Top

Hint

Swipe to navigate through the articles of this issue

Published in:

07-11-2019

An initial development and validation of a Chinese technology teachers’ attitudes towards technology (TTATT) scale

Authors: Meidan Xu, John P. Williams, Jianjun Gu

Published in: International Journal of Technology and Design Education | Issue 5/2020

Abstract

Pupils’ attitudes towards technology have been widely discussed for over three decades, but the equally important topic of teachers’ attitudes towards technology has not gained similar attention. To address this gap, the technology teachers’ attitude towards technology (TTATT) scale was developed and validated by pilot testing with 140 Chinese high school general technology teachers. The theoretical framework of the TTATT scale was based on the tripartite model of teachers’ attitude towards science, resulting in 23 test items. The results of reliability analysis demonstrated the TTATT scale is reliable with this sample of Chinese technology teachers, and the results of exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis indicated that the seven-dimension TTATT scale is consistent with hypothetical theoretical constructs. The seven dimensions are: relevance, difficulty, gender beliefs, enjoyment, anxiety, self-efficacy, and context dependency. The findings demonstrated that the TTATT scale is based on a sound conceptual foundation, and has good construct and factorial validity. The study advances the definition of attitude towards technology and provides a good template for developing a new attitude scale in different discipline contexts.

previous article Interdisciplinary and experiential learning in urban development management education

next article Uncovering early indicators of fixation during the concept development stage of children’s design processes

Available only for authorised users

Aalderen-Smeets, S. I. V., Molen, J. H. W. V. D., & Asma, L. J. F. (2012). Primary teachers’ attitudes toward science: A new theoretical framework. Science Education, 96(1), 158–182. CrossRef

Ajzen, I. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Ajzen, I. (2001). Nature and operation of attitudes. Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1), 27–58. CrossRef

Androulidakis, S. (1991). Greek teachers’ attitudes towards technology, a first approach. In PATT 5 conference proceedings (pp. 219–223). Eindhoven, The Netherlands.

Ankiewicz, P. (2019a). Perceptions and attitudes of pupils towards technology: In search of a rigorous theoretical framework. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 29(1), 37–56. CrossRef

Ankiewicz, P. (2019b). Alignment of the traditional approach to perceptions and attitudes with Mitcham’s philosophical framework of technology. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 29(2), 329–340. CrossRef

Ankiewicz, P., Van Rensburg, S., & Myburgh, C. (2001). Assessing the attitudinal technology profile of South African learners: A pilot study. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 11(2), 93–109. CrossRef

Ardies, J., Maeyer, S. D., & Gijbels, D. (2013). Reconstructing the pupils attitude towards technology-survey. Design and Technology Education, 18(1), 8–19.

Ardies, J., Maeyer, S. D., Gijbels, D., & Keulen, H. V. (2015). Students attitudes towards technology. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 25(1), 43–65. CrossRef

Asma, L., Molen, J. W. V. D., & Aalderen-Smeets, S. V. (2011). Primary teachers’ attitudes towards science and technology: Results of a focus group study. Professional development for primary teachers in science and technology (pp. 89–105). Rotterdam: SensePublishers. CrossRef

Bame, E. A. (1989). What do American teachers think of technology. In PATT 4 conference proceedings (pp. 320–323). Eindhoven, The Netherlands.

Bame, E. A., Dugger, W., De Vries, M. J., & McBee, J. (1993). Pupils’ attitudes toward technology˗PATT-USA. Journal of Technology Studies, 19(1), 40–48.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.

Becker, K. H., & Maunsaiyat, S. (2002). Thai students’ attitudes and concepts of technology. Journal of Technology Education, 13(2), 6–19. CrossRef

Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107(2), 238–246. CrossRef

Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88(3), 588–606. CrossRef

Bilgin, H., & Öznacar, B. (2017). Development of the attitude scale towards crisis and chaos management in education. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 13(11), 7381–7389. CrossRef

Can, A. (2014). Quantitative data analysis in the scientific research process with SPSS. Ankara: PegemA Publishing.

De Klerk Wolters, F. (1988). PATT research in 1987/88. In PATT 3 conference proceedings (pp. 39–46). Eindhoven, The Netherlands.

De Klerk Wolters, F. (1989). A PATT study among 10 to 12-year-olds. In PATT 4 conference proceddings (pp. 324–330). Eindhoven, The Netherlands.

Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Orlando, US: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers.

Edwards, A. L. (1957). Techniques of attitude scale construction. Englewood-Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. CrossRef

Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Ford, M. E. (1992). Motivating humans: Goals, emotions, and personal agency beliefs. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. CrossRef

Gu, J. J. (2015). Analysis and reflection on the achievements and problems of General Technology curriculum experiment in high school in China during the past 10 years. Educational Research and experiment, 2, 29–36.

Hassan, A. M. A., & Shrigley, R. L. (1984). Designing a likert scale to measure chemistry attitudes. School Science and Mathematics, 84(8), 659–669. CrossRef

Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., & Mullen, M. R. (2008). Evaluating model fit: A synthesis of the structural equation modeling literature. In Paper present at the 7 ^th European conference on research methodology for business and management studies. Regent’s College, London, United Kingdom.

Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. CrossRef

Kaiser, H. F. (1960). The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20(1), 141–151. CrossRef

Kline, R. B. (2005). Principle and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York: The Guilford Press.

Mottier, I., Raat, J. H., & De Vries, M. J. (1991). Research. In PATT 5 conference proceedings (pp. 29–36). Eindhoven, The Netherlands.

Nordlöf, C., Höst, G. E., & Hallström, J. (2017). Swedish technology teachers’ attitudes to their subject and its teaching. Research in Science & Technological Education, 35(2), 195–214. CrossRef

Nordlöf, C., Hallström, J., & Höst, G. E. (2019). Self-efficacy or context dependency?: Exploring teachers’ perceptions of and attitudes towards technology education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 29(1), 123–141. CrossRef

Osborne, J. W., Costello, A. B., & Jason, W. O. (2008). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis. In J. W. Osborne (Ed.), Best practices in quantitative methods (pp. 86–99). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. CrossRef

Raat, J. H., & De Vries, M. J. (1985). What do 13- year old students think about technology? The conception of and the attitude towards technology of 13- year old girls and boys. Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands (ERIC Number: ED262998).

Rohaan, E. J., Taconis, R., & Jochems, W. M. G. (2010). Reviewing the relations between teachers’ knowledge and pupils’ attitude in the field of primary technology education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 20(1), 15–26. CrossRef

Steiger, J. H. (1990). Structural model evaluation and modification: An interval estimation approach. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25(2), 173–180. CrossRef

Suprapto, N., & Mursid, A. (2017). Pre-service teachers’ attitudes toward teaching science and their science learning at Indonesia open university. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 18(4), 66–77. CrossRef

Tabachnick, B. G., Fidell, L. S., & Ullman, J. B. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (Vol. 5). Boston, MA: Pearson.

Thibaut, L., Knipprath, H., Dehaene, W., & Depaepe, F. (2018). How school context and personal factors relate to teachers’ attitudes toward teaching integrated STEM. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 28(3), 631–651. CrossRef

Van Rensburg, S., Ankiewicz, P., & Myburgh, C. (1999). Assessing South Africa learners’ attitudes towards technology by using the PATT (Pupils’ Attitudes towards Technology) questionnaire. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 9(2), 137–151. CrossRef

Volk, K. S., & Yip, W. M. (1999). Gender and technology in Hong Kong: A study of pupils’ attitudes toward technology. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 9(1), 57–71. CrossRef

Wu, M. R. (2010). Structural equation model: Operation and application of AMOS. Chongqing: Chongqing University Press.

Title: An initial development and validation of a Chinese technology teachers’ attitudes towards technology (TTATT) scale
Authors: Meidan Xu
John P. Williams
Jianjun Gu
Publication date: 07-11-2019
Publisher: Springer Netherlands
Published in: International Journal of Technology and Design Education / Issue 5/2020
Print ISSN: 0957-7572
Electronic ISSN: 1573-1804
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-019-09551-3

Springer Professional

Hint

Swipe to navigate through the articles of this issue

An initial development and validation of a Chinese technology teachers’ attitudes towards technology (TTATT) scale

Abstract

Premium Partner

Springer Professional

Hint

Swipe to navigate through the articles of this issue

Abstract

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 5/2020

Architecture and built environment design education: disciplinary and pedagogical developments

Reflection in design education

Uncovering early indicators of fixation during the concept development stage of children’s design processes

The development of relational reasoning in primary and secondary school students: a longitudinal investigation in technology education

Interdisciplinary and experiential learning in urban development management education

Teaching history for design at TU Delft: exploring types of student learning and perceived relevance of history for the architecture profession

Premium Partner