle, (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications (pp. 37-55). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
12. Cradler, J., & Cradler, R. (2002). NCLB poses challenges. Learning and Leading with Technology, 30(2), 46-57.
13. Crawford, V., & Vahey, P. (2002). Palm education pioneers program, March 2002 evaluation report. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.
14. D'Agostino, R.B., & Stephens, M.A. (1986). Goodness-of-fit techniques. New York, NY: Marcel Dekker.
15. Davis, F.D. (1986). A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-user information systems: Theory and results. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge.
16. Davis, F.D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13, 319-340.
17. Davis, F.D., Bagozzi, R.P., & Warshaw, P.R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35, 982-1003.
18. Edyburn, D.L. (2001). Critical issues in special education technology research: What do we know? What do we need to know? In M. Mastropieri & T. Scruggs (Eds.), Advances in learning and behavioral disabilities (pp. 95-118). New York, NY: JAI Press.
19. Fitzgerald, M. (2002). Educational media and technology yearbook 2002. Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited.
20. Fletcher, L.A., Erickson, D.J., Toomey, T.L., & Wagenaar, A.C. (2003). Handheld computers: A feasible alternative to paper forms for field data collection. Evaluation Review, 27, 165-178.
21. Ford, E.W., Duncan, W.J., Bedeian, A.G., Ginter, P.M., Rousculp, M.D., & Adams, A.M. (2003). Risks, visible hands, inevitable disasters, and soft variables: Management research that matters to managers. Academy of Management Executive, 17, 46-60.
22. Gao, Y. (2005). Applying the technology acceptance model (TAM) to educational hypermedia: A field study. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 14, 237-247.
23. Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E., & Tatham, R.L. (2006). Multivariate data analysis (6th ed.). New Jersey: Prentice-Hall International.
24. Hoyle, R.H. (1995). The structural equation modeling approach: Basic concepts and fundamental issues. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications (pp. 158-176). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
25. Hu, P.J., Chau, P.Y., Liu, S.O.R., & Tam, K.Y. (1999). Examining the technology acceptance model using physician acceptance of telemedicine technology. Journal of Management Information Systems, 16, 91-112.
26. Hu, P.J., Clark, T.H., & Ma, W.W. (2003). Examining technology acceptance by school teachers: A longitudinal study. Information and Management, 41, 227-241.
27. Kellenberger, D., & Hendricks, S. (2003). Predicting teachers' computer use for own needs, teaching, and student learning. Paper presented at Hawaii International Conference on Education, 07-10 January2003, Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii-West Oahu.
28. Kim, S.H. (2008). Moderating effects of job relevance and experience on mobile wireless technology acceptance: Adoption of a smartphone by individuals. Information & Management, 45, 387-393.
29. Kline, R.B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.
30. Kwon, H.S., & Chidambaram, L. (2000). A test of the technology acceptance model: The case of cellular phone adoption. In Proceedings of the 33rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences-Volume 1 (p. 1023). Wailea Maui, HI: IEEE Computer Society Press.
31. Legris, P., Ingham, J., & Collerette, P. (2003). Why do people use information technology? A critical review of the technology acceptance model. Information & Management, 40, 191-204.
32. Liang, H., Xue, Y., & Byrd, T.A. (2003). PDA usage in healthcare professionals: Testing an extended technology acceptance model. International Journal of Mobile Communications, 1, 372-389.
33. Lu, J., Liu, C., Yu, C., & Yao, J.E. (2003). Exploring factors associated with wireless internet via mobile technology acceptance in Mainland China. The Communications of the International Information Management Association, 3(1), 101-120.
34. Ma, W.W., Andersson, R., & Streith, K.O. (2005). Examining user acceptance of computer technology: An empirical study of student teachers. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21, 387-395.
35. 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.
36. Mathieson, K. (1991). Predicting user intentions: Comparing the technology acceptance model with the theory of planned behavior. Information Systems Research, 2, 173-191.
37. McDonald, A.S. (2002). The impact of individual differences on the equivalence of computer-based and paper-and-pencil educational assessments. Computers and Education, 39, 299-312.
38. McGhee, R., & Kozma, R. (2003, April). New teacher and student roles in the technology-supported classroom. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA.
39. Myers J.M., & Halpin R. (2002). Teachers' attitudes and use of multimedia technology in the classroom: Constructivist-based professional development training for school districts. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education 18, 133-140.
40. Ngai, E.W.T., Poon, J.K.L., & Chan, Y.H.C. (2007). Empirical examination of the adoption on WebCT using TAM. Computers & Education, 48, 250-267.
41. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425 (2002). Retrieved January 2, 2007, from http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/107-110.pdf
42. Pan, C.C., Sivo, S., Gunter, G., & Cornell, R. (2005). Students' perceived ease of use of an e-learning management system: An exogenous or endogenous variable? Journal of Educational Computing Research, 33, 285-307.
43. Paraskeva, F., Bouta, H., & Papagianna, A. (2008). Individual characteristics and computer self-efficacy in secondary education teachers to integrate technology in educational practice. Computer & Education, 50, 1084-1091.
44. Pavlou, P.A., Liang, H., & Xue, Y. (2007). Understanding and mitigating uncertainty in online exchange relationships: A princila - agent perspective. MIS Quarterly, 31(2), 1-32.
45. Pedersen, P.E. (2005). Adoption of mobile internet services: An exploratory study of mobile commerce early adopters. Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce, 15, 203-222.
46. Pituch, K.A., & Lee, Y.K. (2006). The influence of system characteristics on e-learning use. Computers & Education, 47, 222-244.
47. Schaff, J. I., Jerome, M. K., Behrmann, M. M., & Sprague, D. (2005). Science in special education: Emerging technologies. In D. L. Edyburn, K. Higgins, & R. Boone (Eds.), The handbook of special education technology research and practice (pp. 642-662). Whitefish Bay, WI: Knowledge by Design, Inc.
48. Schulenberg, S.E., & Yutrzenka, B.A. (2004). Ethical issues in the use of computerized assessment. Computers in Human Behavior, 20, 477-490.
49. Schumacker, R.E., & Lomax, R.G. (2004). A beginner's guide to structural equation modeling. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
50. Segars, A.H., & Grover, V. (1993). Re-examining perceived ease of use and usefulness: A confirmatory factor analysis. MIS Quarterly, 17, 517-525.
51. Selwyn, N. (1997). Students' attitudes toward computers: Validation of a computer attitude scale for 16-19 education. Computers and Education, 28(1), 35-41.
52. Smarkola, C. (2007). Technology acceptance predictors among student teachers and experienced classroom teachers. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 31, 65-82.
53. Sterritt, R., & Bustard, D. (2003). Autonomic computing: A means of achieving dependability? In Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on the Engineering of Computer Based Systems (pp. 247-251). Huntsville, AL.
54. Taylor, S., & Todd, P.A. (1995). Understanding information technology usage: A test of competing models. Information Systems Research, 6(1), 144-176.
55. Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56 (1996). Retrieved January 2, 2007, from http://www.fcc.gov/telecom.html
56. Teo, T. (2009). Modelling technology acceptance in education: A study of pre-service teachers. Computers & Education, 52, 302-312.
57. Teo, T., Lee, C.B., & Chai, C.S. (2008). Understanding pre-service teachers' computer attitudes: Applying and extending the technology acceptance model. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24, 128-143.
58. Trapl, E.S., Borawski, E.A., Stork, P.P., Lovegreen, L.D., Colabianchi, N., Cole, M.L., & Charvat, J.M. (2005). Use of audio-enhanced personal digital assistants for school-based data collection. Journal of Adolescent Health, 37, 296-305.
59. Vannest, K.J., Hagan-Burke, S., & Parker, R. (2006). Teacher allocation and use of teacher time. Annual report to Texas Education Agency. College Station, TX: Texas A&M University.
60. Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F.D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46, 186-204.
61. Windschitl, M., & Sahl, K. (2002). Tracing teachers' use of technology in a laptop computer school: The interplay of teacher beliefs, social dynamics, and institutional culture. American Educational Research Journal, 39, 165-205.
62. Wolfe, A.K., Bjornstad, D.J., Russell, M., & Kerchner, N.D. (2002). A framework for analyzing dialogues over the acceptability of controversial technologies. Science, Technology, and Human Values, 27, 134-159.
63. Yuen, A.K., & Ma, W.K. (2002). Gender differences in teacher computer acceptance. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 10, 365-382.
64. Zhao, Y., & Cziko, G. (2001). Teacher adoption of technology: A perceptual control theory perspective. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 5-30.