Exploring factors that predict preservice teachers' intentions to use web 2.0 technologies using decomposed theory of planned behavior

Journal of Research on Technology in Education

Volumn 45, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 171-196

  Sadaf, Ayesha ^a   Newby, Timothy J ^a   Ertmer, Peggy A ^a  

^a PURDUE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Decomposed theory of planned behavior; Educational technology; Preservice teachers intentions; Technology integration; Web 2.0

Indexed keywords

EID: 84893254003     PISSN: 15391523     EISSN: 19450818     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/15391523.2012.10782602     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Ajjan, H., & Hartshorne, R. (2008). Investigating faculty decisions to adopt Web 2.0 technologies: Theory and empirical tests. Internet and Higher Education, 11, 71-80.
2. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179-211.
3. Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
4. Albion, P. (2003). Web 2.0 in teacher education: two imperatives for action. Computers in the Schools, 25(3/4), 181-198.
5. Allen, M. P. (1997). Understanding regression analysis. New York: NetLibrary, Inc.
6. Anderson, S. E. & Maninger, R. M (2007). Preservice teachers' abilities, beliefs, and intentions regarding technology integration. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 37(2), 151-172.
7. Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37(2), 122-147.
8. Chen, R. J. (2010). Investigating models for preservice teachers' use of technology to support student-centered learning. Computers & Education, 55(1), 32-42.
9. Conole, G., & McAndrew, P. (2010). OLnet: A new approach to supporting the design and use of open educational resources. In Ebner, M., & Schiefner, M. (Eds.), Looking toward the future of technology-enhanced education: Ubiquitous learning and the digital native (pp. 123-144). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference.
10. Coutinho, C. P. (2008). Web 2.0 tools in preservice teacher education Programs: an example from Portugal. In D. Remenyi (Ed), The proceedings of the 7th European Conference on e-Learning (pp. 239-245). Reading, UK: Academic Publishing Limited.
11. Creswell, J. W, & Piano Clark, V. L. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
12. Davis, F. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13, 319-339.
13. Ertmer, P. A. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: the final frontier in our quest for technology integration? Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 25-39.
14. Gialamas, V., & Nikolopoulou, K. (2010). Inservice and preservice early childhood teachers' views and intentions abour ICT use in early childhood settings: A comparative study. Computers & Education, 55, 333-341.
15. Gill, L., & Dalgarno, B. (2008). Influences on preservice teachers' preparedness to use ICTs in the classroom. In Hello Where are you in the landscape of educational technology? Proceedings of the 25th annual conference of the Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education (ASCILITE), Melbourne, Australia.
16. Hartshorne, R., & Ajjan, H. (2009). Examining student decisions to adopt Web 2.0 technologies: Theory and empirical tests. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 21(3), 183-198.
17. International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE). (2008). National educational technology standards for teachers. Retrieved from http://http://www.iste.org/standards/nets-for-teachers
18. Lei, J. (2009). Digital natives as preservice teachers: What technology preparation is needed? Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 25(3), 87-97.
19. Ma, W, Andersson, R., & Streith, K. (2005). Examining user acceptance of computer technology: An empirical study of student teachers. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21(6), 387-395.
20. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded source hook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
21. 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.
22. Nelson, J., Christopher, A., & Mims, C. (2009). TPACK and Web 2.0: Transformation of teaching and learning. TechTrends, 53(5), 80-85.
23. Newby, T. J., Ertmer, P. A., & Kenney, E. M. (2010). The INSITE Project: Engaging students in international team collaborations to create a Web 2.0 tool repository. International Journal of Designs for Learning, 1(1), 21-39.
24. nd Ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
25. Oblinger, D., & Oblinger, J. (2005). Is it age or IT: First steps towards understanding the net generation. In D. Oblinger & J. Oblinger (Eds.), Educating the net generation. Boulder, CO: Educause.
26. Orehovacki, T, Bubas, G., & Konecki, M. (2009). Web 2.0 in education and potential factors of Web 2.0 use by students of information systems. ITI'09. Proceedings of the ITI2009 31st International Conference on Information Technology Interfaces: Cavtat, Croatia.
27. Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1-6.
28. Sadaf, A., Newby, T. J., & Ertmer, P. A. (2012). Exploring preservice teachers' beliefs about using Web 2.0 technologies in K-12 classroom. Computers & Education, 59, 937-945.
29. Shihab, M. (2008). Web 2.0 tools improve teaching and collaboration in English language classes. Presented at the National Educational Computing Conference 2008, San Antonio, TX, Retrieved April 20, 2010, from http://www.iste.org/Content/NavigationMenu/Research/NECC-Research-Paper- Archives/NECC2008/Shihab.pdf
30. Smarkola, C. (2007). Technology acceptance predictors among student teachers and experienced classroom teachers. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 37(1), 65-82.
31. Sugar, W, Crawley, E, & Fine, B. (2004). Examining teachers' decisions to adopt new technology. Educational Technology and Society, 7(4), 201-213.
32. Teo, T. (2009). Modeling technology acceptance in education: A study of preservice teachers. Computers and Education, 52(1), 302-312.
33. Teo, T., Lee, C. B., & Chai, C. S. (2008). Understanding preservice teachers' computer attitudes: Applying and extending the Technology Acceptance Model. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24(2), 128-143.
34. Taylor, S., & Todd, P. A. (1995). Understanding information technology usage: A test of competing models. Information Systems Research, 6(2), 144-176.
35. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M., Davis, G., & Davis, F. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425-478.
36. Yuen, A., & Ma, W (2002). Gender differences in teacher computer acceptance. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 10(3), 365-382.
37. 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.