El uso de sistemas informáticos en el estudio de las materias universitarias: aplicación de la teoría de la conducta planificada y de la teoría de la aceptación de las tecnologías
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online January, 2012
El uso de sistemas informáticos en el estudio de las materias universitarias: aplicación de la teoría de la conducta planificada y de la teoría de la aceptación de las tecnologías
En el contexto de las universidades españolas, los actuales sistemas de enseñanza e implantación de los títulos de Grado, requieren el uso de nuevas tecnologías como herramienta educativa, si bien son escasos los trabajos destinados a analizar la incidencia que tienen las actitudes de los estudiantes sobre la conducta de uso. Así, el objetivo de este estudio ha sido analizar las actitudes en relación a la conducta de uso del ordenador como herramienta de estudio de las materias universitarias, comparando la capacidad predictiva y ajuste de la teoría de la conducta planificada (TCP) vs. teoría de aceptación de las tecnologías (TAM). Los resultados señalan que los componentes de la TAM mejoran el porcentaje de varianza explicada para la conducta desde la TCP. Se pone de manifiesto la conveniencia de utilizar el ordenador como herramienta de estudio desde etapas educativas anteriores a la universitaria para generar disposiciones favorables hacia su uso.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AjzenI. (1985). From intention to action: A theory of planned behavior. EnKuhlJ.BeckmanJ. (Eds.), Action-control: From cognition to behavior (pp. 11–39). Heidelberg: Springer.
2.
AjzenI. (1991). The theory of Planned Behavior.Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process, 50, 179–211.
3.
AjzenI.FishbeinM. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behaviour.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
4.
AjzenI.MaddenT. J. (1986). Prediction of goal-directed behaviour: attitudes, intentions and perceived behaviour control.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 22, 453–474.
5.
Al-KhaldiM. A.Al-JabriI. M. (1998). The relationship of attitudes to computer utilization: New evidence from a developing nation.Computers in human behavior, 14 (1), 23–42.
6.
Amoako-GyampahK.SalamA. F. (2004). An extension of the technology acceptance model in an ERP implementation environment.Information and Management, 41 (6), 731–745.
7.
ArmitageC. J.ConnerM. (2001). Efficacy of the theory of planned behavior: a meta-analytic review.British Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 471–499.
8.
ArningK.ZiefleM. (2009). Different Perspectives on Technology Acceptance: The Role of Technology Type and Age. EnHolzingerA.MiesenbergerK. (Eds.), Human—Computer Interaction for e Inclusion. LNCS 5889 (pp. 20–41). Berlín, Heidelberg: Springer.
9.
BagozziR. P.DavisF. D.WarshawP. R. (1992). Development and test of a theory of technological learning and usage.Human Relations, 45, 659–686.
10.
BarnettW.PresleyA. (2004). Theory of planned behavior model in electronic learning: A pilot study.Issues Information Systems, 5 (1), 22–28
11.
BrosnanM. J. (1999). Modeling technophobia: a case for word processing.Computers in Human Behaviour, 15 (2), 105–21.
12.
ChauP. K.HuP. J. (2001). Information technology acceptance by individual professionals.Decision Sciences, 32 (4), 699–710.
13.
ChutturM. Y. (2009). Overview of the technology acceptance model: origins, developments and future directions.Sprouts: working Papers on Information Systems, 9 (37). Disponible en www://sprouts.aisnet.org/937.
14.
DavisF. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use and user acceptance of information technology.MS Quartely, 13, 319–340.
15.
DavisF. D. (1993). User acceptance of computer technology: system characteristics, user perceptions.International Journal Man-Machine Studies, 38 (3), 475–87.
16.
DavisF. D.BagozziR. P.WarshawP. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models.Management Science, 35 (8), 982–1003.
17.
DavisF. D.BagozziR. P.WarshawP. R. (1992). Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation to use computers in the workplace.Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22 (14), 1111–1132.
18.
DowningR. E.MooreJ. L.BrownS. W. (2005). The effects and interaction of spatial visualization and domain expertise on information seeking.Computers in Human Behavior, 21, 195–209.
19.
EaglyA. H.ChaikenS. (1993). The Psychology of attitudes.Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
20.
FishbeinM.AjzenI. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behaviour: An introduction to theory and research.Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
21.
GefenD. (2002). Reflections on the Dimensions of Trust and Trustworthiness among Online Consumers.The DATA BASE for Advances in Information Systems, 33 (3), 38–53.
22.
GefenD. (2004). What Makes ERP Implementation Relationships Worthwhile: Linking Trust Mechanisms and ERP Usefulness.Journal of Management Information Systems, 21 (1), 275–301.
23.
GefenD.StraubD. W. (2000). The Relative Importance of Perceived Ease-of-Use in IS Adoption: A Study of E-Commerce Adoption.Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 1 (8), 1–30.
24.
GentryL.CalantoneR. (2002). A Comparison of Three Models to Explain Shop-Bot Use on the Web.Psychology y Marketing, 19 (11), 945–956.
25.
HuI.BentlerP. M. (1995). Evaluating model fit. EnHoyleR. H. (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues and applications (pp. 76–99). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
26.
IgbariaM.IlvariJ. (1995). The effects of self-efficacy on computer usage.International Journal of Management Sciences, 23 (6), 587–605.
27.
LegrisP.InghamJ.ColleretteP. (2003). Why do people use information technology?: a critical review of the technology acceptance model.Information and Management, 40 (3), 191–204.
28.
LepperM. R. (1985). Microcomputers in Education: Motivational and social issues.American Psychologist, 40, 1–18.
29.
LikerJ. K.SindiA. A. (1997). User acceptance of expert systems: A test of the theory of reasoned action.Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 14, 147–173.
30.
LuY.ZhouT.WangB. (2009). Exploring Chinese users' acceptance of instant messaging using the theory of planned behavior, the technology acceptance model, and the flow theory.Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 29–39.
31.
MathiesonK. (1991). Predicting user intentions: comparing the TAM with the theory of planned behavior.Information Systems Research, 2 (3), 173–191.
32.
MoonJ. W.KimY. G. (2001). Extending the TAM for a world-wide-web context.Information y Management, 38 (4), 217–30.
33.
NgaiE. W. T.PoonJ. K. L.ChanY. H. C. (2007). Empirical examination of the adoption of WebCT using TAM.Computers y Education, 48, 250–267.
34.
Oliveira-BuenoB.De OliveiraA. S. (2008). La educación a distancia en otro registro: usos y apropiaciones de tecnología en formación de profesores.Universitas Psychologica, 7 (3), 823–836.
35.
PadillaA.GarridoA. (2006). El uso de tecnologías basadas en internet para el aprendizaje. Un estudio exploratorio en el contexto del modelo de aceptación de la tecnología.Investigaciones Europeas de Dirección y Economía de Empresa, 12 (2), 217–230.
36.
RiemenschneiderC.HardgraveB. (2000). Explaining software development tool use with technology acceptance model.Journal of Computer Information Systems, 41 (4), 1–8.
37.
SanzP.PrietoJ. M. (2001). Gestión del conocimiento en línea en Psicología del trabajo y las organizaciones.Anuario de Psicología, 32 (2), 39–50.
38.
SzajnaB. (1994). Software evaluation y choice: predictive validation of the technology acceptance instrument.MIS Quarterly, 18 (3), 319–24.
39.
TeoT.LeeC. B.ChaiC. 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.
40.
TeoT.LeeC. B.ChaiC. S.WongS. L. (2009). Assessing the intention to use technology among pre-service teachers in Singapore and Malaysia: A multigroup invariance analysis of the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM).Computers and Educations, 53, 1000–1009.
41.
WhitleyB. E. (1996). The relationship of psychological type to computer aptitude, attitudes, and behavior.Computers in Human Behavior, 12, 389–406.
42.
WinterS.ChudobaK.GutekB. (1998). Attitudes Toward Computers: When Do They Predict Computer Use.Information y Management, 34 (5), 275–284.
43.
WixomB. H.ToddP. A. (2005). A theoretical integration of user satisfaction and technology acceptance.Information Systems Research, 16 (1), 85–102.
44.
YousafzaiS.FoxailG. R.PailisterJ. (2007a). Technology acceptance: A meta-analysis of the TAM. Part 1.Journal of Modelling in Management, 2, 251–280.
45.
YousafzaiS.FoxallG. R.PailisterJ. (2007b). Technology acceptance: A meta-analysis of the TAM. Part 2.Journal of Modelling in Management, 2, 281–304.
46.
YousafzaiS. Y.FoxailG. R.PailisterJ. G. (2010). Explaining internet banking behavior: Theory of reasoned action, theory of planned behavior, or technology acceptance model?Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 40 (5), 1172–1202.
