Educational technology acceptance across national and professional cultures: A European study

Educational Technology Research and Development

Volumn 61, Issue 4, 2013, Pages 733-749

  Nistor, Nicolae ^a,b,c   Göğüş, Aytaç ^d   Lerche, Thomas ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MUNICH   (Germany)

^b HIROSHIMA UNIVERSITY   (Japan)

^c WALDEN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d SABANCI UNIVERSITY   (Turkey)

Author keywords

Culture; Educational technology acceptance; Germany; Romania; Turkey; Unified theory of acceptance and use of technology

Indexed keywords

EID: 84879779758     PISSN: 10421629     EISSN: 15566501     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11423-013-9292-7     Document Type: Review

References (41)

1. Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (2000). Attitudes and the attitude-behaviour relation: Reasoned and automatic processes. European Review of Social Psychology, 11, 1-33.
2. Bagozzi, R. P. (2007). The legacy of the technology acceptance model and a proposal for a paradigm shift. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 4(3), 244-254.
3. Beaudry, A., & Pinsonneault, A. (2010). The other side of acceptance: Studying the direct and indirect effects of emotions on information technology use. MIS Quarterly, 34(4), 689-710.
4. Bentler, P. M., & Weeks, D. G. (1980). Linear structural equations with latent variables. Psychometrika, 45(3), 289-308.
5. Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: Wiley.
6. Brodbeck, F. C., & Frese, M. (2006). Societal culture and leadership in Germany. In J. S. Chhokar, F. C. Brodbeck, & R. J. House (Eds.), Culture and leadership around the world: The GLOBE book of in-depth studies of 25 societies (pp. 147-214). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
7. Conti-Ramsden, G., Durkin, K., & Walker, A. (2010). Computer anxiety: A comparison of adolescents with and without a history of specific language impairment (SLI). Computers & Education, 54(1), 136-145.
8. Cronjé, J. C. (2011). Using Hofstede's cultural dimensions to interpret cross-cultural blended teaching and learning. Computers & Education, 56, 596-603.
9. Dittler, U., Kahler, H., Kindt, M., & Schwarz, C. (Eds.). (2005). E-learning in Europe: Learning Europe. How have new media contributed to the development of higher education?. Münster: Waxmann.
10. Ess, C., & Sudweeks, F. (2006). Culture and computer-mediated communication: Toward new understandings. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11(2), 179-191.
11. Fischer, R., Vauclair, C. M., Fontaine, J. R. J., & Schwartz, S. H. (2010). Are individual-level and country-level value structures different? Testing Hofstede's legacy with the Schwartz value survey. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 41(2), 135-151.
12. Göǧüş, A., Nistor, N., & Lerche, T. (2012). Educational technology acceptance across cultures: A validation of the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology in the context of Turkish national culture. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 11(4), 394-408.
13. Grenness, T. (2012). Hofstede revisited: Is making the ecological fallacy when using Hofstede's instrument on individual behavior really unavoidable? International Journal of Business and Management, 7(7), 75-84.
14. He, J. & van de Vijver, F. (2012). Bias and equivalence in cross-cultural research. Online readings in psychology and culture, Unit 2. Retrieved Nov 20 2012, from http://scholarworks. gvsu. edu/orpc/vol2/iss2/8.
15. Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture's consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
16. Hofstede, G. (2012). VSM 94. http://www. geerthofstede. nl/vsm-94. Accessed 15 Aug 2012.
17. Hofstede, G., & McCrae, R. R. (2004). Personality and culture revisited: Linking traits and dimensions of culture. Cross-Cultural Research, 38(1), 52-88.
18. 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), 1-55.
19. Im, I., Kim, Y., & Han, H. J. (2008). The effects of perceived risk and technology type on users' acceptance of technologies. Information & Management, 45, 1-9.
20. Leidner, D. E., & Kayworth, T. (2006). A review of culture in information systems research: Toward a theory of information technology culture conflict. MIS Quarterly, 30(2), 357-399.
21. Lerche, T. & Kiel, E. (2013). Signifikanztestung der kulturellen dimensionen von Geert Hofstede (Statistical significance tests of Geert Hofstede's cultural dimensions). Diagnostica (submitted).
22. Liu, S. (2012). The impact of forced use on customer adoption of self-service technologies. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(4), 1194-1201.
23. Livian, Y. F. (2011). Pour en finir avec Hofstede. Renouveler les recherches en management interculturel (pp. 26-27). Paris: Communication à la première conférence annuelle ATLAS/AFMI. mai 2011.
24. MacCallum, R. C., Browne, M. W., & Sugawara, H. M. (1996). Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological Methods, 1(2), 130-149.
25. Messick, S. (1989). Meaning and values in test validation: The science and ethics of assessment. Educational Researcher, 18(2), 5-11.
26. Nistor, N., Lerche, T., Weinberger, A., Ceobanu, C. & Heymann, J. O. (2013). Towards the integration of culture in the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. British Journal of Educational Technology. doi: 10. 1111/j. 1467-8535. 2012. 01383. x.
27. Nistor, N., Schworm, S., & Werner, M. (2012). Online help-seeking in communities of practice: Modeling the acceptance of conceptual artifacts. Computers & Education, 59(2), 774-784.
28. Özdemir, S., & Kilic, E. (2007). Integrating information and communication technologies in the Turkish primary school system. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(5), 907-916.
29. Parola, A., & Ranieri, M. (2010). Media education in action. A research study in six European countries. Firenze: University Press.
30. Peterson, M. (2007). The heritage of CCM research: implications for the Hofstede chair. International Journal of CCM, 7(3), 359-377.
31. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2012). Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 539-569.
32. Pynoo, B., Tondeur, J., Braak, J., Duyck, W., Sijnave, B., & Duyck, P. (2012). Teachers' acceptance and use of an educational portal. Computers & Education, 58, 1307-1308.
33. Schein, E. H. (2004). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco: John Wiley.
34. Šumak, B., Heričko, M., & Pušnik, M. (2011). A meta-analysis of e-learning technology acceptance: The role of user types and e-learning technology types. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(6), 2067-2077.
35. Triandis, H. C. (1972). The analysis of subjective culture. New York: Wiley.
36. Veltri, N. & Elgarah, W. (2009). The role of national culture in social networking adoption. In C. F. Rogers & Y. C. Chen (Eds.), Proceedings of the 12th Annual Conference of the Southern Association for Information Systems (pp. 169-174). Statesboro: Georgia Southern University. http://sais. aisnet. org/2009/proceedings/ SAIS%202009. pdf/Veltri, Elgarah. pdf. Accessed 15 Aug 2012).
37. 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.
38. Venkatesh, V., Thong, J. Y. L., & Xu, X. (2012). Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: Extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS Quarterly, 36(1), 157-178.
39. Venkatesh, V., & Zhang, X. (2010). The unified theory of acceptance and use of technology: U. S. versus China. Journal of Global Information Technology Management, 13(1), 5-27.
40. Wang, P. (2010). Chasing the hottest IT: Effects of information technology fashion on organisations. MIS Quarterly, 34(1), 63-85.
41. Zakour, A. B. (2007). Information technology acceptance across cultures. In W. K. Law (Ed.), Information resources management: Global challenges (pp. 25-53). Hershey: Idea.