Technology acceptance among pre-service teachers: Does gender matter?

Abstract

This study examined possible gender differences in pre-service teachers' perceived acceptance of technology in their professional work under the framework of the technology acceptance model (TAM). Based on a sample of pre-service teachers, a series of progressively more stringent measurement invariance tests (configural, metric, and scalar invariances, as well as latent mean difference) were conducted. Practically, the findings revealed that, while the gender groups showed no statistical difference on perceived usefulness, attitudes toward technology, intention to use technology, female pre-service teachers had lower scores on perceived ease of use, suggesting that technology use is more challenging for female pre-service teachers than for their male counterparts. Technically, the findings provided support for full configural and metric invariance, and for partial scalar invariance. Discussions about the findings and their practical implications concerning teacher training are provided. Future research directions are also suggested. IntroductionIn teacher education, the issue of integration of technology in education settings is gaining momentum (Deutsch, 2010), and more research is needed to better understand the extent to which technology integration in the classroom is effective and appropriate for enhancing teaching and learning (Davis & Davis, 2007). Research in this area needs to consider a broad range of factors, including the type of course, technology applications (such as hardware, software, ISP's, etc.), pedagogical approaches, instructor characteristics, and student characteristics (Diaz & Bontenbal, 2000). One instructor/student characteristic that has received increasing attention is what role gender plays in technology acceptance in the classroom. The issue of gender difference in technology acceptance and use has received the attention of many researchers; as a result, numerous studies have been conducted to study the extent of this difference (Wong & Hanafi, 2007). The debate over the gender difference related to technology acceptance started in the 1980s, and it still persists today. Many researchers have revisited this issue and many are continuing to do so. There is a growing interest on the impact of possible gender differences in technology acceptance, which emphasises the study of gender and new technologies in education as an important research theme.Introduced by Davis, Bagozzi, and Warshaw (1989), the technology acceptance model (TAM) addressed the relevant issue of how users accept and use a technology in business settings. More recently, educational researchers (e.g., Teo, 2011;Teo, 2012;Teo & Wong, 2013) have extended TAM into education settings, investigating the issues in technology acceptance and use among school teachers. However, there remain many issues related to possible gender differences in the broad area of technology integration in the educational context (Ong & Lai, 2006).There have been studies investigating gender differences in technology acceptance and use as perceiv...

Teachers’ Technology Acceptance and Usage Situations and the Evaluation of Web Pedagogic Content Knowledge in Terms of Different Variations and the Determination of the Relationship between These

“…It is also determined in similar studies that technology acceptance and usage intentions of teachers in education don't differ in terms of their sexes (Efe, 2011;Teo, Fan, & Du, 2015), the internet self-efficacy beliefs of prospective teachers don't show a reasonable difference in terms of their sexes except the factor of internet usage durations (Bayrakçı, Tozkoparan, & Durmuş, 2014).…”

“…Prospective teachers consider internet as an inseparable part of their life both in school environment and outside of it (Yılmaz, 2012) and take advantage of internet for the following purposes; researching (Yavuz-Mumcu & Dönmez-Usta, 2014),downloading data, receiving and sending e-mail, supervising and using databases, website designing for educational purposes, making telephone conversations (Şahin and Schreglmann, 2012), playing games, downloading music and movies (Arabacıoğlu and Dursun, 2015), communicating in social media, on-line purchasing, reading newspaper, determination of destination, transactions of banking and finance . Regarding the technology acceptance and usage situations, the following are emphasized; technology acceptance and usage levels between teachers and prospective teachers are reasonable statistically (Teo, 2015), prospective teachers consider themselves adequate in technology (Çetin, Çalışkan, & Menzi, 2012), user-friendliness perception affects the attitudes of prospective teachers towards usage intention and computer utilization while ease of use perception doesn't affect these attitudes (Teo, Ursavaş, & Bahçekapılı (2011), technology acceptance and usage intention in education don't differ in terms of grade level and sex variables (Efe, 2011;Teo, Fan, & Du, 2015), individual learning experiences with technology are limited (Kontkanen, Dillon, Valtonen, Renkola, Vesisenaho, & Vaisanen, 2014) but they affect educational technology usage intentions (Efe, 2011), and knowledge, ability and confidence deficiencies in technology acceptances affect ICT self-efficacy negatively (Bozdoğan & Özen, 2014).…”

Percepción de Blended Learning en profesores universitarios de distintos ámbitos disciplinares

“…Como hemos comentado en los resultados se constata que existe una actitud favorable hacia la enseñanza BL, más afianzada en los participantes de Ciencias Sociales y Humanidades, que en los de Ciencias. Apenas existen resultados empíricos publicados con los que poder contrastar este resultado a nivel español y escasas referencias a nivel internacional (Teo, et, al. 2015y Venkatesh, 2016.…”

Valoraciones de la “Aceptación de la Tecnología de Formación Virtual” por profesores universitarios asistentes a un curso de formación virtual

“…En la enseñanza, el modelo se ha centrado en el análisis del uso de las tecnologías por profesores y alumnos (Yong, Rivas y otros, 2010;Valencia y otros, 2014;Teo y Noyes, 2011;Teo y otros, 2015), y directivos académicas (González-Bravo, y Valdivia-Peralta, 2015).…”