This study examined four factors that influence preservice teachers’ intentions to adopt technology in classrooms based on the Theory of Planned Behavior and Technology Acceptance Model. These four factors—technology self-efficacy, attitudes toward technology, perceived ease of use of technology, and perceived barriers of technology adoption—were explored through a multiple regression analysis. The results indicated that technology self-efficacy, attitudes toward technology, and perceived ease of use of technology were significantly predictive of technology adoption intentions when the other predictors were statistically controlled. Perceived barriers of technology adoption was not a significant predictor. Gender analyses were conducted showing no significant difference on all the factors between male and female. Practical and theoretical implications were addressed either to guide practitioners in designing teacher professional development program or assist researchers in their future study.
AjzenI.MaddenT. J. (1986) Prediction of goal-directed behavior: Attitudes, intentions, and perceived behavioral control. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology22(5): 453–474.
5.
AndersonS. E.GroulxJ. G.ManingerR. M. (2011) Relationships among preservice teachers’ technology-related abilities, beliefs, and intentions to use technology in their future classrooms. Journal of Educational Computing Research45(3): 321–338.
6.
BagozziR. P. (2007) The legacy of the technology acceptance model and a proposal for a paradigm shift. Journal of the Association for Information Systems8(4): 244–254.
7.
Ballagas, R., Rohs, M., Sheridan, J. G., & Borchers, J. (2004). Byod: Bring your own device. Proceedings of the Workshop on Ubiquitous Display Environments, Ubicomp, 2004. Retrieved from http://www.vs.inf.ethz.ch/publ/papers/rohs-byod-2004.pdf.
8.
BaumeisterR. F.VohsK. D.FunderD. C. (2007) Psychology as the science of self-reports and finger movements: Whatever happened to actual behavior?Perspectives on Psychological Science2(4): 396–403.
9.
BenbasatI.BarkiH. (2007) Quo vadis TAM?Journal of the Association for Information Systems8(4): 211–218.
10.
BrinkerhoffJ. (2006) Effects of a long-duration, professional development academy on technology skills, computer self-efficacy, and technology integration beliefs and practices. Journal of Research on Technology in Education39(1): 22–43.
11.
BrushT.GlazewskiK. D.HewK. F. (2008) Development of an instrument to measure preservice teachers’ technology skills, technology beliefs, and technology barriers. Computers in the Schools25(1–2): 112–125.
12.
BuckenmeyerJ. A. (2010) Beyond computers in the classroom: Factors related to technology adoption to enhance teaching and learning. Contemporary Issues in Education Research (CIER)3(4): 27–36.
13.
CelikV.YesilyurtE. (2013) Attitudes to technology, perceived computer self-efficacy and computer anxiety as predictors of computer supported education. Computers & Education60(1): 148–158.
14.
ChandonP.MorwitzV. G.ReinartzW. J. (2005) Do intentions really predict behavior? Self-generated validity effects in survey research. Journal of Marketing69(2): 1–14.
15.
DavisF. D. (1989) Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly13(3): 319–340.
16.
ErtmerP. A. (1999) Addressing first- and second-order barriers to change: Strategies for technology integration. Educational Technology Research & Development47(4): 47–61. http://doi.org/10.1007/BF02299597.
17.
ErtmerP. A.Ottenbreit-LeftwichA. T. (2010) Teacher technology change: How knowledge, confidence, beliefs, and culture intersect. Journal of Research on Technology in Education42(3): 255–284.
18.
ErtmerP. A.Ottenbreit-LeftwichA. T.SadikO.SendururE.SendururP. (2012) Teacher beliefs and technology integration practices: A critical relationship. Computers & Education59(2): 423–435.
19.
Fanni, F., Rega, I., & Cantoni, L. (2013). Using self-efficacy to measure primary school teachers' perception of ICT: Results from two studies. International Journal of Education and Development Using Information and Communication Technology, 9(1), 100–111.
20.
GefenD.StraubD. W. (1997) Gender differences in the perception and use of E-Mail: An extension to the technology acceptance model. MIS Quarterly21(4): 389–400. http://doi.org/10.2307/249720.
21.
GoktasY.YildirimS.YildirimZ. (2009) Main barriers and possible enablers of ICTs integration into pre-service teacher education programs. Journal of Educational Technology & Society12(1): 193–204.
22.
GoodhueD. L. (2007) Comment on Benbasat and Barki’s “Quo Vadis TAM” article. Journal of the Association for Information Systems8(4): 219–222.
23.
GülbaharY. (2007) Technology planning: A roadmap to successful technology integration in schools. Computers & Education49(4): 943–956.
24.
GülbaharY.GuvenI. (2008) A survey on ICT usage and the perceptions of social studies teachers in Turkey. Journal of Educational Technology & Society11(3): 37–51.
25.
HewK. F.BrushT. (2007) Integrating technology into K-12 teaching and learning: Current knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research. Educational Technology Research and Development55(3): 223–252. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-006-9022-5.
26.
HoldenH.RadaR. (2011) Understanding the influence of perceived usability and technology self-efficacy on teachers’ technology acceptance. Journal of Research on Technology in Education43(4): 343–367.
27.
HsuS. (2010) The relationship between teacher’s technology integration ability and usage. Journal of Educational Computing Research43(3): 309–325.
28.
IgbariaM.IivariJ. (1995) The effects of self-efficacy on computer usage. Omega23(6): 587–605.
29.
InanF. A.LowtherD. L. (2010) Factors affecting technology integration in K-12 classrooms: A path model. Educational Technology Research and Development58(2): 137–154.
30.
KopchaT. J. (2012) Teachers’ perceptions of the barriers to technology integration and practices with technology under situated professional development. Computers & Education59(4): 1109–1121. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.05.014.
31.
LeiJ. (2009) Digital natives as preservice teachers: What technology preparation is needed?Journal of Computing in Teacher Education25(3): 87–97.
32.
LiS.GlassR.RecordsH. (2008) The influence of gender on new technology adoption and use–mobile commerce. Journal of Internet Commerce7(2): 270–289.
33.
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 Behavior25(1): 29–39.
34.
MaW. W.AnderssonR.StreithK. O. (2005) Examining user acceptance of computer technology: An empirical study of student teachers. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning21(6): 387–395.
35.
MilmanN. B.MolebashP. E. (2008) A longitudinal assessment of teacher education students’ confidence toward using technology. Journal of Educational Computing Research38(2): 183–200. http://doi.org/10.2190/EC.38.2.d.
36.
MirandaH. P.RussellM. (2012) Understanding factors associated with teacher-directed student use of technology in elementary classrooms: A structural equation modeling approach. British Journal of Educational Technology43(4): 652–666.
37.
NeterJ.WassermanW.KutnerM. H. (1989) Applied linear regression models, 2nd ed. Homewood, IL: R. D. Irwin.
38.
NgW. (2012) Can we teach digital natives digital literacy?Computers & Education59(3): 1065–1078.
39.
PapastergiouM. (2010) Enhancing physical education and sport science students’ self-efficacy and attitudes regarding information and communication technologies through a computer literacy course. Computers & Education54(1): 298–308. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.08.015.
40.
Park, N., Lee, K. M., & Cheong, P. H. (2007). University instructors' acceptance of electronic courseware: An application of the Technology Acceptance Model. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), 163–186. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00391.x.
41.
PavlouP. A. (2003) Consumer acceptance of electronic commerce: Integrating trust and risk with the technology acceptance model. International Journal of Electronic Commerce7(3): 101–134.
42.
PellingE. L.WhiteK. M. (2009) The theory of planned behavior applied to young people’s use of social networking web sites. CyberPsychology & Behavior12(6): 755–759.
43.
RocaJ. C.ChiuC.-M.MartínezF. J. (2006) Understanding e-learning continuance intention: An extension of the technology acceptance model. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies64(8): 683–696. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2006.01.003.
44.
SadafA.NewbyT. J.ErtmerP. A. (2012) Exploring pre-service teachers’ beliefs about using Web 2.0 technologies in K-12 classroom. Computers & Education59(3): 937–945.
45.
SangG.ValckeM.BraakJ. V.TondeurJ. (2010) Student teachers’ thinking processes and ICT integration: Predictors of prospective teaching behaviors with educational technology. Computers & Education54(1): 103–112.
46.
Schifter, D. E., & Ajzen, I. (1985). Intention, perceived control, and weight loss: An application of the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49(3), 843–851. http://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.49.3.843.
47.
SchwarzerR.JerusalemM. (1995) Generalized self-efficacy scale. In: WeinmanJ.WrightS.JohnstonM. (eds) Measures in health psychology: A user’s portfolio. Causal and control beliefs, Windsor, England: NFER-Nelson, pp. 35–37.
48.
ShiueY. M. (2007) Investigating the sources of teachers’ instructional technology use through the decomposed theory of planned behavior. Journal of Educational Computing Research36(4): 425–453.
SwanB.DixonJ. (2006) The effects of mentor-supported technology professional development on middle school mathematics teachers’ attitudes and practice. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education6(1): 67–86.
51.
TeoT. (2009) Modelling technology acceptance in education: A study of pre-service teachers. Computers & Education52(2): 302–312.
52.
TeoT. (2011) Factors influencing teachers’ intention to use technology: Model development and test. Computers & Education57(4): 2432–2440.
53.
TeoT.LeeC. B.ChaiC. S. (2008) Understanding pre-service teachers’ computer attitudes: Applying and extending the technology acceptance model. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning24(2): 128–143.
54.
TeoT.NoyesJ. (2011) An assessment of the influence of perceived enjoyment and attitude on the intention to use technology among pre-service teachers: A structural equation modeling approach. Computers & Education57(2): 1645–1653.
55.
TeoT.UrsavaşÖ. F.BahçekapiliE. (2012) An assessment of pre-service teachers’ technology acceptance in Turkey: A structural equation modeling approach. Asia-Pacific Education Researcher21(1): 191–202.
56.
VannattaR. A.BeyerbachB. (2000) Facilitating a constructivist vision of technology integration among education faculty and preservice teachers. Journal of Research on Computing in Education33(2): 132–148.
57.
VenkateshV. (2000) Determinants of perceived ease of use: Integrating control, intrinsic motivation, and emotion into the technology acceptance model. Information Systems Research11(4): 342–365.
58.
VenkateshV.MorrisM. G. (2000) Why don’t men ever stop to ask for directions? Gender, social influence, and their role in technology acceptance and usage behavior. MIS Quarterly24(1): 115–139. http://doi.org/10.2307/3250981.
59.
VenkateshV.MorrisM. G.AckermanP. L. (2000) A longitudinal field investigation of gender differences in individual technology adoption decision-making processes. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes83(1): 33–60. http://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.2000.2896.
60.
Warschauer, M., Knobel, M., & Stone, L. (2004). Technology and equity in schooling: Deconstructing the digital divide. Educational Policy, 18(4), 562–588.
61.
WatsonG. (2006) Technology professional development: Long-term effects on teacher self-efficacy. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education14(1): 151–165.
62.
YuenA. H.MaW. W. (2008) Exploring teacher acceptance of e-learning technology. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education36(3): 229–243.
63.
ZhouG.XuJ. (2007) Adoption of educational technology: How does gender matter?International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education19(2): 140–153.
