|
UPSI Digital Repository (UDRep)
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Abstract : Perpustakaan Tuanku Bainun |
| This study seeks to identify effects of determinants for computers use among teachers in Malaysia. In Malaysia, there is widespread recognition that computer can play a powerful role in supplementing and complimenting the process of teacher_s teaching and learning. Given current recognition of the value of computer integration, as well as the investment costs that technologies represent for schools, this study attempted to develop a model which demonstrates the variables that affect computer use among teachers and which also explain its interactions. The proposed research model is based on previous models of technology acceptance. Three variables (computer teaching efficacy, computer attitude and learning outcomes) were selected to build a model for this study. Methodologically, Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) was used as the main technique for data analysis. The findings support the notion that computer attitudes, computer teaching efficacy and learning outcomes have effects on computer use among teachers. However, among them, learning outcomes and computer teaching efficacy did not have direct effects towards computer use. Implications and practical guidelines for both educational technology developers and practitioners are subsequently presented.
Key words: Educational technology; in-service teachers; structural equation modelling (SEM) |
| References |
Arbuckle, J.L. (2005). Amos 6.0 user’s guide. Chicago, IL: SPSS, Inc.
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1977). Attitude behavior relations: A theoretical analysis and review of empirical research. Psychological Bulletin. 84, 888-918.
Ajzen, I. & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behaviour. In J. Kuhl, J. Beckmann (eds). Action Control: from Cognition to Behavior. New York: Springer Verlag, 11-39.
Baldwin, T.T., & Ford, J.K. (1988). Transfer of Training: A review and directions for future research. Personal Psychology. 41, 63–105.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioural change. Psychological Review. 84, 191-215.
Bandura, A. (2001). The changing face of psychology at the dawning of a globalization era. Canadian Psychology. 42, 12–24.
Byrne, B. (2001). Structural equation modelling with AMOS, EQS and LISREL: Comparative approaches to testing for the factorial validity of a measuring instrument. International journal of Testing, 1, 55.
Cassidy, S., & Eachus, P. (2002). Developing the computer user self-efficacy (CUSE) scale: Investigating the relationship between computer self-efficacy, gender and experience with computers. Journal of Educational Computer Research. 26(2), 133-154.
ChanLin, L., Hong, J., Horng, T., Chang, S., & Chu, H. (2006). Factor influencing technology integration in teaching: A Taiwanese perspective. Innovation in Education and Teaching International. 43(1), 57-68.
ChanLin, L. H. (2007), Perceived importance and manageability of teachers toward the factors of integrating computer technology into classrooms. Innovation in Education and Teaching International. 44(1), 44-55
Davis, F.D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use and user acceptance of information technology. Management Information Systems Quarterly. 13 (3), 983- 1003.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Reading MA: Addison-Wesley.
Goldstein, I.L., & Ford, K.J. (2002). Training in Organizations; Needs assessment, development and evaluation. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Thomson Learning.
Gibson, C. (2001). Me and us: differential relationships among goal setting training, efficacy and effectiveness at the individual and team level. Journal of Organisational Behaviour. 22, 789-808.
Gibson, S., & Dembo, M. H. (1984). Teacher efficacy: A construct validation. Journal of Educational Psychology. 76(4), 503-511.
Hair, J.T., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1992). Multivariate data analysis with readings. 3rd ed. New York: Macmillan
Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., & Anderson, R.E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Person Education Inc.
Hayes, A.F., Beyond, B. and Kenny (2009). Statistical mediation analysis in the new millennium. Communication Monographs. 76, 408 -420.
Hennessy, S, Deaney, R, Ruthven, K., & Winterbottom, M (2007). Pedagogical strategies for using the interactive whiteboard to foster learner participation in school science. Learning, Media and Technology, 3(32), 283-301
Higgins, S, Beauchamp, G., & Miller, D (2007). Reviewing the literature on interactive whiteboards. Learning, Media and Technology, 3(32), 213-35.
Hong, K.S. & Koh, C.K. (2002). Computer anxiety and attitudes toward computers among rural secondary schools: A Malaysia perspective. Journal of Research on Technology in Education. 35(1), 27-48.
Kirkpatrick, D.L. (1996). Evaluating training programs: The four levels. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modelling (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.
MacKinnon, D. P. (2008). Introduction to statistical mediation analysis. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Marcinkiewicz, H. R. (1994). Computers and teachers: Factors influencing computer use in the classroom. Journal of Research on Computing in Education. 26(2), 220-237.
Murcia, K. (2008a). Teaching for scientific literacy with an interactive whiteboard. Teaching Science, 54(4), 17 – 21.
Murica, K. (2008b). Teaching science creatively: Engaging primary teacher education students with interactive whiteboard technology. The International Journal of Interdisciplinary Social Sciences, 3(3), 45-52.
Murica, K. & Sheffield, R. (2010). Talking about science in interactive whiteboard classrooms. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology. 26(4), 417-431.
Noe, R.A. (1986). Trainees’ attributes and attitudes: Neglected influences on training effectiveness. Academy of Management Review. 11(4), 736-749.
Phillips, J.J. (1997). Return on investment in training and performance improvement programs. Houston, TS: Gulf Publishing Company.
Preacher, K.J., Rucker, D.D., and Hayes, A.F. (2007). Addressing moderated mediation hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate behaviours research. 42, 185-227.
Preston, C., & Mowbray, L. (2008). Use of SMART Boards for teaching, learning and assessment in kindergarten science. Teaching Science, 54(2), 50– 53.
Riggs, I.M., & Enochs, L.G. (1990). Toward the development of an elementary teacher’s science teaching efficacy belief instrument. Science Education. 74(6), 625-637.
Rouiller, J.Z.. & Goldstein, I.L. (1993). The relationship between organizational transfer climate and positive transfer of training. Human Resource Development quarterly. 4, 377-390.
Segars, A. H. (1997). Assessing the uni-dimensionality of measurement: A paradigm and illustration within the context of information systems research, Omega, International Journal of Management Science, 25(1), 107-121.
Sekaran, U. (2003). Research Methods for Business. A Skill Building Approach. (fourth edition), Cambridge Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
Sugar, W. (2002). Applying human-centred design to technology integration: Three alternative technology perspectives. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education. 19(1),12 -17.
Teo, T. (2009). Modelling technology acceptance in education: A study of pre-service teachers. Computers & Education, 52(1), 302-312.
Torkzadeh, R., Pflughoeft, K., & Hall, L. (1999). Computer self-efficacy, training effectiveness and user attitudes: An empirical study. Behaviour & Information Technology. 18(4), 299-309.
Tracey, J.B., Hinkin, T.R., Tannenbaum, S.I., & Mathieu, J.E. (2001). The influence of individual characteristics and the work environment on varying levels of training outcomes. Human Resource Development Quarterly. 12(1), 5-22.
Wilkie, W.L., & Pessemier, E.A.(1973). Issues in marketing's use of multi-attribute models. Journal of Marketing Research. 11, 428–41. |
| This material may be protected under Copyright Act which governs the making of photocopies or reproductions of copyrighted materials. You may use the digitized material for private study, scholarship, or research. |