Short Review of the Missing Links in Teacher Research Models for Educational Technology Acceptance in Literature

  • Yu-Hui TaoEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Springer Proceedings in Complexity book series (SPCOM)


Several studies have investigated the adoption of information technology by teachers in the educational setting. However, certain missing links were identified in the gap between the actual teacher adoption and research findings. This situation is particularly true for college teachers because compared with K1–K12 teachers, college teachers generally have more freedom to decide whether to adopt the educational technologies. The goal of this research is to explore specific missing links to address the gap between research findings and observed practice in reality. Several findings are critically analyzed in this paper for the future enhancement of theoretical models and empirical research related to the acceptance of educational technologies by college teachers.


Educational Technology Switching Cost Technology Acceptance Model Perceive Usefulness Antecedent Factor 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



This project is sponsored by National Science Council of the Republic of China under Grant No. NSC-100-2410-H390-009-MY3.


  1. 1.
    DeLone WH, McLean ER (2003) The DeLone and McLean model of information systems success: a ten-year update. J Manage Inf Syst 19(4):9–30Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    King RR, He J (2007) A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model. Inf Manage 43:740–755CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sumak B, Hericko M, Pusnik M (2011) A meta-analysis of e-learning technology acceptance: the role of user types and e-learning technology type. Comput Hum Behav 27:2067–2077CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Davis FD (1989) Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q 13(3):319–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Venkatesh V, Morris MG, Davis GB, Davis FD (2003) User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Q 27(3):425–478Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Goodhue DL, Thompson RL (1995) Task-technology fit and individual performance. MIS Q 19(2):213–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ajzen I (1985) From intention to actions: a theory of planned behavior. In: Kuhl J, Beckman J (eds) Action-control: from cognition to behavior. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 11–39Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Liaw S, Chang W, Hung W, Huang W (2006) Attitudes toward search engines as a learning assisted tool: approach of Liaw and Huang’s research model. Comput Hum Behav 22(2):177–190Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bhattacherjee A (2001) Understanding information systems continuance: an expectation-confirmation model. MIS Q 25(3):351–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Tornatzky LG, Fleischer M (1990) The processes of technological innovation. Lexington Books, LexingtonGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Zigurs I, Buckland B, Connolly J, Wilson EV (1999) A test of task-technology fit theory for group support systems. Data Base Adv Inf Syst 30(3, 4):34–50Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rogers EM (2003) Diffusion of innovations, 5th edn. Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lai H-M, Chen C-P (2011) Factors influencing secondary school teachers’ adoption of teaching blogs? Comput Educ 56:948–960CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Straub DW Jr, Burton-Jones A (2007) Veni, vidi, vici: breaking the TAM logjam. J Assoc Inf Syst 8(4):223–229Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Abrami PC, Poulsen C, Chambers B (2004) Teacher motivation to implement an educational innovation: factors differentiating users and non-users of cooperative learning. Educ Psychol Int J Exp Educ Psychol 24(2):201–216Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Greenhaus JH, Beutell NJ (1985) Sources of conflict between work and family roles. Acad Manage Rev 10:76–89Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Brunetto Y, Farr-Wharton R, Ramsay S, Shacklock K (2010) Supervisor relationships and perceptions of work—family conflict. Asia Pac J Hum Resour 48:212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Allen TD, Herst C, Bruck C, Sutton M (2000) Consequences associated with work-to-family conflict: a review and agenda for future research. J Occup Health Psychol 5(2):278–308Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bruck C, Allen T, Spector P (2002) The relationship between work-family conflict and job satisfaction: a finer grained analysis. J Vocat Behav 60:336–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Frye K, Breaugh J (2004) Family-friendly policies, supervisor support, work—family conflict, family—work conflict, and satisfaction: a test of a conceptual model. J Bus Psychol 19(2):197–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Luk D, Shaffer M (2005) Work and family domain stressors and support: within- and crossdomain influences on work–family conflict. J Occup Organ Psychol 78(4):489–509CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Scandura T, Lankau M (1997) Relationships of gender, family responsibility and flexible work hours to organizational commitment and job satisfaction. J Organ Behav 18(4):377–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Vega A, Gilbert M (1997) Longer days, shorter weeks: compressed work weeks in policing. Public Pers Manage 26(3):391–403Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kossek E, Ozeki C (1998) Work–family conflict, policies and the job-life satisfaction relationship: a review and directions for organizational behavior–human resources research. J Appl Psychol 83(2):139–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bohle P, Tilley AJ (1998) Early experiences of shift work: influences on attitudes. J Occup Organ Psychol 71(1):61–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Netemeyer RG, Boles JS, McMurrian R (1996) Development and validation of work–family conflict and family–work conflict scales. J Appl Psychol 81:400–410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Harris KJ, Marett K, Harris RB (2011) Technology-related pressure and work-family conflict: main effects and an examination of moderating variables. J Appl Soc Psychol 41(9):2077–2103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Frone MR, Russell M, Cooper ML (1997) Relation of work—family conflict to health outcomes: a four-year longitudinal study of employed parents. J Occup Organ Psychol 70:325–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Eby LT, Casper WJ, Lockwood A, Bordeaux C, Brinley A (2005) Work and family research in IO/OB: content analysis and review of the literature (1980–2002). J Vocat Behav 66:124–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Grandey AA, Cropanzano R (1999) The conservation of resources model applied to work—family conflict and strain. J Vocat Behav 54:350–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Appel J, Kim-Appel D (2008) Family systems at work: the relationship between family coping and employee burnout. Fam J 16(3):231–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Andreassi JK (2011) What the person brings to the table: personality, coping, and work-family conflict. J Fam Issues 32(11):1474–1499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Blanch A, Aluja A (2012) Social support (family and supervisor), work-family conflict, and burnout: Sex differences. Hum Relat 65(7):811–833CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Fornell C (1992) A national customer satisfaction barometer: the Swedish experience. J Mark 56:6–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Jones MA, Mothersbaugh DL, Betty SE (2000) Switching barriers and repurchase intentions in services. J Retail 76:259–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Woisetschlager DM, Lentz P, Evanschitzky H (2011) How habits, social ties, and economic switching barriers affect customer loyalty in contractual service settings. J Bus Res 64(8):800–808CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Bendapudi N, Berry LL (1997) Customers’ motivations for maintaining relationships with service providers. J Retail 73:15–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Kim WG, Lee C, Hiemstra SJ (2004) Effects of an online virtual community on customer loyalty and travel product purchases. Tourism Manage 25:343–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Porter ME (1980) Competitive strategy: techniques for analyzing industries and competitors. Macmillan, NYGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Heide JB, Allen MW (1995) Vendor consideration and switching behavior for buyers in high-technology markets. J Mark 59(3):30–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Wathne KH, Biong H, Heide JB (2001) Choice of supplier in embedded markets: relationship and marketing program effects. J Mark 65:54–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Thompson RL, Cats-Baril WL (2002) Information technology and management. Mc Graw-Hill IrwinGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Farrell J, Klemperer P (2007) Coordination and lock-in: competition with switching costs and network effects. Handbook of industrial organization 2(5):1967–2072Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Information ManagementNational University of KaohsiungKaohsiungTaiwan R. O. C

Personalised recommendations