With the increase in the use of technology in education, it is important to understand why some implementations of one-to-one computing programs have been successful where others have failed. A questionnaire containing measures for the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM: Davis, 1989) was distributed to a high school in the rural Midwest to determine how the students’ perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use ratings of iPads change with experience across their high school careers. A multivariate analysis of variance showed that both ratings for perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use changed with experience.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AdamsD.A.NelsonR.R.ToddP.A. (1992). Perceived usefulness, ease of use, and usage of information technology: a replication. MIS Quarterly, 16(2)227-247.
2.
BonifazA.ZuckerA., & Education Development Center, I. M. (2004). Lessons Learned About Providing Laptops for All Students. Education Development Center, Inc
3.
ChutturM. Y. (2009). Overview of the technology acceptance model: Origins, developments and future directions. Working Papers on Information Systems, 9(37), 9-37.
4.
ChauP. Y. (1996). An empirical assessment of a modified technology acceptance model. Journal of management information systems, 13(2), 185-204.
5.
DavisF. D. (1986). A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-user information systems: theory and results (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Sloan School of Management, Cambridge, MA.
6.
DavisF. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319-340
7.
DavisF. D.BagozziR. P.WarshawP.R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35(8) 982-1003.
8.
DavisF. D.VenkateshV. (1996). A critical assessment of potential measurement biases in the technology acceptance model: Three experiments. InternationalJournal of Human-Computer Studies, 45(1), 19-45.
9.
FishbeinM. (1979). A theory of reasoned action: Some applications and implications. Nebraska Symposium On Motivation, 2765-116.
HendricksonA.R.GlorfeldK.CronanT.P. (1994). On the repeated test-retest reliability of the end-user computing satisfaction instrument: a comment. Decision Sciences, 25(4), 655-667.
13.
LeiJ.ZhaoY. (2008). One-To-One computing: What does it bring to schools?Journal of Educational Computing Research, 39(2), 97-122.
14.
LowtherD.RossS.MorrisonG. (2003). When each one has one: The influences on teaching strategies and student achievement of using laptops in the classroom. Educational Technology Research and Development, 51(3), 23-44.
15.
MathiesonK. (1991). Predicting user intentions: comparing the technology acceptance model with the theory of planned behavior. Information Systems Research, 2(3), 173-191.
16.
RadnerR.RothschildM. (1975). On the Allocation of Effort. Journal of Economic Theory, 10, 358-376.
17.
RobeyD. (1979). User attitudes and management information system use. Academy of Management Journal, 22, 527-538.
18.
ZhengB.WarschauerM.LinC. H.ChangC. (2016). Learning in One-to-One Laptop Environments A Meta-Analysis and Research Synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 0034654316628645.
