Abstract
This paper proposes and tests a conceptual model of educators’ Twitter adoption for professional learning and development based on technology adoption model and related literature. To understand the factors that may affect educators’ adoption of Twitter for professional learning and development, a questionnaire was designed and administered to 305 participants with the majority (88.5%) being 31 or older, and a structural equation model was constructed to examine the relationships among the factors that affect this adoption process. The results suggest that the research framework integrating multiple perspectives provides a comprehensive understanding of educators’ intention and actual use of Twitter for professional learning and development. Specifically, educators’ attitude of adoption and the purpose of Twitter usage had a significant direct effect on educators’ intention and actual use of Twitter for professional learning and development. The study suggests, to encourage educators to adopt Twitter for professional learning and development, we need to help them understand the usefulness of Twitter, whether its usage fits with their learning tasks, as well as for what purposes they are going to use it.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Arteaga Sánchez, R., Cortijo, V., & Javed, U. (2014). Students' perceptions of Facebook for academic purposes. Computers & Education, 70, 138–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.08.012.
Bledsoe, T. S., Harmeyer, D., & Wu, S. F. (2014). Utilizing Twitter and #hashtags toward enhancing student learning in an online course environment. International Journal of Distance Education Technologies, 12(3), 75–83.
Byrne, B. M. (2016). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming (3rd ed.). New York: Routledge.
Carpenter, J. P., & Krutka, D. G. (2014). How and why educators use Twitter: A survey of the field. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 46(4), 414–434. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2014.925701.
Carpenter, J. P., & Krutka, D. G. (2015). Engagement through microblogging: Educator professional development via Twitter. Professional Development in Education, 41(4), 707–728. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2014.939294.
Carpenter, J. P., & Krutka, D. G. (2016). Participatory learning through social media: How and why social studies educators use Twitter. Contemporary Issues In Technology & Teacher Education, 16(1), 38–59.
Chau, P. Y. K., & Hu, P. J.-H. (2001). Information technology acceptance by individual professionals: A model comparison approach. Decision Sciences, 32(4), 699–719. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.2001.tb00978.x.
Chen, C.-P., Lai, H.-M., & Ho, C.-Y. (2015). Why do teachers continue to use teaching blogs? The roles of perceived voluntariness and habit. Computers & Education, 82, 236–249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.11.017.
Cheung, R., & Vogel, D. (2013). Predicting user acceptance of collaborative technologies: An extension of the technology acceptance model for e-learning. Computers & Education, 63, 160–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.12.003.
Chu, T.-H., & Chen, Y.-Y. (2016). With good we become good: Understanding e-learning adoption by theory of planned behavior and group influences. Computers & Education, 92(Supplement C), 37–52. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.09.013
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.
Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35, 982–1003.
Dishaw, M. T., & Strong, D. M. (1999). Extending the technology acceptance model with task–technology fit constructs. Information & Management, 36(1), 9–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-7206(98)00101-3.
Dunlap, J. C., & Lowenthal, P. R. (2009). Horton hears a tweet. The EDUCAUSE Quarterly, 32(4).
Ebner, M., & Maurer, H. (2009). Can weblogs and microblogs change traditional scientific writing? Future Internet, 1(1), 47–58. https://doi.org/10.3390/fi1010047.
Elkaseh, A. M., Wong, K. W., & Fung, C. C. (2016). Perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness of social media for e-learning in Libyan higher education: a structural equation modeling analysis. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 6(3), 192–199.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(3), 382–388.
Gao, F. & Li, L. (2017). Examining a one-hour synchronous chat in a microblogging-based professional development community. British Journal of Educational Technology. 48(2), 332-347. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12384.
Goodhue, D. L., & Thompson, R. L. (1995). Task-technology fit and individual performance. MIS Quarterly, 19(2), 213–236.
Hair, J., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). New Jersey: Pearson Education.
Han, I., & Shin, W. S. (2016). The use of a mobile learning management system and academic achievement of online students. Computers & Education, 102(Supplement C), 79–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.07.003.
Hartwick, J., & Barki, H. (1994). Explaining the role of user participation in information system use. Management Science, 40(4), 440–465. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.40.4.440.
Hennessy, C. M., Kirkpatrick, E., Smith, C. F., & Border, S. (2016). Social media and anatomy education: Using twitter to enhance the student learning experience in anatomy: Use of Twitter in anatomy education. Anatomical Sciences Education, 9(6), 505–515. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1610.
Hitchcock, L. I., & Young, J. A. (2016). Tweet, tweet!: Using live Twitter chats in social work education. Social Work Education, 35(4), 457–468. https://doi.org/10.1080/02615479.2015.1136273.
Holden, R. J., & Karsh, B.-T. (2010). The technology acceptance model: Its past and its future in health care. Journal of Biomedical Informatics, 43(1), 159–172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2009.07.002.
Kimmons, R., & Veletsianos, G. (2016). Education scholars’ evolving uses of Twitter as a conference backchannel and social commentary platform. British Journal of Educational Technology, 47(3), 445–464.
Krutka, D. G., & Carpenter, J. P. (2016). Participatory learning through social media: How and why social studies educators use Twitter. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 16(1), 38–59.
Lai, C., Wang, Q., & Lei, J. (2012). What factors predict undergraduate students' use of technology for learning? A case from Hong Kong. Computers & Education, 59(2), 569–579. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.03.006.
Lee, D. Y., & Lehto, M. R. (2013). User acceptance of YouTube for procedural learning: An extension of the technology acceptance model. Computers & Education, 61, 193–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.10.001.
Lin, K.-M. (2011). E-learning continuance intention: Moderating effects of user e-learning experience. Computers & Education, 56(2), 515–526. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.09.017.
Lu, H.-P., & Yang, Y.-W. (2014). Toward an understanding of the behavioral intention to use a social networking site: An extension of task-technology fit to social-technology fit. Computers in Human Behavior, 34(Supplement C), 323–332. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.10.020.
Marsh, H. W., & Hocevar, D. (1985). Application of confirmatory factor analysis to the study of self-concept: First- and higher order factor models and their invariance across groups. Psychological Bulletin, 97(3), 562–582. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.97.3.562.
Mathieson, K. (1991). Predicting user intentions: Comparing the technology acceptance model with the theory of planned behavior. Information Systems Research, 2(3), 173–191. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.2.3.173.
Mazman, S. G., & Usluel, Y. K. (2010). Modeling educational usage of Facebook. Computers & Education, 55(2), 444–453. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.02.008.
McGill, T. J., & Klobas, J. E. (2009). A task–technology fit view of learning management system impact. Computers & Education, 52(2), 496–508. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2008.10.002.
Mulatiningsih, B., Partridge, H., & Davis, K. (2013). Exploring the role of twitter in the professional practice of LIS professionals: A pilot study. Australian Library Journal, 62(3), 204–217. https://doi.org/10.1080/00049670.2013.806998.
Noble, A., McQuillan, P., & Littenberg-Tobias, J. (2016). "A lifelong classroom": Social studies educators' engagement with professional learning networks on Twitter. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 24(2), 187–213.
Park, S. Y., Nam, M. W., & Cha, S. B. (2012). University students' behavioral intention to use mobile learning: Evaluating the technology acceptance model. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(4), 592–605. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2011.01229.x.
Roberts, M. J., Perera, M., Lawrentschuk, N., Romanic, D., Papa, N., & Bolton, D. (2015). Globalization of continuing professional development by journal clubs via microblogging: A systematic review. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 17(4), e103–e103. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.4194.
Rodesiler, L. (2015). The nature of selected English teachers' online participation. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 59(1), 31–40. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.427.
Rodesiler, L., & Pace, B. G. (2015). English teachers' online participation as professional development: A narrative study. English Education, 47(4), 347.
Seyal, A. H., Rahman, M. N. A., & Rahim, M. M. (2002). Determinants of academic use of the internet: A structural equation model. Behaviour & Information Technology, 21(1), 71–86. https://doi.org/10.1080/01449290210123354.
Shang, R. A., Chen, Y. C., & Chen, C. M. (2007). Why people blog? An empirical investigations of the task technology fit model. PACIS 2007 Proceedings, 212–225.
Shih, Y.-Y., & Chen, C.-Y. (2013). The study of behavioral intention for mobile commerce: Via integrated model of TAM and TTF. Quality & Quantity, 47(2), 1009–1020. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-011-9579-x.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon/Pearson.
Tarhini, A., Hone, K., & Liu, X. (2014). The effects of individual differences on e-learning users’ behaviour in developing countries: A structural equation model. Computers in Human Behavior, 41, 153–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.09.020.
Teo, T. (2011). Factors influencing teachers’ intention to use technology: Model development and test. Computers & Education, 57(4), 2432–2440. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.06.008.
Teo, T. (2016). Modelling Facebook usage among university students in Thailand: The role of emotional attachment in an extended technology acceptance model. Interactive Learning Environments, 24(4), 745–757. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2014.917110.
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478.
Wu, B., & Chen, X. H. (2017). Continuance intention to use MOOCs: Integrating the technology acceptance model (TAM) and task technology fit (TTF) model. Computers in Human Behavior, 67, 221–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.10.028.
Yen, D. C., Wu, C.-S., Cheng, F.-F., & Huang, Y.-W. (2010). Determinants of users’ intention to adopt wireless technology: An empirical study by integrating TTF with TAM. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(5), 906–915. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.02.005.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Disclosure of potential conflicts of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Research involving human participants and/or animals
This research involves human participants.
Informed consent
Informed consent was obtained from all who participated in the study. A consent form was signed electronically by the subjects before the data was collected to make the subjects eligible for participation. The data collected are kept confidential. The data do not identify the subjects from which it was collected, other than to the two investigators. Electronic data are stored in password protected files on a secure computer accessible only by the investigators.
Additional information
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendix
Appendix
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Gao, F., Li, L. Predicting educators’ use of Twitter for professional learning and development. Educ Inf Technol 24, 2311–2327 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-019-09872-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-019-09872-9