SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Journal of Education in Science Environment and Health / 2026 / Volume: 8 Issue: 1

Extending Technology Acceptance Model with Scientific Epistemological and Science Teaching Efficacy Beliefs: A Study with Preservice Teachers

Tezcan Kartal(KIRSEHIR AHI EVRAN UNIVERSITY)0000-0001-7609-3555
İbrahim Serdar Kızıltepe(KIRSEHIR AHI EVRAN UNIVERSITY)0000-0002-6210-5372
Büşra Kartal(KIRŞEHİR AHİ EVRAN ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0003-2107-057X
Pages
—
Publication Date
2022-01-31
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Recommendations were made based on the findings.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The technology acceptance model (TAM) is a widely used framework to investigate factors influencing technology use in education.
📊
Key Findings & Data:There are various external variables extended to TAM to increase the predictivity of the model and the generalizability of findings.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Recommendations were made based on the findings.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Technology acceptance model · Science teaching efficacy beliefs · Epistemological beliefs

Abstract

The technology acceptance model (TAM) is a widely used framework to investigate factors influencing technology use in education. TAM refers to a person’s technology-related attitudes and beliefs influencing intention to use and actual use of technology and seeks predictors of behaviors whether to accept or reject using technology. There are various external variables extended to TAM to increase the predictivity of the model and the generalizability of findings. However, what is not yet clear is the impact of teacher-related variables such as teaching efficacy and epistemological beliefs on teachers’ technology acceptance and behavioral intention. This study examined 710 preservice teachers’ technology acceptance using an extended-TAM with scientific epistemological and science teaching efficacy beliefs. Data were collected through a self-reported measurement tool. Structural equation modeling was used to analyze data. Results revealed that the research model explained 59% of the variance in behavioral intention, and perceived usefulness is the most prominent determinant of behavioral intention. The subdimension of scientific epistemological beliefs, justification, is the strongest determinant in influencing TAM constructs among the external variables (epistemological and science teaching efficacy beliefs). Science teaching efficacy beliefs had small effects on technology acceptance constructs. Recommendations were made based on the findings.

🔖

Cite This Article

Kartal, T., Kızıltepe, İ. S., Kartal, B. (2022). Extending Technology Acceptance Model with Scientific Epistemological and Science Teaching Efficacy Beliefs: A Study with Preservice Teachers. Journal of Education in Science Environment and Health, Volume: 8 Issue: 1. https://doi.org/10.21891/jeseh.1055590

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (72)

  1. Ajzen, I. (2006). Constructing a theory of planned behavior questionnaire. University of Massachusetts Amherst, 1-7. Retrieved from http://people.umass.edu/aizen/pdf/tpb.measurement.pdf on 1 October 2021.
  2. Akar, S. G. M. (2019). Does it matter being innovative: Teachers’ technology acceptance. Education and Information Technologies, 24(6), 3415-3432. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-019-09933-z
  3. Al-Azawei, A., & Alowayr, A. (2020). Predicting the intention to use and hedonic motivation for mobile learning: A comparative study in two Middle Eastern countries. Technology in Society, 62, 101325. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2020.101325
  4. Anderson, S. E., Groulx, J. G., & Maninger, R. M. (2011). Relationships among preservice teachers’ technology-related abilities, beliefs, and intentions to use technology in their future classrooms. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 45(3), 321-338. https://doi.org/10.2190%2FEC.45.3.d
  5. Avcı Yucel, U., & Gulbahar, Y. (2013). Technology acceptance model: A review of the prior predictors. Ankara University Journal of Faculty of Educational Sciences (JFES), 46(1), 89-109. https://doi.org/10.1501/Egifak_0000001275
  6. Aypay, A., Celik, H. C., Aypay, A., & Sever, M. (2012). Technology acceptance in education: A study of pre-service teachers in Turkey. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology-TOJET, 11(4), 264-272.
  7. Bahcivan, E. (2014). Examining relationships among Turkish pre-service science teachers’ conceptions of teaching and learning, scientific epistemological beliefs and science teaching efficacy beliefs. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 13(6), 870-882.
  8. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavior change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191-215.
  9. Bano, M., Zowghi, D., Kearney, M., Schuck, S., & Aubusson, P. (2018). Mobile learning for science and mathematics school education: A systematic review of empirical evidence. Computers & Education, 121, 30-58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.02.006
  10. Bardakcı, S., & Alkan, M. F. (2019). Investigation of Turkish preservice teachers’ intentions to use IWB in terms of technological and pedagogical aspects. Education and Information Technologies, 24(5), 2887-2907. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-019-09904-4
  11. Baydas, O., & Goktas, Y. (2017). A model for preservice teachers’ intentions to use ICT in future lessons. Interactive Learning Environments, 25(7), 930-945. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2016.1232277
  12. Becker, S., Klein, P., Gößling, A., & Kuhn, J. (2020). Using mobile devices to enhance inquiry-based learning processes. Learning and Instruction, 69, 101350. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2020.101350
  13. Blonder, R., Jonatan, M., Bar-Dov, Z., Benny, N., Rap, S., & Sakhnini, S. (2013). Can you tube it? Providing chemistry teachers with technological tools and enhancing their self-efficacy beliefs. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 14(3), 269-285. https://doi.org/10.1039/C3RP00001J
  14. Bondy, E., Ross, D., Adams, A., Nowak, R., Brownell, M., Hoppey, D.,. & Stafford, L. (2007). Personal epistemologies and learning to teach. Teacher Education and Special Education, 30(2), 67-82. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F088840640703000202
  15. Byrne, B. M. (2016). Structural equation modeling with Amos: Basic concepts, applications, and programming (3rd Ed.). Taylor & Francis Group: New York. http://www.routledge.com/9781138797031
  16. Cheng, M. M., Chan, K. W., Tang, S. Y., & Cheng, A. Y. (2009). Pre-service teacher education students’ epistemological beliefs and their conceptions of teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(2), 319-327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2008.09.018
  17. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd Ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  18. Conley, A. M., Pintrich, P. R., Vekiri, I., & Harrison, D. (2004). Changes in epistemological beliefs in elementary science students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29(2), 186-204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2004.01.004
  19. Creswell, J. W. (2015). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (5th Ed.). Boston: Pearson Education.
  20. Davis, F. D. (1985). A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-user information systems: Theory and results (PhD). Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Retrieved from https://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/15192/14927137-MIT.pdf?sequence=2.
  21. Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319-340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008
  22. Demirbag, M., & Bahcivan, E. (2021). Comprehensive exploration of digital literacy: Embedded with self-regulation and epistemological beliefs. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 30(3), 448-459. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-020-09887-9
  23. Deng, F., Chai, C. S., Tsai, C. C., & Lee, M. H. (2014). The relationships among Chinese practicing teachers’ epistemic beliefs, pedagogical beliefs and their beliefs about the use of ICT. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 17(2), 245-256. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/jeductechsoci.17.2.245
  24. Ekici, D. I. (2018). Development of pre-service teachers’ teaching self-efficacy beliefs through an online community of practice. Asia pacific education review, 19(1), 27-40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-017-9511-8
  25. Eksail, F. A. A., & Afari, E. (2020). Factors affecting trainee teachers’ intention to use technology: A structural equation modeling approach. Education and Information Technologies, 25(4), 2681-2697. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-019-10086-2
  26. Enochs, L. G., & Riggs, I. M. (1990). Further development of an elementary science teaching efficacy belief instrument: A preservice elementary scale. School Science and Mathematics, 90(8), 694-706. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.1990.tb12048.x
  27. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA.; Don Mills, Ontario: Addison-Wesley.
  28. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F002224378101800104
  29. Gagnier, K. M., Holochwost, S. J., & Fisher, K. R. (2021). Spatial thinking in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics: Elementary teachers’ beliefs, perceptions, and self‐efficacy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21722
  30. Gibson, S., & Dembo, M. H. (1984). Teacher efficacy: A construct validation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 569-582. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0022-0663.76.4.569
  31. Granić, A., & Marangunić, N. (2019). Technology acceptance model in educational context: A systematic literature review. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(5), 2572-2593. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12864
  32. Güneş, E., & Bahçivan, E. (2018). A mixed research-based model for pre-service science teachers’ digital literacy: Responses to “which beliefs” and “how and why they interact” questions. Computers & Education, 118, 96-106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.11.012
  33. Gurer, M. D., & Akkaya, R. (2021). The influence of pedagogical beliefs on technology acceptance: a structural equation modeling study of pre-service mathematics teachers. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-021-09504-5
  34. Gyamfi, S. A. (2016). Identifying Ghanaian pre-service teachersâ readiness for computer use: A Technology Acceptance Model approach. International Journal of Education and Development using ICT, 12(2), 105-122.
  35. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. (2019). Multivariate data analysis (8th Ed.). United Kingdom: Pearson Education, Inc.
  36. Hofer, B. K., & Pintrich, P. R. (1997). The development of epistemological theories: beliefs about knowledge and knowing and their relation to learning. Review of Educational Research, 67, 88-140. https://doi.org/10.3102%2F00346543067001088
  37. Hoy, A. W., & Spero, R. B. (2005). Changes in teacher efficacy during the early years of teaching: A comparison of four measures. Teaching and teacher education, 21(4), 343-356. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2005.01.007
  38. Huang, F., & Teo, T. (2019). Influence of teacher-perceived organisational culture and school policy on Chinese teachers’ intention to use technology: An extension of technology acceptance model. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68, 1547-1567. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-019-09722-y
  39. Huang, F., & Teo, T. (2021). Examining the role of technology‐related policy and constructivist teaching belief on English teachers’ technology acceptance: A study in Chinese universities. British Journal of Educational Technology, 52(1), 441-460. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13027
  40. Huang, S. Y., Kuo, Y. H., & Chen, H. C. (2020). Applying digital escape rooms infused with science teaching in elementary school: Learning performance, learning motivation, and problem-solving ability. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 37, 100681. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2020.100681
  41. Joo, Y. J., Park, S., & Lim, E. (2018). Factors influencing preservice teachers’ intention to use technology: TPACK, teacher self-efficacy, and technology acceptance model. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 21(3), 48-59. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26458506
  42. Kapucu, S., & Bahçivan, E. (2015). High school students’ scientific epistemological beliefs, self-efficacy in learning physics and attitudes toward physics: A structural equation model. Research in Science & Technological Education, 33(2), 252-267. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2015.1039976
  43. Kartal, B., & Çınar, C. (2018). Examining pre-service mathematics teachers’ beliefs of TPACK during a method course and field experience. Malaysian Online Journal of Educational Technology (MOJET) 6(3), 11-37. http://dx.doi.org/10.17220/mojet.2018.03.002
  44. Kartal, B. (2019). Examining pre-service teachers’ attitudes beliefs, and intentions related to using educational technologies. YYÜ Journal of Education Faculty, 16(1), 436-463. http://dx.doi.org/10.23891/efdyyu.2019.132
  45. Kartal, B. (2020). Pre-service science and mathematics teachers' teaching efficacy beliefs and attitudes toward teaching: A partial correlation research. Australian Journal of Teacher Education (Online), 45(9), 42-61. http://dx.doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2020v45n9.3
  46. Kartal, T., & Dilek, I. (2021). Developing pre-service elementary science teachers’ science teaching efficacy beliefs through microteaching by promoting efficacy sources. International Journal on Social and Education Sciences, 3(4), 710-731. https://doi.org/10.46328/ijonses.124
  47. Kızıltepe, İ. S., & Kartal, T. (2021). Examination of pre-service teachers’ epistemological beliefs in terms of multiple variables. Journal of Kırşehir Education Faculty, 22(3), 2036-2069. https://doi.org/10.29299/kefad.990289
  48. Kline, R. B. (2011). Convergence of structural equation modeling and multilevel modeling. In M. Williams (Ed.), The SAGE Handbook of Methodological Innovation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  49. Lee, J., Cerreto, F. A., & Lee, J. (2010). Theory of planned behavior and teachers’ decisions regarding use of educational technology. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 13(1), 152-164. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/jeductechsoci.13.1.152
  50. Lee, S. W. Y., Luan, H., Lee, M. H., Chang, H. Y., Liang, J. C., Lee, Y. H.,. & Tsai, C. C. (2021). Measuring epistemologies in science learning and teaching: A systematic review of the literature. Science Education, 105, 880-907. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21663
  51. Li, Y., Garza, V., Keicher, A., & Popov, V. (2019). Predicting high school teacher use of technology: Pedagogical beliefs, technological beliefs and attitudes, and teacher training. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 24(3), 501-518. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-018-9355-2
  52. Min, M., Akerson, V., & Aydeniz, F. (2020). Exploring preservice teachers’ beliefs about effective science teaching through their collaborative oral reflections. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 31(3), 245-263. https://doi.org/10.1080/1046560X.2019.1690818
  53. Parkman, S., Litz, D., & Gromik, N. (2018). Examining pre-service teachers’ acceptance of technology-rich learning environments: A UAE case study. Education and Information Technologies, 23(3), 1253-1275. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-017-9665-3
  54. Sang, G., Valcke, M., Van Braak, J., & Tondeur, J. (2010). Student teachers’ thinking processes and ICT integration: Predictors of prospective teaching behaviors with educational technology. Computers & Education, 54(1), 103-112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.07.010
  55. Scherer, R., & Teo, T. (2019). Unpacking teachers’ intentions to integrate technology: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 27, 90-109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2019.03.001
  56. Scherer, R., Siddiq, F., & Tondeur, J. (2020). All the same or different? Revisiting measures of teachers’ technology acceptance. Computers & Education, 143, 103656. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103656
  57. Schommer-Aikins, M. (2004). Explaining the epistemological belief system: Introducing the embedded systemic model and coordinated research approach. Educational psychologist, 39(1), 19-29. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3901_3
  58. Siyam, N. (2019). Factors impacting special education teachers’ acceptance and actual use of technology. Education and Information Technologies, 24(3), 2035-2057. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-018-09859-y
  59. Tekkaya, C., Cakiroglu, J., & Ozkan, O. (2004). Turkish pre-service science teachers’ understanding of science and their confidence in teaching it. Journal of Education for Teaching, 30(1), 57-68. https://doi.org/10.1080/0260747032000162316
  60. Teo, T. (2008). Pre-service teachers’ attitudes towards computer use: A Singapore survey. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 24(4). https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.1201
  61. Teo, T. (2009). Modelling technology acceptance in education: A study of pre-service teachers. Computers & Education, 52(2), 302-312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2008.08.006
  62. Teo, T. (2010). A path analysis of pre-service teachers’ attitudes to computer use: applying and extending the technology acceptance model in an educational context. Interactive Learning Environments, 18(1), 65-79. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820802231327
  63. Teo, T., & Zhou, M. (2017). The influence of teachers’ conceptions of teaching and learning on their technology acceptance. Interactive Learning Environments, 25(4), 513-527. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2016.1143844
  64. Teo, T., Chai, C. S., Hung, D., & Lee, C. B. (2008). Beliefs about teaching and uses of technology among pre‐service teachers. Asia‐Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 36(2), 163-174. https://doi.org/10.1080/13598660801971641
  65. Teo, T., Fan, X., & Du, J. (2015). Technology acceptance among pre-service teachers: Does gender matter?. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 31(3). https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.1672
  66. Teo, T., Ursavaş, Ö. F., & Bahçekapili, E. (2012). An assessment of pre-service teachers’ technology acceptance in Turkey: A structural equation modeling approach. Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 21(1), 191-202. http://researchrepository.murdoch.edu.au/id/eprint/48415
  67. Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(7), 783-805. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(01)00036-1
  68. Ursavaş, Ö., Şahin, S., & McIlroy, D. (2014). Technology acceptance measure for teachers: T-TAM. Journal of Theory and Practice in Education, 10(4), 885-917. Venkatesh, V. (2000). Determinants of perceived ease of use: Integrating control, intrinsic motivation, and emotion into the technology acceptance model. Information systems research, 11(4), 342-365. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.11.4.342.11872
  69. Wong, K. T., Teo, T., & Russo, S. (2012). Influence of gender and computer teaching efficacy on computer acceptance among Malaysian student teachers: An extended technology acceptance model. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 28(7). https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.796
  70. Bondy, E., Ross, D., Adams, A., Nowak, R., Brownell, M., Hoppey, D.,. & Stafford, L. (2007). Personal epistemologies and learning to teach. Teacher Education and Special Education, 30(2), 67-82. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F088840640703000202
  71. Lee, S. W. Y., Luan, H., Lee, M. H., Chang, H. Y., Liang, J. C., Lee, Y. H.,. & Tsai, C. C. (2021). Measuring epistemologies in science learning and teaching: A systematic review of the literature. Science Education, 105, 880-907. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21663
  72. Ursavaş, Ö., Şahin, S., & McIlroy, D. (2014). Technology acceptance measure for teachers: T-TAM. Journal of Theory and Practice in Education, 10(4), 885-917.