You are here:

Valuing technology integration: The role of outcome expectations in promoting preservice teachers’ acceptance of technology
PROCEEDINGS

, Iowa State University, United States ; , Balikesir University, Turkey ; , Children's Mercy Hospital - Kansas City, MO & UMKC School of Medicine, United States

Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, in Austin, Texas, USA ISBN 978-1-880094-92-1 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Chesapeake, VA

Abstract

Why do some teachers decide to integrate technology while others do not? We used Social Cognitive Theory (SCT) as a framework for examining the influence of self-efficacy and outcome expectations on preservice teachers’ performance in an introductory instructional technology course. Analysis revealed that some findings were inconsistent with predictions based on the SCT model. Outcome expectations interacted with self-efficacy to produce anomalous results for a group of physical education students taking the course as a requirement for State teaching certification. These students’ low outcome expectations appeared to have considerable negative influence on course performance; suggesting that outcome expectations is an essential factor in motivating student learning.

Citation

Niederhauser, D., Perkmen, S. & Toy, S. (2012). Valuing technology integration: The role of outcome expectations in promoting preservice teachers’ acceptance of technology. In P. Resta (Ed.), Proceedings of SITE 2012--Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 2015-2020). Austin, Texas, USA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved March 26, 2019 from .

View References & Citations Map

References

  1. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
  2. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. NY: Freeman.
  3. Compeau, D.R., & Higgins, C.A. (1995, June). Computer self-efficacy: Development of a measure and initial test. MIS Quarterly, 19, 189-211.
  4. Cassidy, S., & Eachus, P. (2002). Developing the computer user-self efficacy (CUSE): Investigating the relationship between computer self-efficacy, gender, and experience with computers, Journal of Educational Computing Research, 26(2), 133,153.
  5. Ertmer, P.A. (1999). Addressing first-and second-order barriers to change: Strategies for technology integration. Educational Technology Research& Development, 47(4), 47-61.
  6. Ertmer, P.A. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for technology integration? Educational Technology Research& Development, 53(4), 25-39.
  7. Fennema, E. & Sherman, J. (1976) Fennema-Sherman mathematics attitude scales: instruments designed to measure attitudes towards the learning of mathematicsby females and males, Journal for Research in Mathematics Education,7, 24-26.
  8. Fouad, N. & Smith, P. (1996). A test of a social cognitive model for middle school students: Math and science. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 43 (3), 338-346
  9. Fusilier, M., Durlabhji, S. & Cucchi, A. (2008). An investigation of the integrated model of user technology acceptance: Internet user samples in four countries. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 38(2), 155-182.
  10. Gray, L., Thomas, N., and Lewis, L. (2010). Teachers’ use of educational technology in U.S. Public schools: 2009 (NCES 2010040). National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education: Washington, DC.
  11. Hill, T., Smith, N.D. And Mann, M.F. (1987) Role of Efficacy Expectations in Predicting the Decision to Use Advanced Technologies: The Case of Computers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, pp. 307-313.
  12. Kleiner, A., & Farris, E. (2002). Internet access in U.S. Public schools and classrooms: 1994–2001 (NCES 2002-018). National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education: Washington, DC.
  13. Kruck, S.E. & Lending, D. (2003). Predicting academic performance in an introductory college level is course. Information Technology, Learning and Performance Journal, 21(2), 9-15.
  14. Lent, R.W., Brown, S.D., & Larkin, C.D. (1984). Relation of self-efficacy expectations to academic achievement and persistence. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 31(3), 356-362.
  15. Lent, R.W., Brown, S.D., & Larkin, C.D. (1986). Self-Efficacy in the prediction of academic performance and perceived career options. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 31(3), 356-362.
  16. Lent, R.W., Lopez, F.G., & Bieschke (1993). Predicting mathematics-related choice and success behaviors. Test of an expanded social cognitive model. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 42, 223-236.
  17. Lent, R.W., & Brown, S.D. (2005). Social cognitive predictors of academic interests and goals in engineering: Utility for women and student at historically black universities. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52(1), 84-92.
  18. Moos, D.C., & Azevedo, R. (2009). Learning with computer-based learning environments: A literature review of computer selfefficacy. Review of Educational Research, 79(2), 576-600.
  19. Paraskeva, F., Bouta, H., & Papagianni, A. (2008). Individual characteristics and computer self-efficacy in secondary education teachers to integrate technology in educational practice. Computers& Education, 50(3), 1084-1091.
  20. Shell, D.F., Murphy, C.C., & Bruning, R.H. (1989). Self-efficacy and outcome expectancy mechanisms in reading and writing achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 8(1), 91-100
  21. Teo, T. (2011). Factors influencing teachers’ intention to use technology: Model development and test. Computers& Education, 57(4), 2432-2440.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake in the references above, please contact info@learntechlib.org.