Advertisement

Education and Information Technologies

, Volume 23, Issue 3, pp 1253–1275 | Cite as

Examining pre-service teachers’ acceptance of technology-rich learning environments: A UAE case study

Article
  • 174 Downloads

Abstract

This study addressed the extent to which pre-service teachers at a teachers’ college in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) accepted and intended to utilize technology-rich learning environments in their future teaching practice. The effect of other significant factors on their overall acceptance, such as computer self-efficacy (CSE) and Perceived User Resources, was investigated. A final aim was to confirm the applicability of the instruments employed in this study within the unique sociocultural context of the UAE. Questionnaires utilizing a modified version of the technology acceptance model (TAM) were used to collect data. Respondents indicated strong acceptance of technology-rich learning environments. In the model, Perceived Usefulness and CSE were the two strongest predictors of Behavioral Intention. The results also supported the validity of TAM-based research within the Emirati sociocultural environment.

Keywords

Pre-service teachers Technology acceptance model TAM Computer self-efficacy CSE United Arab Emirates 

Notes

Funding

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

References

  1. Abdalla, I. (2007). Evaluating effectiveness of e-blackboard system using TAM framework: A structural analysis approach. AACE Journal, 15(3), 279–287.Google Scholar
  2. Abu Dhabi Education Council (2013). New school model. Retrieved on March 21, 2016, From: http://www.adec.ac.ae/en/Education/P12Education/Pages/New-School-Model.aspx
  3. Abu Dhabi Government (2013). ADEC rolls out iClass in 15 schools next year. Retrieved on March 21, 2016, from: https://www.abudhabi.ae/egovPoolPortal_WAR/appmanager/ADeGP/Citizen?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=p_citizen_homepage_hidenav&did=339916&lang=en
  4. Afshari, M., Bakar, K., Luan, W., Samah, B., & Fooi, F. (2009). Factors affecting teachers’ use of information and communication technology. International Journal of Instruction, 2(1), 77–104.Google Scholar
  5. Akbulut, Y., Odabasi, H. F., & Kuzu, A. (2011). Perceptions of preservice teachers regarding the integration of information and communication technologies in Turkish education facilities. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 10, 175–184 Retrieved on March 16, 2016, from: http://www.tojet.net/articles/v10i3/10320.pdf.Google Scholar
  6. Akir, Z. I. (2006). Impact of information and communication technology on teaching and training: A qualitative systematic review (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3226697).Google Scholar
  7. Al-hawari, M. A., & Mouakket, S. (2010). The influence of technology acceptance model (TAM) factors on students' e-satisfaction and e-retention within the context of UAE e-learning. Education, Business and Society: Contemporary Middle Eastern Issues, 3(4), 299–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Aypay, A., Celik, H. C., Aypay, A., & Sever, M. (2012). Technology acceptance in education: A study of pre-service teachers in Turkey. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 11, 264–272 Retrieved on March 16, 2016, from: http://www.tojet.net/articles/v11i4/11426.pdf.Google Scholar
  9. Babic, S. (2012). Factors that influence academic teacher's acceptance of e-learning technology in blended learning environment. In A. Guelfi (Ed.), E-learning-organizational infrastructure and tools for specific areas (pp. 3–17). Rijeka: InTech Retrieved on October 3, 2017, from http://cdn.intechopen.com/pdfs/28695.pdf.Google Scholar
  10. 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, 8(4), 244–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bahr, D. L., Shaha, S. H., Farnsworth, B. J., Lewis, V. K., & Benson, L. F. (2004). Preparing tomorrow’s teachers to use technology: Attitudinal impacts of technology-supported field experience on pre-service teacher candidates. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 31, 88–97.Google Scholar
  12. Bates, A. W., & Poole, G. (2003). Effective teaching with technology in higher education: Foundations for success. Indianapolis: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  13. Beetham, H., & Sharpe, R. (Eds.). (2013). Rethinking pedagogy for a digital age: Designing for 21st century learning (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  14. Benbasat, I., & Barki, H. (2007). Quo vadis TAM? Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 8(4), 211–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Bennett, L. (2013). Technology integration and teachers: A framework for professional development (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Nova Southeastern University, Ft. Lauderdale.Google Scholar
  16. Bergmann, J., & Sams, A. (2013). Flipping for mastery. Educational Leadership, 71(4), 24–29.Google Scholar
  17. Chang, J., Lieu, P., Liang, J., Liu, H., & Wong, S. (2011). Factors influencing technology acceptance decisions. African Journal of Business Management, 5(7), 2901–2909.Google Scholar
  18. Chow, P. (2015). Teachers’ attitudes towards technology in the classroom. Retrieved on October 3, 2017, from https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/bitstream/1807/68680/1/Chow_Paul_DL_201506_MT_MTRP.pdf
  19. Clark, C. (2013). A phenomenological study of the impact of pre-service and in-service training regarding the integration of twenty-first century technologies into selected teachers’ instruction (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database (UMI No. 3559753).Google Scholar
  20. Compeau, D. R., & Higgins, C. A. (1995). Computer self-efficacy: Development of a measure and initial test. MIS Quarterly, 19, 189–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Darby, V. M. (2011). Teachers’ perceptions of infusing technology in elementary classrooms to strengthen instructional practices (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Nova Southeastern University, Ft. Lauderdale.Google Scholar
  22. Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13, 319–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. DeNeui, D. L., & Dodge, T. L. (2006). Asynchronous learning networks and student outcomes: The utility of online learning components in hybrid courses. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 33, 256–259.Google Scholar
  24. Erlandson, B. E., Nelson, B. C., & Savenye, W. C. (2010). Collaboration modality, cognitive load, and science inquiry learning in virtual inquiry environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58, 693–710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ferdousi, B. J. (2009). A study of factors that affect instructors’ intention to use e-learning systems in 2-year colleges (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database (UMI No. 3352474).Google Scholar
  26. Fernández-Sánchez, M., & Valverde Berrocoso, J. (2014). A community of practice: An intervention model based on computer supported collaborative learning. Comunicar, 21(42), 97–105.  https://doi.org/10.3916/C42-2014-09.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics (4th ed.). Los Angeles: Sage.Google Scholar
  28. Freeman, I. & Hasnaoui, A. (2010). Information and communication technologies (ICT): A tool to implement and drive corporate social responsibility (CSR). Retrieved on October 6, 2017, from https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00495968/document
  29. Gonzalez, Y. (2012). An analysis of teachers’ concerns toward the implementation of instructional technology in the curriculum (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Nova Southeastern University, Ft. Lauderdale.Google Scholar
  30. Greenhow, C., Robelia, B., & Hughes, J. E. (2009). Learning, teaching, and scholarship in a digital age Web 2.0 and classroom research: What path should we take now? Educational Researcher, 38, 246–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Griffin, A. (2012). An evaluation of teaching strategies using computer technology (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Nova Southeastern University, Ft. Lauderdale.Google Scholar
  32. Gruszczynska, A., Merchant, G., & Pountney, R. (2013). Digital futures in teacher education: Exploring open approaches towards digital literacy. Electronic Journal of E-Learning, 11(3), 193–206.Google Scholar
  33. Heineman, B. (2011). Effects of blended-model training on technostress in new teachers (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Nova Southeastern University, Ft. Lauderdale.Google Scholar
  34. Hess, T. J., McNab, A. L., & Basoglu, K. A. (2014). Reliability and generalizability of perceived ease of use, perceived usefulness, and behavioral intentions. MIS Quarterly, 38, 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Holden, H., & Rada, R. (2011). Understanding the influence of perceived usability and technology self-efficacy on teachers’ technology acceptance. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 43(4), 343–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hughes, J. (2010). The role of teacher knowledge and learning experiences in forming technology-integrated pedagogy. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 5, 277–302 Retrieved on March 28, 2016, from http://www.editlib.org/p/4622/.Google Scholar
  37. Iyamu, E. O. S., & Aduwa Ogiegbaen, S. E. (2005). Assessment of the use of educational technology by social studies teachers in secondary schools in western Nigeria. E-Journal of Instructional Science and Technology, 8(1) Retrieved on March 16, 2016, from http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/e-jist/docs/vol8_no1/commentary/assess_ed_tech.htm.
  38. Januszewski, A., & Molenda, M. (2008). Educational technology: A definition with commentary. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  39. Jimoyiannis, A., & Komis, V. (2007). Examining teachers’ beliefs about ICT in education: Implications of a teacher preparation programme. Teacher Development, 11(2), 149–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Johnson, G. (2008). The relative learning benefits of synchronous and asynchronous text-based discussion. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39, 166–169.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00739.x.Google Scholar
  41. Johnson, R. R. B., & Christensen, L. B. (2010). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  42. Jonassen, D. H., Howland, J., Moore, J., & Marra, R. M. (2003). Learning to solve problems with technology (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
  43. Kiraz, E., & Ozdemir, D. (2006). The relationship between educational ideologies and technology acceptance in pre-service teachers. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 9, 152–165 Retrieved on March 16, 2016, from http://www.ifets.info/journals/9_2/13.pdf.Google Scholar
  44. Kirkwood, A., & Price, L. (2013). Technology-enhanced learning and teaching in higher education: What is ‘enhanced’ and how do we know? A critical literature review. Learning, Media and Technology, 39, 6–36 Retrieved March 3, 2016 from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17439884.2013.770404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Ku, C. H. (2009). Extending the technology acceptance model using perceived user resources in higher education web-based online education courses (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3357904).Google Scholar
  46. Kusano, K., Frederiksen, S., Jones, L., Kobayashi, M., Mukoyama, Y., Yamagishi, T., et al. (2013). The effects of ICT environment on teachers’ attitudes and technology integration in Japan and the U.S. Journal of Information Technology Education, 12, 30–43.Google Scholar
  47. Laurillard, D. (2007). Modelling benefits-oriented costs for technology enhanced learning. Higher Education, 54(1), 21–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Laurillard, D. (2013). Foreword to the second edition. In H. Beetham & R. Sharpe (Eds.), Rethinking pedagogy for a digital age: Designing for 21st century learning (2nd ed., pp. xvi–xviii). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  49. Leard Statistics (2013). Multiple regression in SPSS. Retrieved on March 18, 2016, from https://statistics.laerd.com/premium/mr/multiple-regression-in-spss.php
  50. Lee, M., & Winzenried, A. (2009). The use of instructional technology in schools. Victoria: ACER Press.Google Scholar
  51. Litz, D., & Blaik Hourani, R. (2016). Developing educational capital in times of change: The experience of Abu Dhabi. In I. R. Haslem and M. S. Khine (Eds.), Leveraging social capital in systemic education reform (pp. 115–141). Rotterdam: Sense.Google Scholar
  52. Litz, D., & Scott, S. (2017). Transformational leadership in the educational system of the United Arab Emirates. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 45(4), 566–587.Google Scholar
  53. Liu, S.-H. (2012). A multivariate model of factors influencing technology use by preservice teachers during practice teaching. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 15, 137–149.Google Scholar
  54. Macpherson, R., Kachelhoffer, P., & El Nemr, M. (2007). The radical modernization of school and educational system leadership in the United Arab Emirates: Towards indigenized and educative leadership. International Studies in Education Administration, 35(1), 60–77.Google Scholar
  55. Maksimenko, T. A., Tebenova, K. S., Bobrova, V. V., & Sakayeva, A. N. (2013). Practical assistance to children with disabilities in inclusive education. Education and Science Without Borders, 4(7), 105–107.Google Scholar
  56. Marinagi, C., Skourlas, C., & Belsis, P. (2013). Employing ubiquitous computing devices and technologies in the higher education classroom of the future. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 73, 487–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Mathieson, K., Peacock, E., & Chin, W. W. (2001). Extending the technology acceptance model: The influence of perceived user resources. The Data Base for Advances in. Information Systems, 32(2), 86–112.Google Scholar
  58. Mayes, T., & Defreitas, S. (2013). Technology enhanced learning: Role of theory. In H. Beetham & R. Sharpe (Eds.), Rethinking pedagogy for a digital age: Designing for 21st century learning (2nd ed., pp. 17–30). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  59. Mohamed, A., & Hassanein, I. (2012). Educational technology and teacher training: Challenges and solutions. Paper presented at the 2nd Annual International Conference on Education and E-Learning, Bali, Indonesia.Google Scholar
  60. Monsef, Y. (2005). ICT-based education in the Arab countries: Experiences and lessons learnt. In I. Osta (Ed.), Education and information technology in the Arab countries: Issues and trends (pp. 179–208). Beirut: Lebanese Association for Educational Studies.Google Scholar
  61. Nelson, K., Courier, M., & Joseph, G. (2011). Teaching tip: An investigation of digital literacy needs of students. Journal of Information Systems Education, 22, 95–109.Google Scholar
  62. O’Donnell, A. M. (2011). Introduction: Learning with technology. In A. M. O’Donnell, C. E. Hmelo-Silver, & G. Erkens (Eds.), Collaborative learning, reasoning, and technology (pp. 1–14). Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  63. Pallent, J. (2010). SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS (4th ed.). New York: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  64. Pan, C. C. (2003). System use of WebCT in the light of the technology acceptance model: A student perspective (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 305251531).Google Scholar
  65. Passey, D., Laferriere, T., Ahmad, M. Y., Bhowmik, M., Gross, D., Price, J., Resta, P., & Shonfeld, M. (2016). Educational digital technologies in developing countries challenge third party providers. Educational Technology & Society, 19, 121–133 Retrieved on May 4, 2017, from http://www.ifets.info/journals/19_3/12.pdf.Google Scholar
  66. Picciano, A. G., & Seaman, J. (2009). K-12 online learning: A 2008 follow-up of the survey of U.S. School District Administrators. Newburyport: Sloan Consortium.Google Scholar
  67. Randeree, K., & Narwani, A. (2009). Managing change in higher education: An exploration of the role of training in ICT enabled institutions in the United Arab Emirates. International Journal of Learning, 16, 447–456.Google Scholar
  68. Reeves, T. C., & Oh, E. G. (2017). The goals and methods of educational technology research over a quarter century (1989-2014). Education Technology Research and Development, 65(325–329), 325. Retrieved on August 1, 2017.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-016-9474-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Roehl, A., Reddy, S. L., & Shannon, G. J. (2013). The flipped classroom: An opportunity to engage millennial students through active learning. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences, 105(2), 44–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Romiszowski, A. J. (2004). How’s the e-learning baby? Factors leading to success or failure of an educational technology innovation. Educational Technology, 44(1), 5–27.Google Scholar
  71. Saha, S., & Upadhyay, S. (2013). Differences between educational technology, instructional technology and information & communication technology. Retrieved on March 21, 2016, from http://ict3year.wikispaces.com
  72. Saleh, W. H. (2007). Instructional technology barriers and computer self-efficacy of university faculty in Lebanon (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Nova Southeastern University, Ft. Lauderdale.Google Scholar
  73. Säljö, R. (2010). Digital tools and challenges to institutional traditions of learning: Technologies, social memory and the performative nature of learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26, 53–64.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2009. 00341.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Saunders, B., & Quirke, P. (2002). Let my laptop lead the way: A Middle Eastern study. Educational Technology and Society, 5, 135–140.Google Scholar
  75. Shao, R. M. (2012). Faculty concerns about the perceptions of adopting instructional technology at Tumaini University, Tanzania (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Nova Southeastern University, Ft. Lauderdale.Google Scholar
  76. Siegel, D. M. (2008). Accepting technology and overcoming resistance to change using the motivation and acceptance model (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database (UMI No. 3319274).Google Scholar
  77. Simonson, M. (2003). Educational technology: Review of the field. Retrieved on March 21, 2016, from the Nova Southeastern University website: http://www.schoolofed.nova.edu/~simsmich/pdf/ed_tech_review.pdf
  78. Simsek, N. (2005). Perceptions and opinions of educational technologists related to educational technology. Educational Technology & Society, 8, 178–190.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  79. Smaldino, S. E., Lowther, D. L., & Russell, J. D. (2008). Instructional technology and media for learning (9th ed.). Upper Saddle River: Pearson Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  80. Strickland, J. S. (2003). An exploration of the integration of technology into teacher education (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database (UMI No. 3093701).Google Scholar
  81. Teo, T. (2011). Efficiency of the technology acceptance model to explain pre-service teachers’ intention to use technology. Campus-Wide Information Systems, 28, 93–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Teo, T., & Noyes, J. (2014). Explaining the intention to use technology among pre-service teachers: A multi-group analysis of the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. Interactive Learning Environments, 22(1), 51–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Teo, T., Lee, C. B., & Chai, C. S. (2008a). Understanding pre-service teachers’ computer attitudes: Applying and extending the technology acceptance model. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24, 128–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Teo, T., Luan, W. S., & Sing, C. C. (2008b). A cross-cultural examination of the intention to use technology between Singaporean and Malaysian pre-service teachers: An application of the technology acceptance model (TAM). Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 11, 265–280 Retrieved on March 16, 2016, from http://www.ifets.info/journals/11_4/19.pdf.Google Scholar
  85. Thatcher, J. B., Zimmer, C., Gundlach, M. J., & McKnight, D. H. (2008). Internal and external dimensions of computer self-efficacy: An empirical study. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 55, 628–644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Thomas, M. P., Crow, S. R., & Franklin, L. L. (2011). Information literacy and information skills instruction: Applying skills to practice in the 21st century school library (3rd ed.). Santa Barbara: Greenwood.Google Scholar
  87. Tsai, C. C., & Chai, C. S. (2012). The “third”-order barrier for technology-integration instruction: Implications for teacher education. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 28, 1057–1060.Google Scholar
  88. Tucker, P. (2013). The effects of teacher-led professional development on the integration of technology in instruction (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Nova Southeastern University, Ft. Lauderdale.Google Scholar
  89. Tweed, S. (2013). Technology implementation: Teacher age, experience, self-efficacy, and professional development as related to classroom technology integration. Retrieved on October 5, 2017, from http://dc.etsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2266&context=etd
  90. Uys, P., Klapdor, T., Fell, R., Greening, P., Bristow, P., Salway, V. & Whitbourn, C. (2017). CSU learning technologies framework. Retrieved on October 6, 2017, from http://www.csu.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/2171604/csulearningtechnologiesframework.pdf
  91. Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Sciences, 46, 86–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Waxman, H. C., Lin, M. F., & Michko, G. M. (2003). A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of teaching and learning with technology on student outcomes. Naperville: Learning Point Associates Retrieved on March 28, 2016, from http://treeves.coe.uga.edu/edit6900/metaanalysisNCREL.pdf.Google Scholar
  93. Winbash, W. (2011, August 31). Educational technology or instructional technology? Examiner. Retrieved on March 16, 2016, from http://www.examiner.com/article/educational-technology-or-instructional-technology
  94. Yusuf, N., & Al-Banawi, N. (2013). The impact of changing technology: The case of e-learning. Contemporary Issues in Education Research, 6(2), 173–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Zaman, S. (2012). More public schools to introduce technology-based learning. Gulf News. Retrieved on March 16, 2016, from http://gulfnews.com/news/gulf/uae/education/more-public-schools-to-introduce-technology-based-learning-1.1043582

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Educational Leadership and Language DivisionEmirates College for Advanced EducationAbu DhabiUAE
  2. 2.Curriculum and Instructional Technology DivisionEmirates College for Advanced EducationAbu DhabiUAE

Personalised recommendations