Based on the decomposed theory of planned behavior, this study used path analysis to examine the relative strength of the factors that influence teachers' use of instructional technology. The study focused on teachers' use of word processors, spreadsheets, presentation software, e-mail, and Web browsers. A path analysis was performed on self-reported data from 242 secondary science teachers in Taiwan. Results showed that the decomposed theory of planned behavior seriously over simplified the web of forces that influence teachers' use of this technology. Teachers' technology use and their inclination toward its use (attitude and intention) are primarily determined by the teacher-technology interface (ease-of-use, computer self-efficacy, and perceived usefulness). The teacher-technology interface is influenced by the objective environment for instructional technology (technical support, computer access, and to a limited extent professional development opportunities). The objective environment is itself weakly influenced by the subjective environment (administrative support, peer use, and subjective norms). The study provided useful information for policymakers and school administrators by helping them realize the complexity of the task of influencing teachers to increase their use of instructional technology.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AngeliC. (2005). Transforming a teacher education method course through technology: Effects on preservice teachers' technology competency. Computers and Education, 45(4), 383–398.
2.
AronA., & AronE. N. (1997). Statistics for psychology (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
3.
AjzenI. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179–211.
4.
BanduraA. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
5.
BaylorA. L., & RitchieD. (2002). What factors facilitate teacher skill, teacher moral, and perceived student learning in technology using classroom. Computers and Education, 39(2), 395–414.
6.
BebellD.RussellM., & O'DwyerL. (2004). Measuring teachers' technology uses: Why multiple-measures are more revealing. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 37(1), 45–63.
7.
ButlerD., & SellbornM. (2002). Barriers to adopting technology for teaching and learning. Educase Quarterly, 25(2), 22–28.
8.
ChristensenR. (2002). Effects of technology integration education on the attitudes of teachers and students. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 10, 131–150.
9.
CompeauD. R.HugginsC. A., & HuffS. L. (1999). Social cognitive theory to training for computer skills. Information Systems Research, 6(2), 118–143.
10.
CubanL. (2001). Oversold and understand: Computers in the classroom.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
11.
DavisF. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technologies. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340.
12.
DavisF. D.BagozziR. P., & WarshawP. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35(8), 982–1003.
13.
DeciE. L., & RyanR. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior (2nd ed.). New York: Plenum Press.
14.
DelcourtM. A. B., & KinzieM. B. (1993). Computer technologies in teacher education: The measurement of attitudes and self-efficacy. Journal or Research and Development in Education, 27, 35–41.
15.
DexterS. L.AndersonR. E., & RonnkvistA. M. (2002). Quality technology support: What is it? Who is it? And what difference does it make?Journal of Educational Computing Research, 26(3), 265–285.
16.
DupagneM., & KrendlK. A. (1992). Teachers' attitudes toward computers: A review of the literature. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 24(3), 420–429.
17.
ErtmerP. A.AddisonP.LaneM.RossE., & WoodsD. (1999). Examining teachers' beliefs about the role of technology in the elementary classroom. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 32(1), 54–72.
18.
FabryD., & HiggsJ. (1997). Barriers to the effective use of technology in education. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 17(4), 385–395.
19.
FishbeinM., & AjzenI. (1985). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to research and theory.Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley.
20.
HairJ. F.AndersonR. E.TathamR. I., & BlockW. C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis (5th ed.), Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
21.
HendersonR., & DivettM. J. (2003). Perceived usefulness, ease of use and electronic supermarket use and electronic supermarket use. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 59(3), 383–395.
22.
HuP. T. H.ClarkT. H. K., & MaW. W. (2003). Examining technology acceptance by school teachers: A longitudinal study. Information and Management, 41(2), 227–241.
23.
IgbariaM., & IivariJ. (1995). The effects of self-efficacy on computer usage. Omega, 23(6), 587–605.
24.
KearsleyG. (1994). Computers for educational administrators: Leadership in the information age.New Jersey: Ablex Publishing.
25.
LeeS. L. (2001). Special issue in Education: Grade 1–9 curriculum reform. Commonwealth, November, pp. 124–138.
26.
LewisW.AgarwalR., & SambamurthyV. (2003). Sources of influence on beliefs about information technology use: An empirical study of knowledge workers. MIS Quarterly, 7(4), 657–678.
27.
LimJ. (2003). A conceptual framework on the adoption of negotiation support Systems. Information and Software Systems, 24, 469–477.
28.
LloydB. H., & GressardD. E. (1986). Gender and amount of computer experience of teachers in staff development programs: Effects on computer attitudes and perceptions of the usefulness of computers. AEDS Journal, 18(3), 302–311.
29.
MalhotraN. K., & BirksD. F. (2000). Marketing research: An applied approach. (European Edition). Financial Times, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
30.
MathiesonK. (1991). Predicting user intentions: Comparing the technology acceptance model with the theory of planned behavior. Information Systems Research, 2(3), 173–191.
31.
MouzaC. (2003). Leaning to teach with new technology: Implications for professional development. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 35(2), 245–259.
32.
NorumK.GrabingerR. S., & DuffieldJ. A. (1999). Healing the universe is an inside job: Teachers' view on investigating technology. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 22(3), 187–203.
33.
PelgrumW. (2001), Obstacles to the integration of ICT in education: Results from a worldwide educational assessment. Computers and Education, 37, 163–178.
34.
RiemenschneiderC. K.HarrisonD. A., & MykytynP. P. (2003). Understanding it adoption decisions in small business: Integrating current theories. Information and Management, 40, 269–285.
35.
SmylieM. (1995). Teacher learning in the workplace: Implications for school reform. In GuskeyT. R. & HubermanM. (Eds.), New York: Teachers College Press.
36.
SteinbergA. (1998). Will teachers open their doors to change? In ToveyR. (Eds.), Professional development.Cambridge, MA: The Harvard Educational Letters Focus Series No. 4.
37.
TaylorS., & ToddP. A. (1995). Understanding information technology usage: A test of competing models. Information Systems Research, 6(1), 144–176.
38.
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 Processes, 83(1), 33–60.
39.
YuenA., & MaW. (2002). Gender differences in teacher computer acceptance. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 10(3), 365–382.
40.
WassermanE., & MillgramY. (2005). Change in the approaches of teachers following computerization of schools. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 32(3), 241–264.
