Innovation or Resistance? A Comparative Study of Preservice Teachers’ Intention to Use Mobile Devices in Educational Assessment Using PLS-SEM
Abstract
Technology and its applicability in educational assessment play a key role in innovation processes, with direct implications for both teaching practice and teacher training. For this reason, analyzing the factors that facilitate and hinder its adoption is essential for designing effective training strategies. This study examines whether the acceptance of mobile devices in assessment differs according to the educational level, focusing on preservice teachers in Early Childhood and Primary Education. To identify potential differences, a questionnaire based on the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) was applied, including its original constructs along with subjective norm, technology-related anxiety, and resistance to change. Subsequently, a Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) analysis was conducted using data from 268 students enrolled in Teacher Education degrees at the faculties of Ávila, Salamanca, and Zamora of the University of Salamanca. The results show differences between the models, with a greater number of relational hypotheses validated and a higher percentage of explained variance in the Primary Education group. These results justify that technology adoption varies depending on the educational level, confirming the need to adapt teacher training to address these singularities.Technology and its applicability in educational assessment play a key role in innovation processes, with direct implications for both teaching practice and teacher training. For this reason, analyzing the factors that facilitate and hinder its adoption is essential for designing effective training strategies. This study examines whether the acceptance of mobile devices in assessment differs according to the educational level, focusing on preservice teachers in Early Childhood and Primary Education. To identify potential differences, a questionnaire based on the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) was applied, including its original constructs along with subjective norm, technology-related anxiety, and resistance to change. Subsequently, a Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) analysis was conducted using data from 268 students enrolled in Teacher Education degrees at the faculties of Ávila, Salamanca, and Zamora of the University of Salamanca. The results show differences between the models, with a greater number of relational hypotheses validated and a higher percentage of explained variance in the Primary Education group. These results justify that technology adoption varies depending on the educational level, confirming the need to adapt teacher training to address these singularities.
Downloads
-
Abstract97
-
pdf (Español (España))111
References
Al-Emran, M., Arpaci, I., & Salloum, S. A. (2020). An empirical examination of continuous intention to use m-learning: An integrated model. Education and Information Technologies, 25(4), 2899-2918. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-019-10094-2
Al-Gasawneh, J., Khoja, B., Al-Qeed, M., Nusairat, N., Hammouri, Q., & Anuar, M. (2022). Mobile-customer relationship management and its effect on post-purchase behavior: The moderating of perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness. International Journal of Data and Network Science, 6(2), 439-448.
Anisimova, T. I., Sabirova, F. M., & Shatunova, O. V. (2020). Formation of Design and Research Competencies in Future Teachers in the Framework of STEAM Education. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET), 15(02), Article 02. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v15i02.11537
Anthony, B., Kamaludin, A., Romli, A., Raffei, A. F. M., Phon, D. N. A. L. E., Abdullah, A., & Ming, G. L. (2022). Blended Learning Adoption and Implementation in Higher Education: A Theoretical and Systematic Review. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 27(2), 531-578. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-020-09477-z
Arregui-Landa, I., Barandiaran-Arteaga, A., Iñurrategi-Irizaragore, N., Larrea-Hermida, I., Martinez-Gorrotxategi, A., & Salegi Arruti, E. (2021). La evaluación en educación infantil. Grao.
Burbules, N. C., Fan, G., & Repp, P. (2020). Five trends of education and technology in a sustainable future. Geography and Sustainability, 1(2), 93-97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geosus.2020.05.001
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2.a ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203771587
Dafonte-Gómez, A., Maina, M. F., & García-Crespo, O. (2021). Uso del smartphone en jóvenes universitarios: Una oportunidad para el aprendizaje: [Smartphone use in university students: An opportunity for learning]. Pixel-Bit. Revista de Medios y Educación, 60, 211-227. https://doi.org/10.12795/pixelbit.76861
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
Dogan, S., Dogan, N. A., & Celik, I. (2021). Teachers’ skills to integrate technology in education: Two path models explaining instructional and application software use. Education and Information Technologies, 26(1), 1311-1332. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10310-4
Dolin, J., Black, P., Harlen, W., & Tiberghien, A. (2018). Exploring Relations Between Formative and Summative Assessment. In J. Dolin and R. Evans (Eds.),. En J. Dolin & R. Evans (Eds.), Transforming Assessment: Through an Interplay Between Practice, Research and Policy (pp. 53-80). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-63248-3_3
Evans, C., & Robertson, W. (2020). The four phases of the digital natives debate. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies, 2(3), 269-277. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbe2.196
Fernández-Pérez, R., & Álvarez-Blanco, L. (2019). La evaluación en la etapa de Educación Infantil: Hacia un modelo más inclusivo. En T. Sola-Martínez, M. García-Carmona, A. Fuentes-Cabrera, A. M. Rodríguez-García, & J. López-Belmonte, Innovación educativa en la sociedad digital (pp. 1266-1278). Dykinson.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, Attitude, Intention And Behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Addison-Wesley.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50. https://doi.org/10.2307/3151312
García-Aretio, L. (2019). Necesidad de una educación digital en un mundo digital. RIED. Revista iberoamericana de educación a distancia. https://doi.org/10.5944/ried.22.2.23911
García-Peñalvo, F. J., Llorens-Largo, F., & Vidal, J. (2024). La nueva realidad de la educación ante los avances de la inteligencia artificial generativa. Revista Iberoamericana de Educación a Distancia (RIED), 27(1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.5944/ried.27.1.37716
García-Perales, N., Rincón, M. L. H., & Lantarón, B. S. (2025). Docentes y tecnología: ¿cómo enfrenta el futuro profesorado el uso de la Inteligencia Artificial? Revista Electrónica Interuniversitaria de Formación del Profesorado (REIFOP), 28(1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.6018/reifop.638431
Geisser, S. (1974). A Predictive Approach to the Random Effect Model. Biometrika, 61(1), 101-107. https://doi.org/10.2307/2334290
Ghitis-Jaramillo, T., Alba-Vásquez, A., & Alba Vásquez, A. (2019). Percepciones de futuros docentes sobre el uso de tecnología en educación inicial. Revista Electrónica de Investigación Educativa, 21. https://doi.org/10.24320/redie.2019.21.e23.2034
González-González, M. A. (2014). Metáforas y paradojas de los miedos en los sujetos docentes. Revista Latinoamericana de Ciencias Sociales, Niñez y Juventud, 12(1).
Guo, X., Sun, Y., Wang, N., Peng, J., & Yan, Z. (2012). The dark side of elderly acceptance of preventive mobile health services in China. Electronic Markets, 23(1). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-012-0112-4
Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., Sarstedt, M., Danks, N. P., & Ray, S. (2021). Evaluation of Formative Measurement Models. En J. F. Hair Jr., G. T. M. Hult, C. M. Ringle, M. Sarstedt, N. P. Danks, & S. Ray (Eds.), Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) Using R: A Workbook (pp. 91-113). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-80519-7_5
Hair, J., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C., & Sarstedt, M. (2022). A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM). Sage Publications.
Hébert, C., Jenson, J., & Terzopoulos, T. (2021). “Access to technology is the major challenge”: Teacher perspectives on barriers to DGBL in K-12 classrooms. E-Learning and Digital Media, 18, 204275302199531. https://doi.org/10.1177/2042753021995315
Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115-135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8
Hu, P. J.-H., Clark, T. H. K., & Ma, W. W. (2003). Examining technology acceptance by school teachers: A longitudinal study. Information & Management, 41(2), 227-241. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-7206(03)00050-8
Ibarra-Sáiz, M. S., Rodríguez-Gómez, G., Boud, D., Rotsaert, T., Brown, S., Salinas-Salazar, M. L., & Rodríguez-Gómez, H. M. (2020). El futuro de la evaluación en la Educación Superior. Revista electrónica de investigación y evaluación educativa. https://doi.org/10.7203/relieve.26.1.17323
Imbernon, F. (2024). Tendencias y retos internacionales en la formación permanente del profesorado para la innovación educativa. RECIE. Revista Caribeña de Investigación Educativa, 8(1), 215-229. https://doi.org/10.32541/recie.2024.v8i1.pp215-229
Karahanna, E., Agarwal, R., & Angst, C. M. (2006). Reconceptualizing compatability beliefs in technology acceptance research. MIS Quarterly, 30(4), 781-804.
Kimmons, R., Clark, B., & Lim, M. (2017). Understanding web activity patterns among teachers, students and teacher candidates. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 33(6), 588-596. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12202
Kumar, S., & Upadhaya, G. (2017). Structure Equation Modeling Basic Assumptions and Concepts: A Novices Guide. International Journal of Quantitative and Qualitative Research Methods, 5(4), Article 1.
Moreno-Guerrero, A.-J., Rodríguez-Jiménez, C., Gómez-García, G., & Ramos Navas-Parejo, M. (2020). Educational Innovation in Higher Education: Use of Role Playing and Educational Video in Future Teachers’ Training. Sustainability, 12(6), Article 6. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12062558
Mur-Sangrá, L. (2016). La nueva brecha digital docente. El futuro de las nuevas tecnologías en Primaria desde la formación del profesorado. Revista Electrónica Interuniversitaria de Formación del Profesorado (REIFOP), 19(2), Article 2. https://doi.org/10.6018/reifop.19.2.189561
Nikou, S., & Economides, A. (2017a). Mobile-Based Assessment: Integrating acceptance and motivational factors into a combined model of Self-Determination Theory and Technology Acceptance. Computers in Human Behavior, 68, 83-95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.11.020
Nikou, S., & Economides, A. (2017b). Mobile-based assessment: Investigating the factors that influence behavioral intention to use. Computers & Education, 109, 56-73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.02.005
Olimov, S. S. (2021). The innovation process is a priority in the development of pedagogical sciences. European Journal of Research Development and Sustainability, 2(3), Article 3.
Rahmawati, R. N. (2019). Self-Efficacy and Use of E-learning: A Theoretical Review Technology Acceptance Model (TAM). American Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences Research (AJHSSR), 3(5), 41-55.
Ramayah, T., Hwa, C., Chuah, F., Ting, H., & Memon, M. (2018). Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) using SmartPLS 3.0: An updated guide and practical guide to statistical analysis (2nd ed.). Pearson.
Ramírez-Rueda, M. del C., Cózar-Gutiérrez, R., Roblizo Colmenero, M. J., & González-Calero, J. A. (2021). Towards a coordinated vision of ICT in education: A comparative analysis of Preschool and Primary Education teachers’ and parents’ perceptions. Teaching and Teacher Education, 100, 103300. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2021.103300
Rothmann, S. (2015). A structural model of technology acceptance. South African Journal of Industrial Psychology, 41.
Ruíz-Ruano, A. M., & López-Puga, J. (2024). La regulación normativa del uso del móvil en contextos educativos. En O. Buzón-García & M. del C. R. García (Eds.), Aprendizaje 4.0: Inteligencia artificial, redes sociales y rol docente en la era digital. Dykinson.
Sánchez-Prieto, J. C., Hernández-García, Á., García-Peñalvo, F. J., Chaparro-Peláez, J., & Olmos, S. (2019). Break the Walls! Second-Order Barriers and the Acceptance of mLearning by First-Year Pre-Service Teachers. Computers in Human Behavior, 95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.01.019
Sar, A., & Misra, S. N. (2020). A study on policies and implementation of information and communication technology (ICT) in educational systems. Materials Today, 8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2020.10.507
Skulmowski, A., & Rey, G. D. (2020). COVID-19 as an accelerator for digitalization at a German university: Establishing hybrid campuses in times of crisis. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies, 2(3), 212-216. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbe2.201
Stone, M. (1974). Cross-Validatory Choice and Assessment of Statistical Predictions. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological), 36(2), 111-133. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2517-6161.1974.tb00994.x
Teo, T. (2010). Examining the influence of subjective norm and facilitating conditions on the intention to use technology among pre-service teachers: A structural equation modeling of an extended technology acceptance model. Asia Pacific Education Review, 11(2), 253-262. https://doi.org/10.1007/S12564-009-9066-4
Teo, T. (2015). Comparing pre-service and in-service teachers’ acceptance of technology: Assessment of measurement invariance and latent mean differences. Computers & Education, 83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.11.015
Teo, T., & van Schaik, P. (2009). Understanding technology Acceptance in pre-service teachers: A structural-equation modeling approach. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 18(1), 47-66.
Torrano-Martínez, R., Ortigosa-Quiles, J. M., Riquelme-Marín, A., & López-Pina, J. A. (2017). Evaluación de la ansiedad ante los exámenes en estudiantes de Educación Secundaria Obligatoria. Revista de Psicología Clínica con Niños y Adolescentes, 4(2), 103-110.
Varona-Klioukina, S., & Engel-Rocamora, A. (2024). Prácticas de personalización del aprendizaje mediadas por las tecnologías digitales: Una revisión sistemática. Edutec: Revista electrónica de tecnología educativa, 87, 236-250. https://doi.org/10.21556/edutec.2024.87.3019
Venkatesh, V., & Bala, H. (2008). Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions. Decision Sciences, 39(2), 273-315. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.2008.00192.x
Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. (2000). A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies. Management Science, 46, 186-204. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926
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. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540
Yu, J.-C., Kuo, L.-H., Chen, L.-M., Yang, H.-J., Yang, H.-H., & Hu, W.-C. (2009). Assessing and managing mobile technostress. WSEAS Transactions on Communications, 8, 416-425.
Los artículos que se publican en esta revista están sujetos a los siguientes términos:
1. El Departamento de Métodos de Investigación y Diagnóstico en Educación de la Universidad de Murcia (España), junto con el Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universitdad de Murcia (Editum) son los editores de la revista REIFOP y conserva los derechos patrimoniales (copyright) de los artículos publicados, permitiendo la reutilización de las mismos bajo la licencia de uso indicada en el punto 2.
2. Las obras se publican en la edición electrónica de la revista bajo una licencia Creative Commons Reconocimiento-NoComercial-SinObraDerivada 3.0 España (texto legal). Se pueden copiar, usar, difundir, transmitir y exponer públicamente, siempre que: i) se cite la autoría y la fuente original de su publicación (revista, editores y URL de la obra); ii) no se usen para fines comerciales; iii) se mencione la existencia y especificaciones de esta licencia de uso.
3. Condiciones de auto-archivo. Se permite y se anima a los autores a difundir electrónicamente las versiones pre-print (versión antes de ser evaluada) y/o post-print (versión evaluada y aceptada para su publicación) de sus obras antes de su publicación, ya que favorece su circulación y difusión más temprana y con ello un posible aumento en su citación y alcance entre la comunidad académica. Color RoMEO: verde.
