Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Explaining different types of computer use among primary school teachers

  • Published:
European Journal of Psychology of Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In order to identify differences in determinants of supportive and class use of computers, path modelling was applied in a sample of 468 primary school teachers. Independent variables were categorised in three levels: demographics (age and gender), computer experience (computer training, computer experience expressed over time, intensity of computer use), and attitude measures (general computer attitudes, attitudes toward computers in education, and technological innovativeness).

Supportive and class use of computers are not related to the same set of variables. Supportive computer use was mainly predicted by computer experience variables and general computer attitudes. Strongest predictors of class use were technological innovativeness and gender. Yet, the degree of explained variance for class use of computer was considerably lower compared to supportive computer use. These results indicate the limitations of explaining complex forms of professional computer use on the basis of both individual determinants and quantitative models. The article concludes with some practical implications and recommendations for further research.

Résumé

A fin d’identifier les différences dans les déterminants de l’utilisation de l’ordinateur comme support et en classe, path modelling a été appliqué au moyen d’un échantillon de 468 instituteurs.

Les variables indépendantes ont été catégorisées en trois niveaux: démographie (âge et sexe), expérience avec l’ordinateur (apprentissage d’informatique, expérience informatique exprimée en fonction du temps et de l’intensité de l’utilisation de l’ordinateur), et mesures d’attitude (attitudes générales vis-à-vis de l’ordinateur, attitudes vis-à-vis de l’emploi d’ordinateurs dans l’enseignement et de l’innovation technologique).

L’utilisation de l’ordinateur comme support et celle en classe ne sont pas relatées au même ensemble de variables. L’emploi comme support est principalement prédit par les variables qui expriment l’expérience avec l’ordinateur et les attitudes générales vis-à-vis de l’ordinateur. Les prédicateurs les plus forts pour l’emploi en classe sont l’attitude par rapport à l’innovation technologique et le sexe. Mais le degré de la variance expliquée est considérablement plus faible pour ce qui concerne l’utilisation en classe que pour l’utilisation comme support. Ces résultats indiquent les limitations à expliquer des formes complexes de l’utilisation professionnelle de l’ordinateur à base de déterminants individuels et de models quantitatifs. L’article conclue avec quelques implications pratiques et recommandations pour des recherches futures.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Al Khaldi, M.A., & Al Jabri, I.M. (1998). The relationship of attitudes to computer utilization: New evidence from a developing nation.Computers in Human Behavior, 14(1), 23–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arbuckle, J.L. (2003).Amos 5.0 Update to the Amos User’s Guide. Chicago, IL: Smallwaters Corporation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arbuckle, J.L., & Wothke, W. (1999).Amos 4.0 User’s Guide. Chicago, IL: Smallwaters Corporation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baylor, A.L., & Ritchie, D. (2002). What factors facilitate teacher skill, teacher morale, and perceived student learning in technology-using classrooms?Computers & Education, 39(4), 395–414.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Becta (n.d.).ICT advice for teachers. Retrieved January 8, 2004, from

  • Bradley, G., & Russell, G. (1997). Computer experience, school support, and computer anxiety.Educational Psychology: An International Journal of Experimental Educational Psychology, 17(3), 267–284.

    Google Scholar 

  • Charlton, J.P., & Birkett, P.E. (1995). The development and validation of the Computer Apathy and Anxiety Scale.Journal of Educational Computing Research, 13(1), 41–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chiero, R.T. (1997). Teachers’ perpectives on factors that affect computer use.Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 30(2), 133–145.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cox, M., Abbott, C., Webb, M., Blakeley, B., Beauchamp, T., & Rhodes, V. (2004).ICT and Pedagogy — A review of the literature.ICT in Schools Research and Evaluation Series, 18. London: DfES/BECTA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cuban, L., Kirkpatrick, H., & Peck, C. (2001). High access and low use of technologies in high school classrooms: Explaining an apparent paradox.American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 813–834.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeYoung, C.G., & Spence, I. (2004). Profiling information technology users: En route to dynamic personalization.Computers in Human Behavior, 20(1), 55–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eiser, J.R., & van der. Pligt, J. (1988).Attitudes and Decisions. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Francis, L.J., & Evans, T.E. (1995). The reliability and validity of the Bath County Computer Attitude Scale.Journal of Educational Computing Research, 12(2), 135–146.

    Google Scholar 

  • Furst-Bowe, J., Boger, C., Franklin, T., McIntyre, B., Polansky, J., & Schlough, S. (1995). An analysis of required computer competencies for university students.Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 28(2), 175–189.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galanouli, D., Murphy, C., & Gardner, J. (2004). Teachers’ perceptions of the effectiveness of ICT-competence training.Computers & Education, 43(1–2), 63–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hogarty, K.Y., Lang, T.R., & Kromrey, J.D. (2003). Another look at technology use in classrooms: The development and validation of an instrument to measure teachers’ perceptions.Educational and Psychological Measurement, 63(1), 139–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jenson, J., & Rose, C.B. (2003). Women@work: Listening to gendered relations of power in teacher’ talk about new technologies.Gender & Education, 15(2), 169–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jenson, J., De Castell, S., & Bryson, M. (2003). “Girl talk”: Gender, equity, and identity discourses in a school-based computer culture.Women’s Studies International Forum, 26(6), 561–574.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kadijevich, D. (2000). Gender differences in computer attitude among ninth-grade students.Journal of Educational Computing Research, 22(2) 145–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kay, R. (1989). A practical and theoretical approach to assessing computer attitudes: The Computer attitude Measure (CAM).Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 21(4), 456–463.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kay, R. (1992). Understanding gender differences in computer attitudes: Aptitude, and use: An invitation to build theory.Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 25(2), 159–171.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kennewell, S., Parkinson, J., & Tanner, H. (2000).Developing the ICT Capable School. London: RouteledgeFalmer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Khine, S.M. (2001). Attitudes toward computers among teacher education students in Brunei Darussalam.International Journal of Instructional Media, 28(2), 147–152.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kreft, I., & De Leeuw, J. (1998). Introducing multilevel modeling. London. Sage.

  • Levine, T., & Donitsa-Schmidt, S. (1998). Computer use, confidence, attitudes, and knowledge: a causal analysis.Computers in Human Behavior, 14(1), 125–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Looker, E.D., & Thiessen, V. (2003). Beyond the digital divide in Canadian schools. From access to competency in the use of information technology.Social Science Computer Review, 21(4), 475–490.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loveless, A., & Dore, B. (Eds.). (2002).ICT in the primary school. Learning and Teaching with ICT. Buckingham: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loyd, B.H., & Gressard, C. (1984). Reliability and factorial validity of computer attitude scales.Educational and Psychological Measurement, 44(2), 501–505.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loyd, B.H., & Loyd, D.E. (1985). The reliability and validity of an instrument for the assessment of computer attitudes.Educational and Psychological Measurement, 45(4), 903–908.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maier, P., Barnett, L., Warren, A., & Brunner, D. (1999).Using Technology in Teaching and Education. London: Kogan Page.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marcinkiewicz, H.R. (1993). Computers and teachers: Factors influencing computer use in the classroom.Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 26(2), 220–237.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marcoulides, G.A., & Schumacker, R.E. (2001) New Developments and Techniques in Structural Equation Modeling. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mathews, J.G., & Guarino, A.J. (2000). Predicting teacher computer use: A path analyses.International Journal of Instructional Media, 27(4), 385–392.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitra, A. (2001). Developing a questionnaire to measure the effectiveness of computers in teaching.Proceedings of the Annual ED-MEDIA — World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications (pp. 1327–1328). AACE. Tampere, Finland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Potosky, D., & Bobko, Ph. (2001). A model for predicting computer experience from attitudes toward computers.Journal of Business and Psychology, 15(3), 391–404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robertson, J. (2002). The ambiguous embrace: Twenty years of IT (ICT) in UK primary schools.British Journal of Educational Technology, 33(4), 403–409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roehrich, G. (2004). Consumer innovativeness. Concepts and measurements.Journal of Business Research, 57(6), 671–677.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, E.M. (1995).Diffusion of Innovations, Fourth Edition. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, E.M., & Shoemaker, F.F. (1971).Communication of Innovations: A Cross-Cultural approach. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rozell, E.J., & Gardner, W.L. (1999). Computer-related success and failure: A longitudinal field study of the factors influencing computer-related performance.Computers in Human Behavior, 15(1), 1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shapka, J.D., & Ferrari, M. (2003). Computer-related attitudes and actions of teacher candidates.Computers in Human Behavior, 19(3), 319–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shashaani, L. (1997). Gender differences in computer attitudes and use among college students.Journal of Educational Computing Research, 16(1), 37–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tan, S.C., Hu, C., Wong, S.K., & Wettasinghe, C.M. (2003). Teacher training on technology-enhanced instruction — A holistic approach.Educational Technology & Society 6(1), 96–104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tearle, P. (2003). ICT implementation: What makes the difference?British Journal of Educational Technology, 34 (5), 403–417.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tuijnman, A.C., & Ten Brummelhuis, A.C.A. (1992). Determinants of computer use in lower secondary schools in Japan and the United States.Computers & Education, 19(3), 291–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Braak, J., & Goeman, K. (2003). Differences between general computer attitudes and perceived computer attributes: Development and validation of a scale.Psychological Reports, 92, 655–660.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Braak, J. (2001). Individual characteristics influencing teachers’ class use of computers.Journal of Educational Computing Research, 25(2), 141–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Braak, J. (2004). Domains and determinants of university students’ self-perceived computer competence.Computers and Education, 43(3), 299–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Volman, M., & van Eck, E. (2001). Gender equity and information technology in education: The second decade.Review of Educational Research, 71(4), 613–634.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, D., Coles, L., Wilson, K., Richardson, A., & Tuson, J. (2000). Teachers and ICT: Current use and future needs.British Journal of Educational Technology, 31(4), 307–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winter, S.J., Chudoba, K.M., & Gutek, B.A. (1998). Attitudes toward computers — When do they predict computer use?Information and Management, 34(5), 275–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Education, Ghent University, Henri Dunantlaan 2, 9000, Ghent, Belgium

    Johan van Braak, Jo Tondeur & Martin Valcke

Authors
  1. Johan van Braak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jo Tondeur
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Martin Valcke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

van Braak, J., Tondeur, J. & Valcke, M. Explaining different types of computer use among primary school teachers. Eur J Psychol Educ 19, 407–422 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03173218

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03173218

Key words

Search

Navigation