An initial development and validation of a Chinese technology teachers’ attitudes towards technology (TTATT) scale

International Journal of Technology and Design Education volume 30, pages937–950(2020)Cite this article

Abstract

Pupils’ attitudes towards technology have been widely discussed for over three decades, but the equally important topic of teachers’ attitudes towards technology has not gained similar attention. To address this gap, the technology teachers’ attitude towards technology (TTATT) scale was developed and validated by pilot testing with 140 Chinese high school general technology teachers. The theoretical framework of the TTATT scale was based on the tripartite model of teachers’ attitude towards science, resulting in 23 test items. The results of reliability analysis demonstrated the TTATT scale is reliable with this sample of Chinese technology teachers, and the results of exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis indicated that the seven-dimension TTATT scale is consistent with hypothetical theoretical constructs. The seven dimensions are: relevance, difficulty, gender beliefs, enjoyment, anxiety, self-efficacy, and context dependency. The findings demonstrated that the TTATT scale is based on a sound conceptual foundation, and has good construct and factorial validity. The study advances the definition of attitude towards technology and provides a good template for developing a new attitude scale in different discipline contexts.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

US$ 39.95

Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

References

  1. Aalderen-Smeets, S. I. V., Molen, J. H. W. V. D., & Asma, L. J. F. (2012). Primary teachers’ attitudes toward science: A new theoretical framework. Science Education, 96(1), 158–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Ajzen, I. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Ajzen, I. (2001). Nature and operation of attitudes. Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1), 27–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Androulidakis, S. (1991). Greek teachers’ attitudes towards technology, a first approach. In PATT 5 conference proceedings (pp. 219–223). Eindhoven, The Netherlands.

  5. Ankiewicz, P. (2019a). Perceptions and attitudes of pupils towards technology: In search of a rigorous theoretical framework. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 29(1), 37–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Ankiewicz, P. (2019b). Alignment of the traditional approach to perceptions and attitudes with Mitcham’s philosophical framework of technology. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 29(2), 329–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Ankiewicz, P., Van Rensburg, S., & Myburgh, C. (2001). Assessing the attitudinal technology profile of South African learners: A pilot study. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 11(2), 93–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Ardies, J., Maeyer, S. D., & Gijbels, D. (2013). Reconstructing the pupils attitude towards technology-survey. Design and Technology Education, 18(1), 8–19.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Ardies, J., Maeyer, S. D., Gijbels, D., & Keulen, H. V. (2015). Students attitudes towards technology. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 25(1), 43–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Asma, L., Molen, J. W. V. D., & Aalderen-Smeets, S. V. (2011). Primary teachers’ attitudes towards science and technology: Results of a focus group study. Professional development for primary teachers in science and technology (pp. 89–105). Rotterdam: SensePublishers.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Bame, E. A. (1989). What do American teachers think of technology. In PATT 4 conference proceedings (pp. 320–323). Eindhoven, The Netherlands.

  12. Bame, E. A., Dugger, W., De Vries, M. J., & McBee, J. (1993). Pupils’ attitudes toward technology˗PATT-USA. Journal of Technology Studies, 19(1), 40–48.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Becker, K. H., & Maunsaiyat, S. (2002). Thai students’ attitudes and concepts of technology. Journal of Technology Education, 13(2), 6–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107(2), 238–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88(3), 588–606.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Bilgin, H., & Öznacar, B. (2017). Development of the attitude scale towards crisis and chaos management in education. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 13(11), 7381–7389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Can, A. (2014). Quantitative data analysis in the scientific research process with SPSS. Ankara: PegemA Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  19. De Klerk Wolters, F. (1988). PATT research in 1987/88. In PATT 3 conference proceedings (pp. 39–46). Eindhoven, The Netherlands.

  20. De Klerk Wolters, F. (1989). A PATT study among 10 to 12-year-olds. In PATT 4 conference proceddings (pp. 324–330). Eindhoven, The Netherlands.

  21. Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Orlando, US: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Edwards, A. L. (1957). Techniques of attitude scale construction. Englewood-Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Ford, M. E. (1992). Motivating humans: Goals, emotions, and personal agency beliefs. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Gu, J. J. (2015). Analysis and reflection on the achievements and problems of General Technology curriculum experiment in high school in China during the past 10 years. Educational Research and experiment, 2, 29–36.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Hassan, A. M. A., & Shrigley, R. L. (1984). Designing a likert scale to measure chemistry attitudes. School Science and Mathematics, 84(8), 659–669.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., & Mullen, M. R. (2008). Evaluating model fit: A synthesis of the structural equation modeling literature. In Paper present at the 7th European conference on research methodology for business and management studies. Regent’s College, London, United Kingdom.

  28. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Kaiser, H. F. (1960). The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20(1), 141–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Kline, R. B. (2005). Principle and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York: The Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Mottier, I., Raat, J. H., & De Vries, M. J. (1991). Research. In PATT 5 conference proceedings (pp. 29–36). Eindhoven, The Netherlands.

  32. Nordlöf, C., Höst, G. E., & Hallström, J. (2017). Swedish technology teachers’ attitudes to their subject and its teaching. Research in Science & Technological Education, 35(2), 195–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Nordlöf, C., Hallström, J., & Höst, G. E. (2019). Self-efficacy or context dependency?: Exploring teachers’ perceptions of and attitudes towards technology education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 29(1), 123–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Osborne, J. W., Costello, A. B., & Jason, W. O. (2008). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis. In J. W. Osborne (Ed.), Best practices in quantitative methods (pp. 86–99). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Raat, J. H., & De Vries, M. J. (1985). What do 13-year old students think about technology? The conception of and the attitude towards technology of 13-year old girls and boys. Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands (ERIC Number: ED262998).

  36. Rohaan, E. J., Taconis, R., & Jochems, W. M. G. (2010). Reviewing the relations between teachers’ knowledge and pupils’ attitude in the field of primary technology education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 20(1), 15–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Steiger, J. H. (1990). Structural model evaluation and modification: An interval estimation approach. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25(2), 173–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Suprapto, N., & Mursid, A. (2017). Pre-service teachers’ attitudes toward teaching science and their science learning at Indonesia open university. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 18(4), 66–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Tabachnick, B. G., Fidell, L. S., & Ullman, J. B. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (Vol. 5). Boston, MA: Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Thibaut, L., Knipprath, H., Dehaene, W., & Depaepe, F. (2018). How school context and personal factors relate to teachers’ attitudes toward teaching integrated STEM. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 28(3), 631–651.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Van Rensburg, S., Ankiewicz, P., & Myburgh, C. (1999). Assessing South Africa learners’ attitudes towards technology by using the PATT (Pupils’ Attitudes towards Technology) questionnaire. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 9(2), 137–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Volk, K. S., & Yip, W. M. (1999). Gender and technology in Hong Kong: A study of pupils’ attitudes toward technology. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 9(1), 57–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Wu, M. R. (2010). Structural equation model: Operation and application of AMOS. Chongqing: Chongqing University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the (Funding: the Priority Academic Program Development of Jiangsu Higher Education Institutions) under Grant (No. 164320H111).

Author information

Affiliations

  1. School of Education Science, Nanjing Normal University, Nanjing, China

    Meidan Xu & Jianjun Gu

  2. Curtin University, Perth, WA, Australia

    John P. Williams

Authors
  1. Meidan Xu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. John P. Williams
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jianjun Gu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jianjun Gu.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix: Items of the technology teachers’ attitude towards technology (TTATT) scale for Chinese high school general technology teachers

Appendix: Items of the technology teachers’ attitude towards technology (TTATT) scale for Chinese high school general technology teachers

Relevance

  1. 1.

    It is important to teach General Technology at the high school level.

  2. 2.

    General Technology course is not as important as Math and English.

  3. 3.

    Knowledge of General Technology is important for students and their future.

  4. 4.

    The content of General Technology course has little to do with daily life situation.

Difficulty

  1. 5.

    I find it difficult to explain to my students about the technological theory hidden in technological product.

  2. 6.

    It is difficult to develop students’ technological literacy.

  3. 7.

    It is difficult to cultivate students’ technological thinking and action.

Gender beliefs

  1. 8.

    Boys are more capable of doing technological jobs than girls.

  2. 9.

    Male teachers enjoy teaching General Technology in high school more than female teachers.

  3. 10.

    Male teachers are better at designing interesting technological experiments than female teachers.

Enjoyment

  1. 11.

    Preparing General Technology lessons is a boring process.

  2. 12.

    I am happy to share my technological knowledge with students.

  3. 13.

    I have no desire to change my existing teaching methods.

Anxiety

  1. 14.

    I worried about whether I can accomplish teaching goals of every class.

  2. 15.

    Designing good technological activities makes me anxious.

  3. 16.

    I feel worried when I cannot explain the contents of General Technology course clearly.

Self-efficacy

  1. 17.

    I can bring many points of view into teaching.

  2. 18.

    I know the steps necessary to teach technological concepts effectively.

  3. 19.

    I understand technological content well enough to be effective in teaching high school General Technology course.

  4. 20.

    When teaching General Technology, I usually welcome students’ questions.

Context dependency

  1. 21.

    At my school, there are no good teaching materials for technology education.

  2. 22.

    At my school, there are no well-established workshops for General Technology.

  3. 23.

    The management of my school wants to develop the General Technology.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Xu, M., Williams, J.P. & Gu, J. An initial development and validation of a Chinese technology teachers’ attitudes towards technology (TTATT) scale. Int J Technol Des Educ 30, 937–950 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-019-09551-3

Download citation

Keywords

  • Technology teachers
  • Attitudes towards technology
  • Technology education
  • Scale development and validation