This study proposed a model to explain the students' and teachers' intention to use (ITU) technology. A sample of 1,095 participants (503 students and 592 teachers) responded to a 15-item, 7-point scale designed to measure six variables: perceived usefulness (PU), perceived ease of use, attitude toward use (ATU), facilitating conditions, computer self-efficacy (CSE), and ITU technology. Results of this study showed that the six variables were valid in explaining the ITU technology for both student and teacher groups. Hypothesis tests revealed that eight of nine hypotheses were supported. Multigroup confirmatory factor analysis found support for full configural and metric invariance, and partial scalar invariance in the data. Finally, the results revealed that only two paths, PU → ATU and CSE → ATU were structurally invariant in the research model. Implications of this study are discussed and future research possibilities proposed.
AbbitJ. T.KlettM. D. (2007) Identifying influences on attitudes and self-efficacy beliefs towards technology integration among pre-service educators. Electronic Journal for the integration of technology in Education6(1): 28–42.
2.
AjzenI. (1991) The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes50(2): 179–211.
3.
AjzenI.FishbeinM. (1980) Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
4.
BanduraA. (1977) Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review84(2): 191–215.
5.
BirchD.BurnettB. (2009) Bringing academics on board: Encouraging institution-wide diffusion of e-learning environments. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology25(1): 117–134.
6.
BollenK. A. (1989) Structural equations with latent variables, New York, NY: John Wiley.
7.
BorsboomD. (2006) When does measurement invariance matter?Medical Care44(11): 176–181.
8.
BresnahanT. F.BrynjolfssonE.HittL. M. (1999) Information technology, workplace organization and the demand for skilled labor: Firm-level evidence. The Quarterly Journal of Economics117(1): 339–376.
9.
BrynjolfssonE.HittL. M. (2000) Beyond computation: Information technology, organizational transformation and business performance. The Journal of Economic Perspectives14(4): 23–48.
10.
ByrneB. M. (2010) Structural equation modeling with Amos: Basic concepts, applications, and programming, 2nd. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
11.
ByrneB. M.ShavelsonR. J.MuthenB. O. (1989) Testing for equivalence of factor covariance and mean structures: The issue of partial measurement invariance. Psychological Bulletin105(3): 456–466.
12.
CelikV.TesilyurtE. (2013) Attitudes to technology, perceived computer self-efficacy and computer anxiety as predictors of computer supported education. Computers & Education60(1): 148–158.
13.
ChauP. Y. K.HuP. J. H. (2002) Investigating healthcare professionals' decisions to accept telemedicine technology: An empirical test of competing theories. Information & Management39(4): 297–311.
14.
ChenF. F. (2007) Sensitivity of goodness of fit indices to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling14(3): 464–504.
15.
Compeau, D. R., & Higgins, C. A. (1995). Computer self-efficacy: Development of a measure and initial test. MIS Quarterly, 19(2), 189–212.
16.
CompeauD. R.HigginsC. A.HuffS. (1999) Social cognitive theory and individual reaction to computing technology: A longitudinal study. MIS Quarterly23(2): 145–158.
17.
DaughertyM.FunkeB. L. (1998) University faculty and student perceptions of web-based instruction. Journal of Distance Education13(1): Retrieved from http://cade.athabascau.ca/vol13.1/daugherty.html.
18.
DavisF. D. (1989) Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly13(3): 319–340.
19.
DavisF. D.BagozziR. P.WarshawP. R. (1989) User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science35(8): 982–1003.
20.
FishbeinM.AjzenI. (1975) Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to the theory and research, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
21.
FornellC.LarckerD. F. (1981) Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research18(1): 39–50.
22.
GarrisonD. R.AkyolZ. (2009) Role of instructional technology in the transformation of higher education. Journal of Computing in Higher Education21(1): 19–30.
23.
GongM.XuY.YuY. (2004) An enhanced Technology Acceptance Model for web-based learning. Journal of Information Systems Education15(4): 365–374.
24.
GrovesM. M.ZemelP. C. (2000) Instructional technology adoption in higher education: An action research case study. International Journal of Instructional Media27(1): 57–65.
25.
HairJ. F.BlackW. C.BabinB. J.AndersonR. E. (2010) Multivariate data analysis, 7th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
26.
HobbsR.JensenA. (2009) The past, present, and future of media literacy education. The Journal of Media Literacy Education1(1): 1–11.
27.
HopsonM. H.SimmsR. L.KnezekG. A. (2002) Using a technologically enriched environment to improve higher-order thinking skills. Journal of Research on Technology in Education34(2): 109–119.
28.
HoyleR. H. (2011) Structural equation modeling for social and personality psychology, London, England: Sage.
29.
HuL. T.BentlerP. M. (1999) Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling6(1): 1–55.
30.
JohnstonK. (2013) A guide to educating different generations in South Africa. In: CohenE.BoydE. (eds) Proceedings of the Informing Science and Information Technology Education Conference 2013, Santa Rosa, CA: Informing Science Institute, pp. 261–273. Retrieved from https://www.learntechlib.org/p/114619/.
31.
JonesA. (2004) A review of the research literature on barriers to the uptake of ICT by teachers. British Educational Communications and Technology Agency. Retrieved from http://www.becta.org.uk.
32.
JuddT.KennedyG. (2010) A five-year study of on-campus Internet use by undergraduate biomedical students. Computers & Education55(4): 1564–1571.
33.
KingW. R.HeJ. (2006) A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model. Information & Management43(6): 740–755.
34.
KlineR. B. (2010) Principles and practice of structural equation modeling, 3rd ed. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
35.
LedererA.MaupinD.SenaM.ZhuangY. (2000) The technology acceptance model and the world wide web. Decision Support Systems29(3): 269–282.
36.
LimC. P.KhineM. S. (2006) Managing teachers' barriers to ICT integration in Singapore schools. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education14(1): 97–125.
37.
MaW. W. K.AnderssonR.StreithK. O. (2005) Examining user acceptance of computer technology: An empirical study of student teachers. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning21(6): 387–395.
38.
MellorD.MooreK. A. (2014) The use of Likert scales with children. Journal of Pediatric Psychology39(3): 369–379.
39.
MelvilleN.KraemerK.GurbaxaniV. (2004) Information technology and organizational performance: An integrative model of IT business value. MIS Quarterly28(2): 283–322.
40.
NgaiE. W. T.PoonJ. K. L.ChanY. H. C. (2007) Empirical examination of the adoption of WebCT using TAM. Computers and Education48(2): 250–267.
41.
ParkS. Y. (2009) An analysis of the technology acceptance model in understanding university students' behavioral intention to use e-learning. Educational Technology & Society12(3): 150–162.
42.
PrenskyM. (2001) Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon9(5): 1–6.
43.
SaettlerP. (2004) The evolution of American educational technology, Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
44.
SchumackerR. E.LomaxR. G. (2010) A beginner's guide to structural equation modeling, New York, NY: Routledge.
45.
SelimH. M. (2003) An empirical investigation of student acceptance of course websites. Computers & Education40(4): 343–360.
46.
SmarkolaC. (2007) Technology acceptance predictors among student teachers and experienced classroom teachers. Journal of Educational Computing Research31(1): 65–82.
47.
SteenkampJ. E.BaumgartnerH. (1998) Assessing MI in cross-national consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research25(1): 78–90.
48.
SugarW.CrawleyF.FineB. (2004) Examining teachers' decisions to adopt new technology. Educational Technology and Society7(4): 201–213.
49.
SurryD. W.EnsmingerD. C.HaabM. (2005) Strategies for integrating instructional technology into higher education. British Journal of Educational Technology36(2): 327–329.
50.
TeoT. (2008) Pre-service teachers' attitudes towards computer use: A Singapore survey. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology24(4): 413–424.
51.
TeoT. (2009) Modelling technology acceptance in education: A study of pre-service teachers. Computers & Education52(1): 302–312.
52.
TeoT. (2011) Factors influencing teachers' intention to use technology: Model development and test. Computers & Education57: 2432–2440.
53.
TeoT. (2013) An initial development and validation of a Digital Natives Assessment Scale (DNAS). Computers & Education67: 51–57.
54.
TeoT. (2015) Comparing pre-service and in-service teachers' acceptance of technology: Assessment of measurement invariance and latent mean differences. Computers & Education83: 22–31.
55.
TeoT.FanX. (2013) Coefficient alpha and beyond: Issues and alternatives for educational research. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher22(2): 209–213.
56.
TeoT.JarupunpholP. (2015) Dhammic Technology Acceptance Model (DTAM): Extending the TAM using a condition of attachment in Buddhism. Journal of Educational Computing Research52(1): 133–148.
57.
TeoT.WongS. L. (2013) Modeling key drivers of e-learning satisfaction among student teachers. Journal of Educational Computing Research48(1): 71–95.
58.
TeoT.ZhouM. M. (2014) Explaining the intention to use technology among university students: A structural equation modeling approach. Journal of Computing in Higher Education26(2): 124–142.
59.
TeoT.FanX.DuJ. (2015) Technology acceptance among pre-service teachers: Does gender matter?Australasian Journal of Educational Technology31(3): 235–251.
60.
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.
61.
TeoT.UrsavasO. F.BahcekapiliE. (2012) An assessment of pre-service teachers' technology acceptance in Turkey: A structural equation modeling approach. Asia-Pacific Education Researcher21(1): 191–202.
62.
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 & Education53(3): 1000–1009.
63.
Teo, T., Khlaisang, J., Thammetar, T., Ruangrit, N., Satiman, A., & Sunphakitjumnong, K. (2014). A survey of pre-service teachers' acceptance of technology in Thailand. Asia Pacific Education Review, 15(4), 609–616.
64.
ThompsonR. L.HigginsC.HowellJ. M. (1991) Personal computing: Toward a conceptual model of utilization. MIS Quarterly15(1): 125–143.
65.
TorkzadehG.Van DykeT. P. (2002) Effects of training on Internet self-efficacy and computer user attitudes. Computers in Human Behavior18(5): 479–494.
66.
VandenbergR. J.LanceC. E. (2000) A review and synthesis of the MI literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organizational Research Methods3(1): 4–70.
67.
VenkateshV.DavisF. D. (2000) A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science46(2): 186–204.
68.
VenkateshV.MorrisM. G.DavisG. B.DavisF. D. (2003) User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly27(3): 425–478.
69.
WilliamsP. (2002) The learning Web: The development, implementation and evaluation of Internet-based undergraduate materials for the teaching of key skills. Active Learning in Higher Education3(1): 40–53.
70.
WuJ. H.WangS. C. (2005) What drives mobile commerce? An empirical evaluation of the revised technology acceptance model. Information & Management42(5): 719–729.
71.
YiM. Y.HwangY. (2003) Predicting the use of web-based information systems: Self-efficacy, enjoyment, learning goal orientation, and the technology acceptance model. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies59(4): 431–449.
72.
YuenA. H.MaW. W. (2002) Gender differences in teacher computer acceptance. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education10(3): 365–382.
73.
ZhaoY.CzikoG. A. (2001) Teacher adoption of technology: A perceptual control theory perspective. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education9(1): 5–30.
74.
ZhangS.ZhaoJ.TanW. (2008) Extending TAM for online learning systems: An intrinsic motivation perspective. Tsinghua Science & Technology13(3): 312–317.
