Abstract
This chapter report an empirical study focussing on the Malaysian student teachers’ acceptance of computer technology in a leading research university. The TAM will be used as the basis of the theoretical framework. This study investigated 245 Malaysian student teachers’ self-reported intentions to use (ITU) computers. Data collected from these student teachers at Universiti Putra Malaysia were tested against the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) using the structural modelling approach. The study found perceived usefulness (PU) of computer technology, perceived ease of use (PEU), and attitude towards computer use (ATCU) to be significant determinants of ITU. Additionally, the results of the study revealed that (1) PEU significantly influenced PU; (2) both PU and PEU significantly influenced ATCU, and (3) both PU and ATCU significantly influenced ITU. The results suggest that the TAM is able to predict technology acceptance well among student teachers in Malaysia.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
REFERENCES
Abdalla, I. (2007). Evaluating effectiveness of e-blackboard system using TAM framework: A structural analysis approach. AACE Journal, 15(3), 279–287.
Agarwal, R., & Prasad, J. (1999). Are individual differences germane to the acceptance of new information technologies? Decision Sciences, 30(2), 361–391.
Aiken, L. R. (1994). Psychological testing and assessment. Massachusetts, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1977). Attitude-behaviour relations, theoretical analysis and review of empirical research. Psychological Bulletin, 84(5), 888–918.
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (2005). The influence of attitudes on behavior. In D. Albarracín, B. T. Johnson, & M. P. Zanna (Eds.), The handbook of attitudes (pp. 173–221). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behaviour. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411–423.
Arbuckle, J. L. (2006). AMOS (version 6.0) [Computer software]. Chicago: SmallWaters.
Askar, P., & Umay, A. (2001). Pre-service elementary mathematics teachers’ computer self-efficacy, attitudes towards computers, and their perceptions of computer-enriched learning environments.
In C. Crawford, et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of society for information technology and teacher education international conference 2001 (pp. 2262–2263). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
Bai, H., & Ertmer, P. (2008). Teacher educator’s beliefs and technology uses as predictors of preservice teachers’ beliefs and technology attitudes. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 16(1), 93–112.
Barclay, D., Higgins, C., & Thompson, R. (1995). The Partial Least Squares (PLS) approach to causal modeling: Personal computer adoption and use as an illustration. Technology Studies, 2(2), 285–309.
Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1), 74–94.
Baylor, A. L., & Richie, D. (2002). What factors facilitate teacher skill, teacher morale, and perceived student learning in technology-using classrooms? Computers & Education, 39(4), 395–414.
Becker, H. (2001, April). How are teachers using computers in instruction? Paper presented at the 2001 meetings of the American Educational Research Association. Retrieved September 19, 2007, from http://www.crito.uci.edu/tlc/findings/conferences-pdf/how_are_teachers_using.pdf
Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Bosch, K. A. (1993). Is there a computer crisis in the classroom? Schools in the Middle, 2(4), 7–9.
Byrne, B. M. (1998). Structural equation modeling with LISREL, PRELIS, and SIMPLIS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitraitmultimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56(2), 81–105.
Chau, P. Y. K. (1996). An empirical assessment of a modified technology acceptance model. Journal of Management Information Systems, 13(2), 185–204.
Chau, P. Y. K. (1997). Reexamining a model for evaluating information center success using a structural equation modeling approach. Decision Sciences, 28(2), 309–334.
Chau, P. Y. K. (2001). Influence of computer attitude and self-efficacy on IT usage behaviour. Journal of End-User Computing, 13(1), 26–33.
Compeau, D. R., & Higgins, C. A. (1995). Computer self-efficacy: Development of a measure and initial test. MIS Quarterly, 19(2), 189–211.
Cuban, L., Kirkpatrick, H., & Peck, C. (2001). High access and low use of technologies in high school classrooms: Explaining an apparent paradox. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 813–834.
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340.
Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology a comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35(8), 928–1003.
Diem, R. (2000). Can it make a difference? Technology and the social studies. Theory and Research in Social Education, 28(4), 493–501.
DeVellis, R. F. (2003). Scale development: Theory and applications (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: SAGE Publications.
Dishaw, M. T., & Strong, D. M. (1999). Extending the technology acceptance model with task-technology fit constructs. Information & Management, 36(1), 9–21.
Drennan, J., Kennedy, J., & Pisarksi, A. (2005). Factors affecting student attitudes toward flexible online learning in management education. The Journal of Educational Research, 98(6), 331–340.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 48, 39–50.
Fornell, C., Tellis, G. J., & Zinkhan, G. M. (1982). Validity assessment: A structural equations approach using partial least squares. In B. J. Walker, et al. (Eds.), An assessment of marketing thought & practice (pp. 405–409). Chicago: American Marketing Association.
Gaddis, S. E. (1998). How to design online surveys. Training & Development, 52(6), 67–72.
Gao, Y. (2005). Applying the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) to educational hypermedia: A field study. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 14(3), 237–247.
Gefen, D., & Straub, D. W. (1997). Gender differences in the perception and uses of email: An extension to the Technology Acceptance Model. MIS Quarterly, 21(4), 389–400.
Green, S. B., Salkind, N. J., & Akey, T. M. (2000). Using SPSS for windows (2nd ed.). New Jersey, NJ: Prentice-Hall International.
Hair, J. F. Jr., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2006). Multivariate data analysis (6th ed.). New Jersey, NJ: Prentice-Hall International.
Hu, P. J., Chau, P. Y. K., Liu, O. R., & Yan, K. (1999). Examining the Technology Acceptance Model using physician acceptance of telemedicine technology. Journal of Management Information Systems, 16(2), 91–112.
Hu, P. J., Clark, T. H. K., & Ma, W. W. (2003). Examining technology acceptance by school teachers: A longitudinal study. Information & Management, 41(2), 227–241.
Huang, H. M., & Liaw, S. S. (2005). Exploring user’s attitudes and intentions toward the web as a survey tool. Computers in Human Behaviour, 21(5), 729–743.
Jackson, C. M., Chow, S., & Leitch, R. A. (1997). Toward an understanding of the behavioural intention to use an information system. Decision Sciences, 28(2), 357–389.
Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.
Legris, P., Ingham, J., & Collerette, P. (2003). Why do people use information technology? A critical review of the Technology Acceptance Model. Information & Management, 40, 191–204.
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, 387–395.
Malhotra, Y., & Galletta, D. (1999). Extending the Technology Acceptance Model to account for social influence: Theoretical bases and empirical validation. Paper presented at the Thirty-Second Annual
Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Retrieved January 1, 2008, from http://www.brint.org/technologyacceptance.pdf
Mathieson, K. (1991). Predicting user intentions: Comparing the Technology Acceptance Model with the theory of planned behaviour. Information Systems Research, 2(3), 173–191.
McCoy, S., Galletta, D., & King, W. (2007). Applying TAM across cultures: The need for caution. European Journal of Information System, 16, 81–90.
Melor, M. Y. (2007). Malaysian ESL teachers’ use of ICT in their classrooms: Expectations and realities. ReCALL, 19(1), 79–95.
Ministry of Education. (2006). National education blueprint. Putrajaya: Government of Malaysia.
Mitra, A., Lenzmeier, S., Steffensmeier, T., Avon, R., Qu, N. & Hazen, M. (2000). Gender and computer use in an academic institution: Report from a longitudinal study. Journal of Education Computing Research, 23(1), 67–84.
Moon, J., & Kim, Y. (2001). Extending the TAM for a world-wide-web context. Information & Management, 38(4), 217–230.
Multimedia Development Corporation. (2005). Malaysian smart school roadmap 2005–2020: An educational odyssey. Putrajaya: Government of Malaysia.
Multimedia Development Corporation. (2006). Impact assessment study on the smart school integrated solution and other ICT initiatives. Putrajaya: Government of Malaysia.
Ndubisi, N. (2006). Factors of online learning adoption: A comparative juxtaposition of the theory of planned behaviour and the technology acceptance model. International Journal on E-Learning, 5(4), 571–591.
Ngai, E. W. T., Poon, J. K. L., & Chan, Y. H. C. (2007). Empirical examination of the adoption of WebCT using TAM. Computers and Education, 48, 250–267.
Oblinger, D. G., & Rush, S. C. (1997). The learning revolution: The challenge of information technology in academy. Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing Company.
Riemenschneider, C. K., Harrison, D. A., & Mykytn, P. P., Jr. (2003). Understanding IT adoption decisions in small business: Integrating current theories. Information & Management, 40(4), 269–285.
Sadiq, A. (2006). Factors influencing teachers’ attitudes toward personal use and school use: New evidence from a developing nation. Evaluation Review, 30(1), 86–113.
Schumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (2010). A beginner' guide to structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). New York: Routledge.
Shiue, Y. M. (2007). Investigating the sources of teachers’ instructional technology use through the decomposed theory of planned behaviour. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 36(4), 425–453.
Sime, D., & Priestly, M. (2005). Student teachers’ first reflections on information and communications technology and classroom learning: Implications for initial teacher education. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21, 130–142.
Taylor, S., & Todd, P. A. (1995). Understanding information technology usage: A test of competing models. Information Systems Research, 6(2), 144–176.
Teo, T. (2010). A path analysis of pre-service teachers’ attitudes to computer use: Applying and extending the Technology Acceptance Model in an educational context. Interactive Learning Environments, 18(1), 65–79.
Teo, T., Lee, C. B., & Chai, C. S. (2008). Understanding pre-service teachers’ computer attitudes: Applying and extending the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM). Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24(2), 128–143.
Thompson, B., & Daniel, L. G. (1996). Factor analytic evidence for the construct validity of scores: A historical overview and some guidelines. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 56, 197–208.
Thompson, R. L., Higgins, C. A., & Howell, J. M. (1991). Personal computing: Toward a conceptual model of utilization. MIS Quarterly, 15(1), 124–143.
Trochim, W. M. K. (1999). Convergent and discriminant validity. Retrieved November 30, 1999, from http://www.trochim.human.cornell.edu/kb/convdisc.htm
Woodrow, J. E. J. (1991). A comparison of four computer attitude scales. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 7(2), 165–187.
Wong, S. L., Kamariah, A. B., & Tang, S. H. (2006). Using a Student Centred Learning (SCL) approach to teach a discrete Information Technology (IT) course: The effects on Malaysian pre-service teachers’ attitudes toward IT? Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 15(2), 223–238.
Wozney, L., Venkatesh, V., & Abrami, P. C. (2006). Implementing computer technologies: Teachers’ perceptions and practices. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 14(1), 173–207.
Yildirim, S. (2000). Effects of an educational computing course on pre-service and inservice teachers: A discussion and analysis of attitudes and use. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 32(4), 479–495.
Yuen, A., & Ma, W. (2002). Gender differences in teacher computer acceptance. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 10(3), 365–382.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2011 Sense Publishers
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Luan, W.S., Teo, T. (2011). Student Teachers’ Acceptance of Computer Technology. In: Teo, T. (eds) Technology Acceptance in Education. SensePublishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6091-487-4_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6091-487-4_3
Publisher Name: SensePublishers
Online ISBN: 978-94-6091-487-4
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)