Advertisement

Journal of Educational Change

, Volume 17, Issue 2, pp 171–190 | Cite as

Expectations, realizations, and approval of tablet computers in an educational setting

  • Mamdouh Hassan
  • Benny Geys
Article

Abstract

The introduction of new technologies in classrooms is often thought to offer great potential for advancing learning. In this article, we investigate the relationship between such expectations and the post-implementation evaluation of a new technology in an educational setting. Building on psychological research, we argue that (1) high expectations (ex ante) can undermine the approval ratings of new technologies (ex post); and (2) individuals’ post-implementation evaluations are more likely to exceed their expectations when they can exert power over the introduction of a new technology. We test these predictions on a sample of 750 respondents from primary and secondary schools in Flanders with and without tablet computers. Our findings are supportive of both theoretical predictions.

Keywords

Tablets Technology acceptance theory Education Survey Belgium 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to the editor, two anonymous referees, Sibel Aydogan, Peter Claeys, Gianmarco Daniele, Achmed M. Darwish, Luc Hens, Bruno Heyndels, Joshua Holm, Jamal Shahin, Carine Smolders, Ellen Van Droogenbroeck, Leo van Hove and Pascal Verhoest for excellent comments and suggestions, and FWO Vlaanderen (Grant G.0012.22) for financial support.

References

  1. Abbitt, J. T. (2011). An investigation of the relationship between self-efficacy beliefs about technology integration and technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) among preservice teachers. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 27(4), 134–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Agarwal, R., & Prasad, J. (1997). The role of innovation characteristics and perceived voluntariness in the acceptance of information technologies. Decision Sciences, 28(3), 557–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alvarez, C., Brown, C., & Nussbaum, M. (2011). Comparative study of netbooks and tablet PCs for fostering face-to-face collaborative learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(2), 834–844.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bonds-Raacke, J., & Raacke, J. D. (2008). Using Tablet PCs in the classroom: An investigation of students’ expectations and reactions. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 35(3), 235–239.Google Scholar
  5. Caplin, A., Dean, M., Glimcher, P. W., & Rutledge, R. B. (2010). Measuring beliefs and rewards: A neuroeconomic approach. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 125, 923–960.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Couse, L. J., & Chen, D. W. (2010). A tablet computer for young children? Exploring its viability for early childhood education. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 43(1), 75–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Culp, K. M., Honey, M., & Mandinach, E. (2005). A retrospective on twenty years of education technology policy. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 32(3), 279–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13, 319–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: Q comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35(8), 982–1003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dishaw, M. T., & Strong, D. M. (1999). Extending the technology acceptance model with task–technology fit constructs. Information and Management, 36(1), 9–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ertmer, P. A. (1999). Addressing first- and second-order barriers to change: Strategies for technology integration. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(4), 47–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ertmer, P. A., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T., Sadik, O., Sendurur, E., & Sendurur, P. (2012). Teacher beliefs and technology integration practices: A critical relationship. Computers and Education, 59(2), 423–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Falloon, G. (2013). Young students using iPads: App design and content influences on their learning pathways. Computers and Education, 68, 505–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ferrer, F., Belvís, E., & Pàmies, J. (2011). Tablet PCs, academic results and educational inequalities. Computers and Education, 56(1), 280–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Evanston: Row Peterson.Google Scholar
  17. Finn, S., & Inman, J. G. (2004). Digital unity and digital divide: Surveying alumni to study effects of a campus laptop initiative. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 36, 297–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Goldstein, R. (1997). SG69: Immediate Mann–Whitney and binomial effect size display. Stat Technical Bulletin, STB-36, 29–31.Google Scholar
  19. Gulek, J. C., & Demirtas, H. (2005). Learning with technology: The impact of laptop use on student achievement. The Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 3(2), 1–31.Google Scholar
  20. Hanafizadeh, P., Keating, B. W., & Khedmatgozar, H. R. (2014). A systematic review of internet banking adoption. Telematics and Informatics, 31(3), 492–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hernandez, B., Jimenez, J., & Martin, M. J. (2009). Adoption vs acceptance of e-commerce: Two different decisions. European Journal of Marketing, 43(9–10), 1232–1245.Google Scholar
  22. Hernandez, J. M. C., & Mazzon, J. A. (2007). Adoption of internet banking: Proposition and implementation of an integrated methodology approach. International Journal of Bank Marketing, 25(2), 72–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ifenthaler, D., & Schweinbenz, V. (2013). The acceptance of Tablet-PCs in classroom instruction: The teachers’ perspectives. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(3), 525–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Igbaria, M., Zinatelli, N., Cragg, P., & Cavaye, A. L. (1997). Personal computing acceptance factors in small firms: A structural equation model. MIS Quarterly, 21, 279–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kahneman, D. (2000). Experienced utility and objective happiness: A moment-based approach. In D. Kahneman & A. Tversky (Eds.), Choices, values, and frames (pp. 673–692). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Kahneman, D., Fredrickson, B. L., Schreiber, C. A., & Redelmeier, D. A. (1993). When more pain is preferred to less: Adding a better end. Psychological Science, 4(6), 401–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47, 263–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Karahanna, E., Straub, D. W., & Chervany, N. L. (1999). Information technology adoption across time: A cross-sectional comparison of pre-adoption and post-adoption beliefs. MIS Quarterly, 23, 183–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kim, C., Kim, M. K., Lee, C., Spector, J. M., & DeMeester, K. (2013). Teacher beliefs and technology integration. Teaching and Teacher Education, 29, 76–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Köszegi, B., & Rabin, M. (2006). A model of reference-dependent preferences. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 121, 1133–1165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lawless, K. A., & Pellegrino, J. W. (2007). Professional development in integrating technology into teaching and learning: Knowns, unknowns, and ways to pursue better questions and answers. Review of Educational Research, 77, 575–614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Legris, P., Ingham, J., & Collerette, P. (2003). Why do people use information technology? A critical review of the technology acceptance model. Information and Management, 40(3), 191–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Liu, S. H. (2011). Factors related to pedagogical beliefs of teachers and technology integration. Computers and Education, 56(4), 1012–1022.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lucas, H. C., & Spitler, V. K. (1999). Technology use and performance: A field study of broker workstations. Decision Sciences, 30(2), 291–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mann, H. B., & Whitney, D. R. (1947). On a test whether one of two random variables is stochastically larger than the other. Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 18, 50–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Martin, F., & Ertzberger, J. (2013). Here and now mobile learning: An experimental study on the use of mobile technology. Computers and Education, 68, 76–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Moran, M., Hawkes, M., & El-Gayar, O. (2010). Tablet personal computer integration in higher education: Applying the unified theory of acceptance and use technology model to understand supporting factors. Educational Computing Research, 42(1), 79–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Pegrum, M., Howitt, C., & Striepe, M. (2013). Learning to take the tablet: How pre-service teachers use iPads to facilitate their learning. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 29(4), 464–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Pikkarainen, T., Pikkarainen, K., Karjaluoto, H., & Pahnila, S. (2004). Consumer acceptance of online banking: An extension of the technology accept model. Internet Research, 14(3), 224–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Redelmeier, D. A., Katz, J., & Kahneman, D. (2003). Memories of colonoscopy: A randomized trial. Pain, 104(1), 187–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Rogers, E. M. (1983). Diffusion of innovations. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  42. Rogers, E. M., & Shoemaker, F. F. (1971). Communication of innovations: A cross-cultural approach. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  43. Rossing, J. P., Miller, W. M., Cecil, A. K., & Stamper, S. E. (2012). iLearning: The future of higher education? Student perceptions on learning with mobile tablets. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 12(2), 1–26.Google Scholar
  44. Rutledge, R. B., Skandali, N., Dayan, P., & Dolan, R. J. (2014). A computational and neural model of momentary subjective well-being. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(33), 12252–12257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sana, F., Weston, T., & Cepeda, N. J. (2013). Laptop multitasking hinders classroom learning for both users and nearby peers. Computers and Education, 62, 24–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Schaumburg, H. (2001). Fostering girls’ computer literacy through laptop learning. Paper presented at the National Educational Computing Conference, Chicago, Illinois.Google Scholar
  47. Sommerich, C. M., Ward, R., Sikdar, K., Payne, J., & Herman, L. (2007). A survey of high school students with ubiquitous access to tablet PCs. Ergonomics, 50(5), 706–727.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Straker, L., & Pollock, C. (2005). Optimizing the interaction of children with information and communication technologies. Ergonomics, 48, 506–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Van den Berg, R. (1993). The concerns-based adoption model in the Netherlands, Flanders and the United Kingdom: State of the art and perspective. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 19(1), 51–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Vanderlinde, R., Aesaert, K., & Van Braak, J. (2014). Institutionalised ICT use in primary education: A multilevel analysis. Computers and Education, 72, 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Venkatesh, V., & Morris, M. G. (2000). Why don’t men ever stop to ask for directions? Gender, social influence, and their role in technology acceptance and usage behavior. MIS Quarterly, 24(1), 115–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 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.Google Scholar
  55. Weisberg, M. (2011). Student attitudes and behaviors towards digital textbooks. Publishing Research Quarterly, 27(2), 188–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Wilcoxon, F. (1945). Individual comparisons by ranking methods. Biometrics, 1, 80–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Applied EconomicsVrije Universiteit BrusselBrusselsBelgium
  2. 2.Department of EconomicsNorwegian Business School BIOsloNorway

Personalised recommendations