You are here:

Student and Parent Perceived Technological Efficacy, Social Uses of Technology, and Technological Contribution: A Dyadic Analysis
PROCEEDINGS

, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, China

E-Learn: World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education, in Kona, Hawaii, United States Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), San Diego, CA

Abstract

This study examined the interdependence of student and parent Perceived Technological Efficacy (PTE), Social Uses of Technology (SUT), and Technological Contribution (TC) derived from the Positive Technological Development (PTD) framework. Four hundred and eighty two Primary 5 (Grade 5) and Primary 6 (Grade 6) students and their parents in three primary schools in Hong Kong provided data for dyadic analysis in this study. Results from structural equation modeling (SEM) analysis of the Actor-Partner Independence Model (APIM) indicated strong actor effects for the prediction of student and parent SUT as well as TC. No significant partner effects from student PTE, SUT, and TC to parent PTE, SUT, and TC or vice versa were found. Implications of the findings are discussed.

Citation

Lau, W.W.F. (2015). Student and Parent Perceived Technological Efficacy, Social Uses of Technology, and Technological Contribution: A Dyadic Analysis. In Proceedings of E-Learn: World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education (pp. 1027-1031). Kona, Hawaii, United States: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved March 18, 2019 from .

Keywords

View References & Citations Map

References

  1. Akinbobola, O.I., & Adeleke, A.A. (2013). The influence of user efficacy and expectation on actual system use. Interdisciplinary Journal of Information, Knowledge, and Management, 8, 43-57.
  2. Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
  3. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
  4. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman and Company.
  5. Bao, Y., Xiong, T., Hu, Z., & Kibelloh, M. (2013). Exploring gender differences on general and specific computer self-efficacy in mobile learning adoption. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 49(1), 111-132.
  6. Bers, M., Lynch, A.D., & Chau, C. (2012). Positive technological development: The multifaceted nature of youth technology use towards improving self and society. In C.C. Ching& B.J. Foley (Eds.), Constructing the Self in a Digital World (Learning in Doing: Social, Cognitive and Computational Perspectives) (pp. 110-136). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  7. Chau, C. (2006). Associations between online civic engagement and personal technological characteristics among college students. (Master of Arts Thesis), Tufts Univeristy, USA.
  8. Compeau, D., Higgins, C.A., & Huff, S. (1999). Social cognitive theory and individual reactions to computing technology: A longitudinal study. MIS Quarterly, 23(2), 145–158.
  9. Compeau, D.R., & Higgins, C.A. (1995). Computer self-efficacy: Development of a measure and initial test. MIS Quarterly, 19(2), 189–211.
  10. Davis, F.D. (1993). User acceptance of information technology: System characteristics, user perceptions and behavioural impacts. International Journal of Man­‐Machine Studies, 38, 474­‐487.
  11. Finkenauer, C., Kerkhof, P., Branje, S.J.T., & Righetti, F. (2009). Living together apart: Perceived concealment as signal of exclusion in marital relationships. Personality and Social Psychological Bulletin, 35(10), 1410-1422.
  12. Hong, Y.H., Teh, B.H., & Soh, C.H. (2014). Acceptance of smartphone by younger consumers in Malaysia. Asian Social Science, 10(6), 33-39.
  13. Lau, W.W.F. (2015). Positive technological development: How do students and parents perceive it? In S. Carliner, C. Fulford, & N. Ostashewski (Eds.), Proceedings of EdMedia: World Conference on Educational Media and Technology 2015 (pp. 316-320). Association for the Advancement of
  14. Venkatesh, V. (2000). Determinants of perceived ease of use, integrating control, intrinsic motivation, and emotion into the technology acceptance model. Information System Research, 11(4), 342­‐365.
  15. Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186­‐204.
  16. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M., Davis, G., & Davies, F. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425-478.
  17. Wangia, V. (2012). Testing an extended theoretical framework to explain variance in use of a public health information system. Online Journal of Public Health Informatics, 4(3).-1031 DASHDASH

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake in the references above, please contact info@learntechlib.org.