Investigating Mathematics Teachers' Technology Acceptance and Self-Efficacy for Technology Integration: A Structural Equation Modeling Approach
Keywords:
Technology Acceptance Model, Self-Efficacy, Technology Integration, SEM, mathematics teachersAbstract
The effective integration of technology into educational environments is closely related to teachers' digital skills and their willingness to use these tools in teaching processes. In this respect, the study aimed to examine the relationship between pre-service mathematics teachers' acceptance levels towards technology and their self-efficacy beliefs about technology integration. The study was designed using the relational survey model, which is a quantitative method, and analyzed with structural equation modeling (SEM). The research sample consisted of 381 mathematics teachers working in different school types. The Technology Acceptance Scale (TAM) and Self-Efficacy Perception Scale for Technology Integration (S-ET) were used as data collection tools. The results of the analyses revealed that there was a statistically significant and moderately positive relationship between technology acceptance and self-efficacy towards technology integration (r = 0.541; β = 0.42; p < .001). The findings show that teachers' positive attitudes towards technology support their self-efficacy towards technology integration. However, it was concluded that positive attitudes alone are not sufficient for effective technology integration; teacher education programs should be structured to strengthen practical skills and pedagogical approaches to technology use. It is also suggested that contextual factors (infrastructure, technical support, in-service training) should be taken into consideration.
Downloads
References
Abu Bakar, K., Maat, S. M., & Rosli, R. (2018). Self-efficacy and its influence on the integration of technology in teaching mathematics. Journal of Educational Technology, 12(2), 45-60.
Bakar, N. S. A., Maat, S. M., & Rosli, R. (2018). A Systematic Review of Teacher’s Self-efficacy and Technology Integration. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 8(8), 540–557.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191
Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy. In V. S. Ramachaudran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human behavior (Vol. 4, pp. 71–81). Academic Press.
Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107(2), 238–246.
Birisci, S. and Kul, E. (2019). Predictors of pre-service teachers' technology integration self-efficacy beliefs. Contemporary Educational Technology, 10(1), 75-93.
Byrne, B. M. (2016). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming (3rd ed.). Routledge.
Chand, V. S., Deshmukh, K. S., & Shukla, A. (2020). Why technology integration fails? Teacher beliefs and content developer assumptions in an Indian initiative. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(5), 2753–2774
Clark-Wilson, A., Robutti, O., & Sinclair, N. (2020). Mathematics education in the digital age. Springer.
Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340.
Erdener, M., & Kandemir, M. A. (2019). The effect of teachers' technology integration approaches on students' attitudes. International Journal of Mathematics Education, 11(3), 78-92.
Ertmer, P. A. (1999). Addressing first- and second-order barriers to change: Strategies for technology integration. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(4), 47–61. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02299597
Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T. (2010). Teacher technology change: How knowledge, confidence, beliefs, and culture intersect. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(3), 255–284. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2010.10782551
Gumiero, B. S., & Pazuch, V. (2024). Digital technologies and mathematics teaching: An analysis of teacher professional knowledge. Pedagogical Research, 9(2), em0200.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2019). Multivariate data analysis (8th ed.). Cengage Learning.
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55.
Ibrahim, F., Hassan, R. and Nordin, Z. (2025). Facilitating teacher technology integration in mathematics classrooms: Challenges and opportunities. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 19(4), 112-124.
Ibrahim, F., Münscher, J., Daseking, M., & Telle, N. (2025). The technology acceptance model and adopter type analysis in the context of artificial intelligence. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence, 7, 1496518. https://doi.org/10.3389/frai.2024.1496518
Joo, Y. J., Park, S., & Lim, E. (2018). Factors affecting pre-service teachers' intention to use technology: TPACK, teacher self-efficacy, and Technology Acceptance Model. Educational Technology and Society, 21(3), 48-59
Karasar, N. (2012). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemi (24. baskı). Ankara: Nobel Yayıncılık.
Kline, R. B. (2016). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4th ed.). New York: The Guilford Press.
Liu, M., Ng, O.-L., Dai, Y., & Chai, C.-S. (2024). Prospective mathematics teachers’ hiccups and professional noticing during technology-rich teaching and learning. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 24, 211–228.
Liu, X., Zhang, Y., & McIlroy, R. (2024). Teacher education and technology integration: Challenges and opportunities. Educational Technology Journal, 15(2), 45-60.
MacCallum, R. C., Browne, M. W., & Sugawara, H. M. (1996). Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological Methods, 1(2), 130–149.
Mayer, R. E. (2003). The promise of multimedia learning: Using the same instructional design methods across environments. Learning and Teaching, 13(2), 125-139.
McGarr, O. (2024). Exploring and reflecting on the influences that shape teacher professional digital competence frameworks. Teachers and Teaching, 30(4), 509–525.
Nathan, M. (2009a). Confidence and competence: Self-efficacy in technology integration. Journal of Technology in Education, 14(3), 120-134.
Nathan, M. J. (2009b). Preservice teachers’ beliefs and knowledge of technology integration. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 42(3), 255–284.
Oksuz, C., Ak, S., & Uca, S. (2009). Perceptions of elementary mathematics teachers toward technology. Education and Science, 34(153), 45-56.
Pajares, M. F. (1997a). Current Directions in self-efficacy research. In M. L. Maehr & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in Motivation and Achievement, 10, 1-49. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Pajares, M. F. (1997b). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307–332. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543062003307
Paraskeva, F., Bouta, H., & Papagianna, A. (2008). Computer self-efficacy and technology integration: A study of Greek teachers. Educational Technology Research and Development, 56(3), 321–339.
Pintrich, P. R. & Schunk, D. H. (2002). Motivation in education: Theory, research, and applications (2nd ed.). Merrill Prentice Hall.
Sang, G., et al. (2010). Exploring the factors influencing pre-service teachers’ intention to use ICT.
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
Saumure, K.; Given, L.M. (2008). Convenience sample. In The SAGE Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods; SAGE: Newcastle upon Tyne, 2, 124–125.
Sokal, L., Smith, D., & Mowat, H. (2003). Effective teaching: Assessing and developing teacher self-efficacy. Educational Psychology Review, 15(1), 20-39.
Tamim, R. M., Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Abrami, P. C., & Schmid, R. F. (2011). What forty years of research say about the impact of technology on learning: A second-order meta-analysis and validation study. Educational Research Review, 81(1), 4-28.
Teo, T. (2009). Modeling technology acceptance in education: A study of pre-service teachers. Computers and Education, 52(2), 302-312.
Thomson, M. M., DiFrancesca, D., Carrier, S., & Lee, C. (2017). Teaching effectiveness: Exploring the relationships among mathematics and science self-efficacy beliefs, PCK, and content knowledge among preservice teachers in the United States. Teacher Development, 21(1), 1-20.
Tobin, K., Tippins, D. J., & Gallard, A. J. (1994). Research on instructional strategies for teaching science. In D. L. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning (pp. 45-93). New York: Macmillan.
Tondeur, J., Van Braak, J., Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. (2017). Understanding the relationship between teachers' pedagogical beliefs and technology use in education: A systematic review. Educational Technology Research and Development, 65(3), 555-575.
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(7), 783-805.
Ursavaş, Ö. F., Şahin, S., & McIlroy, D. (2014). Öğretmenler için Teknoloji Kabul Ölçeği (Ö-TKÖ). Eğitimde Kuram ve Uygulama, 10(4), 885-917.
Venkatesh, V. & Davis, F. D. (2000) A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies. Management Science 46(2):186-204. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926
Wang, L., Ertmer, P. A., & Newby, T. J. (2004). Increasing preservice teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs for technology integration. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 36 (3), 231-250.
Weigand, H. G., Trgalova, J., & Tabach, M. (2024). Mathematics teaching, learning, and assessment in the digital age. ZDM Mathematics Education, 56, 525–541.
