Education and Information Technologies

, Volume 24, Issue 6, pp 3415–3432 | Cite as

Does it matter being innovative: Teachers’ technology acceptance

  • Sacide Güzin Mazman AkarEmail author


Teachers’ technology adoption has been the focus of many researches since a long time and various factors affecting adoption process have been examined. Even though various factors affecting technology acceptance process have been revealed, the results are still limited and conflicting. This study aimed to investigate the effect of teachers’ personal innovativeness on their technology acceptance. The study group consisted of 237 primary and secondary school teachers. Descriptive statistics and structural equation modeling were used in data analysis. The results revealed that most of the teachers fall in “early majority” category of adoption and their innovativeness level was found to be low. Perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use of highly innovative teachers were found to be significantly higher than their low level counterparts. The results of structural equation model showed that personal innovativeness was influential in the technology acceptance of teachers. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use and subjective norms were direct determinants of behavioral intention, whereas personal innovativeness’ effect was indirect. In addition, personal innovativeness has been found have a positive effect on perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use and subjective norms.


Personal innovativeness Technology acceptance Teachers’ technology use Structural equation 



  1. Adıguzel, T., Capraro, R. M., & Willson, V. L. (2011). An examination of teacher acceptance of handheld computers. International Journal of Special Education, 26(3), 12–27.Google Scholar
  2. Afari, E., & Achampong, A. (2010). Modeling computer usage intentions of tertiary students in a developing country through the technology acceptance model. International Journal of Education and Development using ICT, 6(1), 102–116.Google Scholar
  3. Agarwal, R., & Prasad, J. (1998). A conceptual and operational definition of personal innovativeness in the domain of information technology. Information Systems Research, 9(2), 204–215.Google Scholar
  4. Agarwal, R., Ahuja, M., Carter, P. E., & Gans, M. (1998). Early and late adopters of IT innovations: extensions to innovation diffusion theory. Paper presented at the  Diffusion Interest Group in Information Technology (DIGIT) Conference (pp. 1–18), Helsinki: Denmark..Google Scholar
  5. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behavior and Hutman Decision Processes, 50, 179–211.Google Scholar
  6. Akgün, F. (2017). Investigation of instructional technology acceptance and individual innovativeness of academicians. Turkish Online Journal of Qualitative Inquiry, 8(3), 291-322.Google Scholar
  7. Blackwell, C. K., Lauricella, A. R., & Wartella, E. (2014). Factors influencing digital technology use in early childhood education. Computers in Education, 77, 82–90.Google Scholar
  8. Cheung, R., & Vogel, D. (2013). Predicting user acceptance of collaborative technologies: An extension of the technology acceptance model for e-learning. Computers in Education, 63, 160–175.Google Scholar
  9. Chow, M., Herold, D. K., Choo, T. M., & Chan, K. (2012). Extending the technology acceptance model to explore the intention to use second life for enhancing healthcare education. Computers in Education, 59(4), 1136–1144.Google Scholar
  10. Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Qutart., 13, 319–339.Google Scholar
  11. Erdoğan, D. G., & Güneş, D. Z. (2013). The relationship between individual innovativeness and change readiness conditions of students attending faculty of education. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 106, 3033–3040.Google Scholar
  12. Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T. (2010). Teacher technology change. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(3), 255–284.Google Scholar
  13. European Commission. (2010). Common European principles for teacher competences and qualifications.Retrieved November, 2018, from Accessed November 2018
  14. European Schoolnet. (2017). Turkey country report on ICT in education. Retrieved 30 April, 2019 from, Accessed 30 April 2019
  15. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  16. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 48, 39–50.Google Scholar
  17. Forza, C., & Filippini, R. (1998). TQM impact on quality conformance and customer satisfaction: A causal model. International Journal of Production Economics, 55(1), 1–20.Google Scholar
  18. Greenspoon, P. J., & Saklofske, D. H. (1998). Confirmatory factor analysis of the multidimensional students’ life satisfaction scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 25(5), 965–971.Google Scholar
  19. Gupta, P. (2018). Innovation in teacher education. International Journal of Recent Research Aspects, Special Issue: Conscientious Computing Technologies, 964–966.Google Scholar
  20. Hair, J. F., Jr., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1995). Multivariate data analysis (3rd ed.). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  21. Hair, J., Black, W., Babin, A., and Anderson, R. (2014). Multivariate Data Analysis: Pearson new international edition (Setima ed.). New Jersey, Essex: Pearson.Google Scholar
  22. Hew, K. F., & 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(3), 223–252.Google Scholar
  23. Hsu, P. S. (2016). Examining current beliefs, practices and barriers about technology integration: A case study. TechTrends, 60(1), 30–40.Google Scholar
  24. Hu, P. J. H., Clark, T. H., & Ma, W. W. (2003). Examining technology acceptance by school teachers: A longitudinal study. Information and Management, 41(2), 227–241.Google Scholar
  25. Hurt, H. T., Joseph, K., & Cook, C. D. (1977). Scales for the measurement of innovativeness. Human Communication Research, 4(1), 58–65.Google Scholar
  26. İzmirli, Ş., & Gürbüz. (2017). An investigation of the relationship between the individual innovativeness and problem solving skills of teacher candidates: The case of Canakkale Onsekiz Mart University. SDU International Journal of Educational Studies, 4(1), 29–43.Google Scholar
  27. Jackson, J. D., Mun, Y. Y., & Park, J. S. (2013a). An empirical test of three mediation models for the relationship between personal innovativeness and user acceptance of technology. Information and Management, 50(4), 154–161.Google Scholar
  28. Jackson, J. D., Yi, M. Y., & Park, J. S. (2013b). An empirical test of three mediation models for the relationship between personal innovativeness and user acceptance of technology. Information and Management, 50(4), 154–161.Google Scholar
  29. Karahanna, E., Ahuja, M., Srite, M., & Galvin, J. (2002). Individual differences and relative advantage: The case of GSS. Decision Support Systems, 32, 327–341.Google Scholar
  30. Kılıç, H., & Ayvaz-Tuncel, Z. (2014). İlköğretim branş öğretmenlerinin bireysel yenilikçilik düzeyleri ve yaşam boyu öğrenme eğilimleri. Uluslararası Eğitim Programları ve Öğretim Çalışmaları Dergisi, 4(7), 25–37.Google Scholar
  31. Kılıçer, K. (2011). Bilgisayar ve öğretim teknolojileri eğitimi öğretmen adaylarının bireysel yenilikçilik profilleri. Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi, Anadolu Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Eskişehir.Google Scholar
  32. Kılıçer, K., & Odabaşı, H. F. (2010). Bireysel yenilikçilik ölçeği (BYÖ): Türkçeye uyarlama, geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 38(38), 150–168.Google Scholar
  33. Kishore, R., and McLean, E. (2001). The role of personal innovativeness and self-efficacy in information technology acceptance: An extension of TAM with notions of risk. International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS 2001) Proceedings, 57. New Orleans, LA: USAGoogle Scholar
  34. Kline, R. B. (1998). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: Guilford Press.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  35. Lewis, W., Agarwal, R., & Sambamurthy, V. (2003). Sources of influence on beliefs about information technology use: An empirical study of knowledge workers. MIS Quarterly, 27, 657–678.Google Scholar
  36. Liu, Y., Li, H., & Carlsson, C. (2010). Factors driving the adoption of m-learning: An empirical study. Computers in Education, 55(3), 1211–1219.Google Scholar
  37. Loogma, K., Kruusvall, J., & Ümarik, M. (2012). E-learning as innovation: Exploring innovativeness of the VET teachers’ community in Estonia. Computers in Education, 58(2), 808–817.Google Scholar
  38. Lu, J., Yu, C. S., Liu, C., & Yao, J. E. (2003). Technology acceptance model for wireless internet. Internet Research, 13(3), 206–222.Google Scholar
  39. Lu, J., Yao, J. E., & Yu, C. S. (2005). Personal innovativeness, social influences and adoption of wireless internet services via mobile technology. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 14(3), 245–268.Google Scholar
  40. Lwo, L., Wu, Z.F. and Chang, C.C. (2016). A study on teachers’ innovativeness and their self-evaluation of educational technology standards in elementary schools. In Proceedings of Academics World 29th International Conference, San Francisco: USAGoogle Scholar
  41. 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.Google Scholar
  42. Manis, K. T., & Choi, D. (2018). The virtual reality hardware acceptance model (VR-HAM): Extending and individuating the technology acceptance model (TAM) for virtual reality hardware. Journal of Business Research, 100, 503-513.Google Scholar
  43. Marcinkiewicz, H. R. (1993). Computers and teachers: Factors influencing computer use in the classroom. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 26(2), 220–237.Google Scholar
  44. McGeown, V. (1980). Dimensions of teacher innovativeness. British Educational Research Journal, 6(2), 147–163.Google Scholar
  45. Ministry of National Education (MONE) (2017). General Competencies for Teacher Profession.Retrieved July, 2018, from Accessed July 2018
  46. Moore, G. C., & Benbasat, I. (1991). Development of an instrument to measure the perceptions of adopting an information technology innovation. Information Systems Research, 2(3), 192–222.Google Scholar
  47. NETS-T, (2008). National Educational Technology Standards for teachers. ISTE. Retrieved February, 2019, from Accessed February 2019
  48. Park, S. Y. (2009). An analysis of the technology acceptance model in understanding university students' behavioral intention to use e-learning. Educational Technology & Society, 12(3), 150–162.Google Scholar
  49. Pynoo, B., Devolder, P., Tondeur, J., Van Braak, J., Duyck, W., & Duyck, P. (2011). Predicting secondary school teachers’ acceptance and use of a digital learning environment: A cross-sectional study. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(1), 568–575.Google Scholar
  50. Rabaa'i, A. A. (2016). Extending the technology acceptance model (TAM) to assess students' behavioural intentions to adopt an e-learning system: The case of moodle as a learning tool. Journal of Emerging Trends in Engineering and Applied Sciences, 7(1), 13–30.Google Scholar
  51. Rogers, E. (1995). Diffusion of innovation. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  52. Rosen, P. A. (2005). The effect of personal innovativeness on technology acceptance and use (unpublished doctoral dissertation). Faculty of the Graduate College of the Oklahoma State University. Degree of Doctor of Philosophy.Google Scholar
  53. Schepers, J., & Wetzels, M. (2007). A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model: Investigating subjective norm and moderation effects. Information and Management, 44(1), 90–103. Scholar
  54. Scherer, R., Siddiq, F., & Tondeur, J. (2019). The technology acceptance model (TAM): A meta-analytic structural equation modeling approach to explaining teachers’ adoption of digital technology in education. Computers in Education, 128, 13–35.Google Scholar
  55. Smarkola, C. (2007). Technology acceptance predictors among student teachers and experienced classroom teachers. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 37(1), 65–82.Google Scholar
  56. Solak, M. (2012). Öğretmenlerin akıllı tahta kullanımına karşı tutumlarının teknoloji kabul modeline göre incelenmesi. Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Sakarya Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimler Enstitüsü, Sakarya.Google Scholar
  57. Straub, E. T. (2009). Understanding technology adoption: Theory and future directions for informal learning. Review of Educational Research, 79(2), 625–649.Google Scholar
  58. Tabachnick, B. G., Fidell, L. S., & Ullman, J. B. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (Vol. 5). Boston: Pearson.Google Scholar
  59. Teo, T. (2009). 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, 40(1), 89–109.Google Scholar
  60. Teo, T. (2010). Examining the influence of subjective norm and facilitating conditions on the intention to use technology among pre-service teachers: A structural equation modeling of an extended technology acceptance model. Asia Pacific Education Review, 11(2), 253–262.Google Scholar
  61. Teo, T. (2019). Students and Teachers' intention to use technology: Assessing their measurement equivalence and structural invariance. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 57(1), 201–225.Google Scholar
  62. 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(2), 128–143.Google Scholar
  63. Turan, A., Tunç, A. Ö., & Zehir, C. (2015). A theoretical model proposal: Personal innovativeness and user involvement as antecedents of unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 210, 43–51.Google Scholar
  64. Usluel, Y.K. and Mazman, S. G. (2010). Öğretmen Adaylarının Web Kullanım Amaçları Yenilikçi/Temkinli Olma Durumlarına Göre Farklılık Gösteriyor mu? Uluslararası Öğretmen Yetiştirme Politikaları ve Sorunları Sempozyumu II,16–18 Mayıs, ANKARA.Google Scholar
  65. Van Braak, J. (2001). Individual characteristics influencing teachers' class use of computers. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 25(2), 141–157.Google Scholar
  66. Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186–204.Google Scholar
  67. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., & Ackerman, P. L. (2000). A longitudinal field investigation of gender differences in individual technology adoption decision-making processes. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 83(1), 33–60.Google Scholar
  68. Vongkulluksn, V. W., Xie, K., & Bowman, M. A. (2018). The role of value on teachers' internalization of external barriers and externalization of personal beliefs for classroom technology integration. Computers in Education, 118, 70–81.Google Scholar
  69. Winnans, C., & Brown, D. S. (1992). Some factors affecting elementary teachers' use of the computer. Computers in Education, 18(4), 301–309.Google Scholar
  70. Wong, K., Osman, R. B., Goh, P. C., & Rahmat, M. K. (2013). Understanding student teachers’ behavioural intention to use technology: Technology acceptance model (TAM) validation and testing. International Journal of Instruction, 6, 89–104.Google Scholar
  71. Yi, M. Y., Fiedler, K. D., & Park, J. S. (2006). Understanding the role of individual innovativeness in the acceptance of IT-based innovations: Comparative analyses of models and measures. Decision Sciences, 37(3), 393–426.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Education, Department of Computer Education and Instructional TechnologiesUsak UniversityUsakTurkey

Personalised recommendations