october 2012 - TOJET the Turkish online journal of educational ...
october 2012 - TOJET the Turkish online journal of educational ...
october 2012 - TOJET the Turkish online journal of educational ...
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
TOJEET:<br />
The <strong>Turkish</strong> Online Journal o<strong>of</strong><br />
Educational TTechnology<br />
– Occtober<br />
<strong>2012</strong>, volume<br />
11 Issue 4<br />
Table 8 H<strong>of</strong>stede’s Cultural C Dimennsions<br />
Scores with Regionall<br />
Differences<br />
Istanbul areea<br />
O<strong>the</strong>r reegions<br />
Welch-Lerrche<br />
two sampple<br />
t-test<br />
(n = 962) ) (n = 7761)<br />
t<br />
df<br />
p<br />
Power distaance<br />
index<br />
(PDI)<br />
11.8<br />
6.99<br />
-2.08 1466.13 0.981<br />
Collectivism<br />
vs.<br />
individualism<br />
(IDV)<br />
79.0<br />
73. .3<br />
-2.87 1492.18 0.998<br />
Masculinity y vs.<br />
femininity (MAS)<br />
3.92<br />
2.776<br />
-0.29 1488.80 0.613<br />
Uncertaintyy<br />
avoidance<br />
(UAI)<br />
46.0<br />
40. .9<br />
-1.75 1487.76 0.960<br />
Long-time orientation<br />
(LTO)<br />
42.1<br />
42. .9<br />
0.84 1529.47 0.202<br />
As shown in i Figure 2, <strong>the</strong> e use behavior r <strong>of</strong> participantts<br />
from Istanbuul<br />
area was stroonger<br />
influenceed<br />
by facilitatinng<br />
conditions, , and <strong>the</strong>ir use e intention was<br />
stronger inflluenced<br />
by efffort<br />
expectancyy,<br />
wheres <strong>the</strong> use behavior <strong>of</strong><br />
participants s from o<strong>the</strong>r areas was strronger<br />
influennced<br />
by compuuter<br />
anxiety, and <strong>the</strong>ir use intention moore<br />
subjected too<br />
social influennce.<br />
Figgure<br />
2 The Exte tended UTAUTT<br />
Model with RRegional<br />
Diffeerences<br />
(Istanbbul<br />
area/o<strong>the</strong>r Regions)<br />
The Influeence<br />
<strong>of</strong> Pr<strong>of</strong>esssional<br />
Culturee<br />
Observing participants’ attitudes towwards<br />
educatioonal<br />
technologgy,<br />
those withh<br />
STEM pr<strong>of</strong> fessions showwed<br />
significantlly<br />
higher perfo formance and eeffort<br />
expectanncy,<br />
at <strong>the</strong> sam me time lowerr<br />
computer annxiety,<br />
<strong>the</strong>y used<br />
<strong>educational</strong><br />
technology more m intensiveely,<br />
and evaluaated<br />
<strong>the</strong> own ccomputer<br />
literaacy<br />
as higher tthan<br />
participannts<br />
with non-SSTEM<br />
pr<strong>of</strong>essions<br />
(Table 9). As for <strong>the</strong> diffferences<br />
betweeen<br />
pr<strong>of</strong>essionaal<br />
groups relat ted to H<strong>of</strong>stedee’s<br />
cultural dimmensions,<br />
<strong>the</strong> pparticipants<br />
wiith<br />
STEM pr<strong>of</strong>fessions<br />
were less l power disttant,<br />
exhibited lower values oon<br />
masculinity y, and were le ess uncertaintyy<br />
avoidant thann<br />
<strong>the</strong> participa ants with non-STEM<br />
pr<strong>of</strong>esssions.<br />
Howeveer,<br />
according tto<br />
<strong>the</strong> Welch-L Lerche test onlly<br />
<strong>the</strong> differencce<br />
in PDI provved<br />
to be signifficant<br />
(Table 10). 1 With respeect<br />
to <strong>the</strong> pathh<br />
coefficients <strong>of</strong> o <strong>the</strong> extende ed UTAUT moodel<br />
(Figure 3), 3 <strong>the</strong> use behhavior<br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> pparticipants<br />
wiith<br />
STEM pro<strong>of</strong>essions<br />
was less l influencedd<br />
by facilitatinng<br />
conditions and computer r anxiety as coompared<br />
to noon<br />
STEM pr<strong>of</strong>fessions.<br />
Their r use intention was also someewhat<br />
weaker in nfluenced by eeffort<br />
expectancy.<br />
Table 9 VValues<br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> UUTAUT<br />
Variabbles<br />
for <strong>the</strong> Entire<br />
Sample an nd for <strong>the</strong> Partticipants<br />
with SSTEM<br />
vs. nonn<br />
STEMM<br />
Pr<strong>of</strong>essions<br />
STEM pr<strong>of</strong>essions Non-STEM M pr<strong>of</strong>essions<br />
Diffferences<br />
(n = 702)<br />
(n = 1021) 1<br />
(Onewaay<br />
ANOVA)<br />
M (SD)<br />
M ( SD)<br />
F df p<br />
Performancce<br />
expectancy 4.48<br />
(0.64)<br />
4.41 (0.72) (<br />
5.018 1722 0.0225<br />
Effort expe ectancy<br />
4.18<br />
(0.70)<br />
4.09 (0.76) (<br />
6.621 1722 0.010<br />
Social influuence<br />
3.49<br />
(1.01)<br />
3.40 (1.07) (<br />
3.650 1722 0.0556<br />
Facilitatingg<br />
conditions<br />
3.19<br />
(0.91)<br />
3.15 (0.87) (<br />
0.715 1722 0.3998<br />
Computer aanxiety<br />
2.00<br />
(0.97)<br />
2.12 (0.98) (<br />
5.536 1722 0.019<br />
Use intention<br />
3.53<br />
(1.24)<br />
3.59 (1.22) (<br />
1.067 1722 0.3002<br />
Use behaviior<br />
4.44<br />
(0.66)<br />
4.34 (0.68) (<br />
8.208 1722 0.0004<br />
Computer lliteracy<br />
4.59<br />
(0.66)<br />
4.48 (0.66) (<br />
12.09 1722 0.0001<br />
Copyright © Th he <strong>Turkish</strong> Onlinne<br />
Journal <strong>of</strong> Ed ducational Technnology
Change language