Computer Assisted Language Learning

ISSN: 0958-8221 (Print) 1744-3210 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ncal20

Modeling preservice Chinese-as-a-second/foreign-

language teachers’ adoption of educational
technology: a technology acceptance perspective

Peijian Paul Sun & Bing Mei

To cite this article: Peijian Paul Sun & Bing Mei (2020): Modeling preservice Chinese-as-a-
second/foreign-language teachers’ adoption of educational technology: a technology acceptance
perspective, Computer Assisted Language Learning, DOI: 10.1080/09588221.2020.1750430

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2020.1750430

Published online: 14 Apr 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ncal20
COMPUTER ASSISTED LANGUAGE LEARNING
https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2020.1750430

Modeling preservice Chinese-as-a-second/

foreign-language teachers’ adoption of educational
technology: a technology acceptance perspective
Peijian Paul Suna and Bing Meib
a
Department of Linguistics, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China; bSchool of Foreign
Languages, Henan University, Kaifeng, China

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
This study focuses on preservice Chinese-as-a-second/for- Chinese language;
eign-language (L2 Chinese) teachers with a theoretical per- educational technology;
spective based on prior technology acceptance research in structural equation
modeling; teacher
the educational context, to investigate factors influencing education; technology
preservice L2 Chinese teachers’ intention to use educational acceptance
technology in their future classrooms. Six relevant con-
structs—intention to use technology, perceived usefulness,
attitudes toward use of technology, technology self-efficacy,
facilitating conditions and experience of technology use—
were incorporated into three hypothesized models. A total
of 331 preservice L2 Chinese teachers from two national
key universities in China participated in this study. Data
were collected via a self-report questionnaire and analyzed
through structural equation modeling. Model comparison
results showed that the third hypothesized model fit the
data best. Specifically, perceived usefulness, technology
self-efficacy, and facilitating conditions had direct positive
effects on attitudes toward use of technology, while per-
ceived usefulness, attitudes toward use of technology, and
experience of technology use showed a positive influence
on intention to use technology. This study enriches our
understanding of technology acceptance by extending con-
sideration to under-studied preservice L2 Chinese teachers
in China. Implications for schools and teacher educators are
also discussed.

1. Introduction
With the growing influence of information and communication technol-
ogies (ICT), increasing academic attention has been amassed to under-
stand the potential influence of technology on education (Becker et al.,
2018; Luo & Yang, 2018; Zinn, 2003). Prior research has shown that
technology-assisted teaching not only improves learners’ engagement in

CONTACT Bing Mei meibing@henu.edu.cn School of Foreign Languages, Henan University, Kaifeng
475001 China.
ß 2020 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 P. P. SUN AND B. MEI

class (Fonseca, Martı, Redondo, Navarro, & Sanchez, 2014; Rashid &
Asghar, 2016; Swan, 2003), but also enhances learning outcomes (Aubusson,
Burke, Schuck, Kearney, & Frischknecht, 2014; Clark & Mayer, 2016;
Crompton, Burke, & Gregory, 2017). In addition, with the advancement
and greater affordability of technology, diverse educational technologies
have been developed to provide students with more learning opportunities
(Lai, Zhu, & Gong, 2015). Nevertheless, research has shown that teachers,
particularly preservice teachers, still do not utilize technology effectively and
fully in their teaching practice (Lim & Khine, 2006; Mueller, Wood,
Willoughby, Ross, & Specht, 2008). Such a fact could be due to a lack of
engaging opportunities, professional training, and encouraging support for
the establishment of the actual change in teachers’ intention to use technol-
ogy. As Hao and Lee (2017) pointed out, change in instruction may create
apprehension in teachers given that the consequences of change are unpre-
dictable. Considering that the success and effectiveness of implementing
educational technology is largely subject to teachers’ positive perceptions
and beliefs (Ertmer, 2005; Nikou & Economides, 2019; Teo & Noyes, 2010;
Teo & Zhou, 2017), it is of great importance to understand what factors
drive or hinder teachers’ acceptance of educational technology (Marangunic
& Granic, 2015). As a result, targeted measures can be taken to enhance
teachers’ willingness to adopt educational technology in their teaching prac-
tice (Baydas & Goktas, 2017).
To this end, there has been a rise in research examining English as a
second/foreign language (L2 English) teachers’ acceptance and use
of educational technologies in different educational and cultural con-
texts (Granic & Marangunic, 2019; Mei, 2019), such as in China (e.g.,
Huang, Teo, & Zhou, 2019; Mei, Brown, & Teo, 2018), in Korea (e.g.,
Jeong & Kim, 2017), and in Turkey (Mathews-Aydinli & Elaziz, 2010).
Although such research suggests that L2 English teachers’ attitudes
toward technology use are positive, limited attention has been paid to
L2 Chinese teachers’ adoption of technology, aside from a few studies
focusing on the discussion of the impact and implication of ICT on L2
Chinese teaching (e.g., Xu & Shi, 2013; Zheng, 2013). In addition,
cross-cultural comparison studies have revealed that individuals’ use of
technology could be subject to their cultural differences (Li & Kirkup,
2007). It is, therefore, necessary to carry out more contextualized
research to help teachers of particular backgrounds use technology at
an optimal level, especially since there is already the consensus that
educational technology could benefit L2 learning and teaching (Teo,
Huang, & Hoi, 2018).
Meanwhile, according to the report released by Confucius Institute
Headquarters (2019), in 2018 alone, more than 10,000 preservice L2
 COMPUTER ASSISTED LANGUAGE LEARNING 3

Chinese teachers and/or volunteers were recruited to support L2 teaching

initiative worldwide. Provided the situation, this study, with its theoret-
ical perspective underpinned by prior technology acceptance research,
investigated the factors contributing to preservice L2 Chinese teachers’
intention to use technology in their future classrooms. This study is one
of the pioneer empirical studies in the field of L2 Chinese education,
aiming to answer the following overarching question: What is an optimal
model for explaining preservice L2 Chinese teachers’ intention of educa-
tional technology use? We hope that this study not only enriches the
educational technology literature through contextualizing technology
acceptance research with a specific culture, but also gives valuable insight
for teacher training and professional development programs in terms of
how to strengthen preservice L2 Chinese teachers’ technology use.

2. Literature review
2.1. Technology acceptance research
Teo (2011) defines technology acceptance as “a user’s willingness to
employ technology for the tasks it is designed to support” (p. 1).
Originating from the theory of reasoned action (TRA; Fishbein & Ajzen,
1975), research on technology acceptance started to gain increasing
attention from academia since the 1980s (Davis, 1989). The basic tenet
for technology acceptance research is that users’ beliefs influence their
intention to use technology, which, in turn, influences their adoption of
technology in reality (Taylor & Todd, 1995; Venkatesh, Morris, Davis, &
Davis, 2003). Extending on this, two other models, the theory of planned
behavior (TPB; Ajzen, 1991) and the technology acceptance model
(TAM; Davis, 1989), have also been frequently employed to gauge users’
perceptions of, and their belief in, technology in order to predict the
expected technology uptake (Liaw & Huang, 2003).
The TPB was first proposed by Ajzen (1991) with an aim to enhance
the explanatory power of the TRA under circumstances when behaviors
are compulsory. The TPB, as an extension of the TRA, argued that in
addition to attitudes toward behavior and subjective norms (i.e., the per-
ceived pressure to engage in a behavior), perceived behavior control could
determine individuals’ behavioral intention. To date, the TPB has been
applied in various contexts including business (e.g., Carr & Sequeira, 2007;
Koropp, Kellermanns, Grichnik, & Stanley, 2014), education (e.g., Cheung
& To, 2017; MacFarlane & Woolfson, 2013), and health (e.g., Albarracın,
Johnson, Fishbein, & Muellerleile, 2001; McConnon et al., 2012).
Regardless of different research contexts, TPB-based studies have consist-
ently shown that attitudes toward use of technology, subjective norms, and
4 P. P. SUN AND B. MEI

perceived behavior control are three major direct contributors to individu-

als’ behavioral intention to use technology.
Although the TPB has been supported in various contexts, it has also
been characterized as unreliable in explaining users’ technology accept-
ance or rejection (Marangunic & Granic, 2015). Based on the TRA and
the TPB, the TAM was proposed in the business context with the
attempt to develop a reliable model to explain users’ acceptance of tech-
nology in organizational settings. In the classic TAM, perceived useful-
ness, perceived ease of use, and attitudes toward use of technology were
three factors shaping users’ behavioral intention to use technology.
Specifically, perceived usefulness refers to belief about the degree to
which the technology is useful for the enhancement of performance;
perceived ease of use refers to belief about the degree to which using
technology is effort-free; attitudes toward use of technology represents
individuals’ general evaluation of technology or a behavior associated with
its use; and intention to use technology is a person’s potential employment
of technology. The fundamental mechanism behind the TAM is that per-
ceived usefulness and perceived ease of use could enhance attitudes toward
use of technology, and the strengthened attitudes toward use of technology
could determine individuals’ intention to use technology, leading to the
actual use of technology (Davis, 1989; Schepers & Wetzels, 2007). Such
assumptions have been constantly verified in subsequent technology
acceptance research across divergent contexts (Scherera, Siddiqb, &
Tondeurc, 2020). Furthermore, to better predict individuals’ technology
acceptance and use, external variables such as subjective norms and tech-
nology self-efficacy were integrated into this model (see Venkatesh, 2000;
Venkatesh & Davis, 2000 for details).
To date, a respectable amount of research has investigated preservice
and/or in-service teachers’ technology acceptance and use in different
educational contexts based on the TAM, resulting in diverse findings.
For instance, Scherer, Siddiq, and Tondeur (2019) meta-analysis of 114
empirical TAM studies confirmed that perceived usefulness and perceived
ease of use significantly predicted intention to use technology through atti-
tudes toward use of technology. However, Baydas and Goktas (2017) pilot
study with 145 preservice teachers showed that the factor analysis com-
bined perceived usefulness and attitudes toward use of technology as one
factor, suggesting that attitudes toward use of technology may not have
the mediation role between perceived usefulness and intention to use tech-
nology. Such conflicting results were also found in terms of the effects of
gender and self-efficacy on intention to use technology (e.g., Cai, Fan, &
Du, 2017; Granic & Marangunic, 2019; Nikou & Economides, 2019;
Ong & Lai, 2006; Sainz & L opez-Saez, 2010).
 COMPUTER ASSISTED LANGUAGE LEARNING 5

To the best of our knowledge, there is no empirical research examin-

ing the factors contributing to technology acceptance among L2 Chinese
teachers. In contrast, much research has focused on L2 English teachers
from both quantitative and qualitative perspectives. For example, Bai,
Wang, and Chai (2019) study of 156 primary school L2 English teachers’
continuance intention to teach with ICT in Hong Kong found that per-
ceptions (e.g., perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness) and
motivational beliefs (e.g., ICT anxiety, interest, self-efficacy, growth
mindset) could either directly or indirectly influence their intention of
technology use in the future. Huang et al. (2019) interview-based study
of 14 university L2 English teachers’ technology acceptance revealed that
most teachers held positive attitudes toward technology-assisted L2
English teaching and had been utilizing technology in their teaching
in China.
To sum up, technology acceptance research has witnessed growing rec-
ognition and refinement in various educational contexts in recent years.
However, most research on ICT in the field of L2 Chinese teaching has
been conducted from a non-empirical perspective to link it to language
teaching and learning practice (e.g., Jin, 2018; Lan, Lyu, & Chin, 2019;
Xie, Chen, & Ryder, 2019), and there has been a growing need for more
empirical research on potential factors influencing L2 preservice Chinese
teachers’ use of educational technology for language learning purposes
(Lin, Huang, & Chen, 2014). Drawing theoretical guidance from prior
technology acceptance research, the present study investigated factors
affecting this cohort’s intention to use educational technology in lan-
guage classrooms in order to construct a contextualized research model
to echo this globally growing initiative.

2.2. Research hypotheses and models

Though technology acceptance research has started gaining momentum
in recent years, researchers have also noted the need for more contex-
tualized research (Marangunic & Granic, 2015). In response to this call,
we investigated preservice teachers’ intention to use technology in the
context of L2 Chinese teaching, aiming to establish an optimal model to
unravel the intricate relationships among variables including intention to
use technology, perceived usefulness, attitudes toward use of technology,
technology self-efficacy, facilitating conditions, and experience of tech-
nology use. Table 1 presents a brief description of the proposed variables
in the present study.
Before model construction, potential factors that would not add
explanatory power to models were teased out for the contextualization of
6 P. P. SUN AND B. MEI

Table 1. Description of the proposed constructs.

Constructs Brief description
IUT Teachers’ intention to use online or offline educational technology such as computational
devices, applications, and websites to support and facilitate their L2 teaching (Davis, 1989;
Teo et al., 2018)
AUT The degree of teachers’ attitudinal perceptions (i.e., likes and dislikes) toward educational
technology use in L2 teaching (Davis, 1989; Teo et al., 2018)
PU Teachers’ self-perceived beliefs about the usefulness of integrating educational technology
into their L2 teaching (Davis, 1989; Teo et al., 2018)
TSE Teachers’ perceived confidence of using educational technology in L2 teaching (K. Li et al.,
2016; Teo, 2009)
FC Conditions for supporting teachers’ use of educational technology, such as resource
availability and technological assistance (Teo, 2010; Teo & Milutinovic, 2015)
ETU Teachers’ previous involvements of using educational technology in L2 teaching (Jeong &
Kim, 2017; Teo et al., 2014)
Note: IUT ¼ intention to use technology; PU ¼ perceived usefulness; AUT ¼ attitudes toward use of technology;
TSE ¼ technology self-efficacy; FC ¼ facilitating conditions; ETU ¼ experience of technology use.

the technology acceptance research for L2 Chinese teaching in China.

One adjustment is the exclusion of subjective norms. Although subjective
norms have been added to the TAM model as an external variable con-
tributing to individuals’ acceptance and intention of technology use, it
has recently been found to be a factor of little or low direct effect on
attitudes toward use of technology and/or intention to use technology of
preservice teachers (e.g., Baydas & Goktas, 2017; Teo et al., 2014; Teo &
Milutinovic, 2015). A possible explanation is that the influence of social
norms on intention to use technology is sensitive to context (Tarhini,
Hone, Liu, & Tarhini, 2017). Given that this study targeted preservice L2
Chinese teachers, who were not subject to social and contextual influence
to the same extent as in-service teachers, social norms were removed
from the study.
Another adjustment is the replacement of perceived ease of use with
technology self-efficacy. This decision was driven by the literature.
Firstly, the influence of perceived ease of use on attitudes toward use of
technology is controversial in the literature. Technology self-efficacy, on
the contrary, was found to be robust in influencing individuals’ technol-
ogy acceptance and/or intention to use technology (K. Li, Li, & Franklin,
2016; Teo, 2009). Secondly, although the two variables seem to be differ-
ent, they both relate to individuals’ perceived competence of technology
use. That is probably the reason why perceived ease of use and technol-
ogy self-efficacy were combined as one factor in Baydas and Goktas
(2017) study. Lastly, technology self-efficacy directly echoes the perceived
behavioral control in the literature, which suggests that individuals’
behavioral intention could be subject to their self-perceived competence
or self-efficacy.
The last adjustment is including experience of technology use, which
has been recently revealed as an influential factor to determine teachers’
 COMPUTER ASSISTED LANGUAGE LEARNING 7

technology acceptance and use (Jeong & Kim, 2017; Teo et al., 2014).
Although Abdullah and Ward (2016) suggested that prior experience
was one of the primary reasons for the attitudinal and behavioral
change of educational technology through its influence on perceived
ease of use or technology self-efficacy, Yueh, Huang, and Chang
(2015) argued that actual use experience directly influenced continued
intention to use technology. Such an argument echoes previous
research that providing preservice teachers with technology-rich expe-
riences can have a positive influence on their intentions to use tech-
nology in the classroom (Coutinho, 2008; Lei, 2009). In addition,
the lack of positive technology-related experience was found to be one
of the main barriers to teachers’ technology adoption (Ertmer,
Ottenbreit-Leftwich, Sadik, Sendurur, & Sendurur, 2012). Given the
above reasons, experience of technology use was proposed as a factor
directly contributing to preservice L2 Chinese teachers’ intention to
use technology rather than their attitudes toward use of technology in
this study.
Drawing on these adjustments, three competing models were proposed
in order to find the optimum one for explaining preservice L2 Chinese
teachers’ intention to use educational technology (see Appendix 1 for
details). Model 1 hypothesizes that perceived usefulness, attitudes toward
use of technology, technology self-efficacy, facilitating conditions, and
experience of technology use have direct positive effects on intention to
use technology. Model 2 hypothesizes that 1) experience of technology
use has direct positive effects on both perceived usefulness and technol-
ogy self-efficacy; 2) perceived usefulness and technology self-efficacy, and
facilitating conditions have direct positive effects on attitudes toward use
of technology; and 3) perceived usefulness, attitudes toward use of tech-
nology, and technology self-efficacy, along with facilitating conditions
have direct positive effects on intention to use technology. Model 3
hypothesizes that 1) perceived usefulness, technology self-efficacy, and
experience of technology use have direct positive effects on attitudes
toward use of technology and 2) attitudes toward use of technology, per-
ceived usefulness, technology self-efficacy, facilitating conditions, and
experience of technology use have direct positive effects on intention to
use technology. The difference between Model 2 and Model 3 lies in that
experience of technology use in Model 2 serves as an external factor
indirectly influencing intention to use technology through the interplay
of perceived usefulness, technology self-efficacy, and attitudes toward use
of technology, while experience of technology use in Model 3 has been
proposed as an external factor directly contributing to intention to
use technology.
8 P. P. SUN AND B. MEI

3. Methodology
3.1. Context and participants
According to the Ministry of Education (MOE) of China, 97.8% of pri-
mary schools and 99.0% of secondary schools had access to the internet
in 2018 (MOE (Ministry of Education), 2019). The computer and student
ratio increased from 10.5% to 11.1% in primary schools and 14.8% to
15.2% in secondary schools from 2017 to 2018 (MOE (Ministry of
Education), 2019). Similar changes have also been witnessed in university
settings. For example, Lu and Hong (2013) review of ICT in L2 Chinese
teaching suggested that there was a drastic change in terms of the inte-
gration of ICT into L2 Chinese teaching over the last two decades. This
study took place in such a context where there is a growing trend of
ICT-integrated teaching in mainland China.
A total of 331 preservice teachers from two national key universities
in China participated in the study: one in Beijing and the other in
Guangzhou. All participants were postgraduate students pursuing
their Master of Teaching Chinese to Speakers of Other Languages
(MTCSOL). Both universities are well-known for their MTCSOL pro-
grams. Participation in the study was completely voluntary. All partici-
pants were briefed about the purpose of the study and informed of their
rights not to participate and withdraw from completing the question-
naire at any time with their anonymity guaranteed. The average age of
the sample was 23.66 with an age span from 20 to 42 (SD ¼ 2.57).
Among the participants, 46 were males and 285 were females with 286
native Chinese speakers and 45 non-native Chinese speakers.

3.2. Instrument
A questionnaire containing two parts was administered to the partici-
pants. Given that the majority of the preservice L2 Chinese teachers
were Chinese and some were non-native Chinese with Hanyǔ Shuǐpıng
Kaoshı level 6 (HSK 6 is the highest level for L2 Chinese proficiency),
the questionnaire was presented in Chinese (see Appendix 2 for items).
Part one of the questionnaire collected participants’ demographic infor-
mation, including age, gender, nationality, and length of L2 Chinese
teaching. Part two collected participants’ self-reported perceptions of per-
ceived usefulness (four items; adapted from Davis, 1989), attitudes
toward use of technology (three items; adapted from Edison & Geissler,
2003), technology self-efficacy (three items; with reference to Compeau
& Higgins, 1995; Hocevar, Flanagin, & Metzger, 2014), facilitating condi-
tions (three items; adapted from Lai, 2015; Teo, 2009), experience of
 COMPUTER ASSISTED LANGUAGE LEARNING 9

technology use (three items; adapted from Jeong & Kim, 2017;
Lai, Wang, & Lei, 2012), and intention to use technology (three items;
adapted from Armenteros, Liaw, Fernandez, Dıaz, & Sanchez, 2013;
Davis, 1989) through a 7-point Likert scale ranging from strongly agree
to strongly disagree. The adaptation of the questionnaire included exclud-
ing items of subjective norms, replacing items of perceived ease of use
with those of technology self-efficacy, adding items of experience of tech-
nology use to make the questionnaire more contextualized for preservice
L2 Chinese teachers (see Section 2.2 for more details).
Given that the questionnaire items were adapted from various previous
studies, exploratory factor analysis was then performed to discover and
check the latent constructs through the factor loadings, the reliability, and
the variances explained of the variables. The results of the exploratory fac-
tor analysis revealed that the Cronbach’s a for each latent construct was
satisfactory and all the items fell within their corresponding constructs.

3.3. Data collection and analysis

Participants were invited to voluntarily complete an anonymous ques-
tionnaire designed to solicit their demographic information and their
perceptions of educational technology use. Before data collection, the
first author reached out to the deans of the two universities for collabor-
ation. Afterwards, the first author and the deans scheduled dates for data
collection. The first author sent out mostly online questionnaires to pre-
service L2 Chinese teachers for data collection during their 20-minute
course breaks. For those who preferred off-line questionnaires, printed
questionnaires were provided. In total, four instances of data collection
took place over 18 months.
After data collection and screening, the structural equation modeling
(SEM) technique using AMOS was adopted to confirm the measurement
model of the adapted questionnaire and test the model fit of the three
hypothesized structural models. Following Kline’s (2011) suggestion,
multiple fit indices, including the v2/df ratio, the root mean square error
of approximation (RMSEA), the standardized root mean square residual
(SRMR), the comparative fit index (CFI), and Tucker-Lewis index (TLI),
were employed to measure the goodness of model fit (Kline, 2011).
Specifically, it was suggested that the v2/df ratio should be less than 3;
RMSEA should be equal or less than .08; SRMR should be less than .07;
CFI and TLI should be more than .92 (Hair, Black, Babin, & Anderson,
2014). In addition, during the initial process of establishing an appropri-
ate measurement model. The composite reliability and the average vari-
ance extracted (AVE) were also calculated to assess the respective
10 P. P. SUN AND B. MEI

Table 2. CFA results of the measurement model.

Factor Composite Average Variance
Factors loading reliability Extracted
Perceived usefulness (PU) .91 .71
PU1 .80
PU2 .85
PU3 .84
PU4 .89
Attitude toward use of technology (AUT) .85 .65
AUT1 .82
AUT2 .73
AUT3 .87
Technology self-efficacy (TSE) .81 .59
TSE1 .77
TSE2 .75
TSE3 .79
Facilitating conditions (FC) .88 .72
FC1 .92
FC2 .94
FC3 .66
Experience of technology use (ETU) .79 .56
ETU1 .66
ETU2 .76
ETU3 .82
Intention to use technology (IUT) .88 .72
IUT1 .79
IUT2 .89
IUT3 .86
Note: Please see Appendix 2 for item details.

reliability and validity of each construct. According to Fornell and

Larcker (1981), composite reliability and AVE should be equal or exceed
the threshold of .50.

4. Results
4.1. Measurement model test results
A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was first conducted with AMOS 24
using maximum likelihood estimation for cross-validating the adapted
questionnaire in the study. The CFA results showed a good fit of the
data with the measurement model (v2/df ¼ 2.59; p < .001; CFI ¼ .95;
TLI ¼ .94; RMSEA ¼ .07; and SRMR ¼ .06). In addition, composite reli-
ability and AVE for each latent variable both met the recommended cut-
off points of .50. Detailed CFA results of the measurement model can be
found in Table 2.

4.2. Structural model comparison

Next, to analyze the fit of the hypothesized research models, structural
models were tested. The results suggested that all three models were
found to meet the criteria (see Table 3 for the fit indices). The structural
 COMPUTER ASSISTED LANGUAGE LEARNING 11

Table 3. Results of the structural models.

v2 df v2/df p CFI TLI RMSEA SRMR
Model 1 268.96 104 2.59 <.001 .95 .94 .07 .06
Model 2 325.39 109 2.99 <.001 .94 .92 .08 .06
Model 3 270.54 105 2.43 <.001 .95 .94 .07 .06
Note: CFI ¼ comparative fit index; TLI ¼ Tucker-Lewis index; RMSEA ¼ root mean square error of approximation;
SRMR ¼ standardized root mean square residual.

results of Model 1 showed that perceived usefulness, attitudes toward use

of technology, and experience of technology use had direct positive
effects on intention to use technology. The three latent variables in
Model 1 explained 30.42% of the total variance of intention to use
technology. However, technology self-efficacy and facilitating conditions
were not found to be significant factors contributing to intention to
use technology.
The structural results of Model 2 showed that perceived usefulness
and attitudes toward use of technology had direct positive effects on
intention to use technology, explaining 33.70% of its total variance. In
addition, perceived usefulness, technology self-efficacy and facilitating
conditions had direct positive effects on attitudes toward use of technol-
ogy, explaining 53.66% of its total variance. Lastly, experience of technol-
ogy use had a direct positive impact on both perceived usefulness and
technology self-efficacy, explaining 18.49% and 17.64% of the total vari-
ance of the two variables, respectively. However, technology self-efficacy
and facilitating conditions were found to have no significant effect on
intention to use technology.
The structural results of Model 3 indicated that perceived usefulness,
attitudes toward use of technology, and experience of technology use
had direct positive effects on intention to use technology, explaining
31.22% of total variance. Additionally, perceived usefulness, technology
self-efficacy, and facilitating conditions were found to have direct posi-
tive effects on attitudes toward use of technology, explaining 40.59% of
its total variance. However, technology self-efficacy and facilitating con-
ditions were found to have no significant influence on intention to use
technology. Table 4 presents detailed information about the path test
results in these three hypothesized models.
In order to establish an optimal structural model for explaining preser-
vice L2 Chinese teachers’ intention of technology use, model compari-
sons were adopted to compare the fit of the three hypothesized
structural models. Specifically, chi-square difference tests were performed
based on the formula x2diff =dfdiff ¼ (x2a xb2 Þ/ðdfa - dfb ) for model compari-
son (Mueller & Hancock, 2008). Considering the best fit indices of
Model 3, in this study, Model 3 was compared against Model 1 and
Model 2. Chi-square difference tests revealed that Model 3 was preferable
12 P. P. SUN AND B. MEI

Table 4. Path test results of three hypothesized models.

Models Relationships Path coefficient b R2 t-value Results
Model 1
PU IUT .36 .13 5.37 Supported
AUT IUT .39 .15 4.47 Supported
TSE IUT .08 .01 1.11 Not supported
FC IUT .05 .01 1.07 Not supported
ETU IUT .15 .02 2.79 Supported
Model 2
PU IUT .43 .19 6.08 Supported
AUT IUT .39 .15 4.30 Supported
TSE IUT .09 .01 2.18 Not supported
FC IUT .06 .01 1.21 Not supported
PU AUT .53 .28 9.63 Supported
TSE AUT .44 .19 6.99 Supported
FC AUT .15 .02 3.25 Supported
ETU PU .43 .19 6.25 Supported
ETU TSE .42 .18 5.54 Supported
Model 3
PU IUT .36 .13 5.23 Supported
AUT IUT .40 .16 4.46 Supported
TSE IUT .08 .01 1.02 Not supported
FC IUT .05 .01 1.07 Not supported
ETU IUT .15 .02 2.84 Supported
PU AUT .47 .22 8.25 Supported
TSE AUT .43 .19 6.16 Supported
FC AUT .13 .02 2.32 Supported
Note: IUT ¼ intention to use technology; PU ¼ perceived usefulness; AUT ¼ attitudes toward use of technology;
TSE ¼ technology self-efficacy; FC ¼ facilitating conditions; ETU ¼ experience of technology use; p < .05;
p < .01; p < .001.

Figure 1. The final model.

to Model 2 at p < .01 level (x2diff =dfdiff ¼ 13.71), but not significantly
better than Model 1. Nevertheless, given Model 3’s acceptable fit indices
and higher degrees of freedom, Model 3 was finally retained rather than
Model 1 in this study (see Figure 1). In Model 3, perceived usefulness
(b ¼ .47), technology self-efficacy (b ¼ .43), and facilitating conditions
(b ¼ .13) had direct positive effects on attitudes toward use of
 COMPUTER ASSISTED LANGUAGE LEARNING 13

technology, while perceived usefulness (b ¼ .36), attitudes toward use of

technology (b ¼ .40), and experience of technology use (b ¼ .15) had
direct positive effects on intention to use technology. Interestingly, tech-
nology self-efficacy and facilitating conditions were found to have no sig-
nificant direct positive effect on intention to use technology.

5. Conclusion and discussion

This study, drawing on previous technology acceptance research, exam-
ined preservice L2 Chinese teachers’ perceptions of ICT-integrated teach-
ing in an attempt to establish an optimal model for explaining their
acceptance and use of educational technology in future classrooms. The
factor analyses in this study confirmed the appropriateness of the
measurement model (questionnaire) which enabled model comparisons
among the three hypothesized structural models. Although the three
models were all found to be psychometrically satisfactory, Model 3 was
identified as the best model representing preservice L2 Chinese teachers’
technology acceptance in China. Specifically, perceived usefulness, tech-
nology self-efficacy, and facilitating conditions were found to have direct
positive effects on attitude toward use of technology, while perceived
usefulness, attitude toward use of technology, and experience of technol-
ogy use had positive influences on intention to use technology.

5.1. Supported paths in model 3

In terms of the supported paths in Model 3, this study, in line with the
literature, revealed that perceived usefulness (b ¼ .36) and attitudes
toward use of technology (b ¼ .40) were core factors that could deter-
mine individuals’ intention to use technology in teaching (Scherer et al.,
2019; Teo, 2012). It is understandable that with the pedagogical shift
from teacher-centered instruction to learner-oriented collaboration in the
field of language learning/teaching in China (Sun & Yuan, 2018), teach-
ers tend to harness modern educational technology to strengthen stu-
dents’ engagement in learning. As Kirkwood and Price (2014) pointed
out, educational technology has the desired enhancement in terms of
both quantitative (e.g., increased engagement) and qualitative (e.g., richer
understanding) change in students’ learning outcomes. It is, therefore,
justifiable that preservice L2 Chinese teachers, situated in a context of
acknowledging and advocating the use of ICT, tend to hold positive atti-
tudes toward its use, which may eventually lead them to use educational
technology in their classroom. Schools and teacher educators should pay
particular attention to the development of preservice teachers’ perceived
14 P. P. SUN AND B. MEI

usefulness and attitudes toward use of technology. For instance, period-

ical ICT-integrated training and demonstrations could be provided for
preservice teachers to foster their positive attitudinal beliefs of educa-
tional technology.
This study also revealed that perceived usefulness (b ¼ .47), technol-
ogy self-efficacy (b ¼ .43) and facilitating conditions (b ¼ .13) had direct
positive effects on attitudes toward use of technology. Such a result cor-
roborates the literature that perceived usefulness is one of the most
important factors that directly and indirectly explains teachers’ educa-
tional technology acceptance and use (Scherer et al., 2019). Furthermore,
the result lends support to findings that facilitating conditions could
indirectly affect individuals’ use of technology through attitudes toward
use of technology (e.g., Scherer et al., 2019). In addition, the result also
adds evidence to the literature that technology self-efficacy was one of
the main antecedents of attitudes toward use of technology. Such a find-
ing, on the other hand, supports our earlier argument in the study that
perceived ease of use and technology self-efficacy, though different in
names, overlap in terms of measuring individuals’ perceived competence
of technology use (Baydas & Goktas, 2017). Given that perceived useful-
ness and technology self-efficacy contribute most to attitudes toward use
of technology, schools and teacher educators should, therefore, endeavor
to foster and strengthen preservice teachers’ perceived usefulness and
self-efficacy of technology use. As a result, preservice teachers may
become more eager and confident to integrate educational technology
into their future classroom instruction. In terms of facilitating condi-
tions, although it is important to equip classrooms with necessary tools
and sufficient support to ensure teachers’ ready access to educational
technology, schools and teachers should understand that facilitating con-
ditions have much less influence on attitudes toward use of technology,
compared to perceived usefulness and technology self-efficacy.
Lastly, this study found that experience of technology use (b ¼ .15)
had a direct positive effect on intention to use technology. Although the
influence of experience of technology use on intention to use technology
was revealed to be direct and indirect in Model 3 and Model 2 respect-
ively, the final model comparisons in this study suggested that experience
of technology use accounted for intention to use technology directly
rather than indirectly. Such a result lends support to some previous
research suggesting that teachers with more technology experience had a
higher tendency of using technology in the classroom (Coutinho, 2008;
Lei, 2009; Yueh et al., 2015). Schools and teacher educators should pro-
vide preservice teachers with positive experience of using education tech-
nology, which, in turn, could boost preservice teachers’ willingness to
 COMPUTER ASSISTED LANGUAGE LEARNING 15

take advantage of educational technology for assisting their future class-

room teaching (Kearney, Schuck, Aubusson, & Burke, 2018; Teo &
Zhou, 2017).

5.2. Unsupported paths in model 3

In terms of the unsupported path from technology self-efficacy (b ¼ .08)
to intention to use technology, the result contradicts some previous
research that self-efficacy could directly influence behavioral intention
(e.g., Li et al., 2016; Teo et al., 2018). Such controversy may be explained
by the fact that preservice L2 Chinese teachers, compared with in-service
teachers, generally lack classroom teaching experience. The insufficiency
of experience, in turn, makes preservice teachers feel less confident in
using technology in classrooms. Consequently, preservice teachers’ rela-
tively low technology self-efficacy (M ¼ 5.35; SD ¼ 0.86) may lead to the
unsupported path. Although the direct and positive path from technol-
ogy self-efficacy to intention to use technology was not supported in this
study, technology self-efficacy was found to have an indirect influence
on intention to use technology through the mediation of attitudes toward
use of technology. Such a finding is a direct response to the call for
more examinations of how technology self-efficacy contributes to inten-
tion to use technology (Scherer et al., 2019). Schools and teacher
educators should encourage preservice teachers to utilize educational
technology to strengthen their self-efficacy in technology use. As a result,
their strengthened technology self-efficacy could contribute to their
intention to use technology through the interplay of attitudes toward use
of technology (Nikou & Economides, 2019).
As for the unsupported path from facilitating conditions (b ¼ .05) to
intention to use technology, it may be due to insufficient facilitating con-
ditions on campuses in China, such as classrooms with unstable wireless
connection, no technician support in class, and no regular educational
technology training for teachers. In addition, preservice teachers may
have limited opportunities to take advantage of facilitating conditions in
comparison with in-service teachers. Consequently, preservice teachers’
self-reported perceptions of facilitating conditions were less positive
(M ¼ 4.54; SD ¼ 1.15), which in turn may lead to this unsupported path
in this study. Although facilitating conditions were not found to be a
direct contributing factor to intention to use technology, the effect of
facilitating conditions on intention to use technology was mediated by
attitudes toward use of technology. Schools and teacher educators should
not overlook the impact of facilitating conditions but rather should pro-
vide possible facilitating support in order to form a positive attitude
16 P. P. SUN AND B. MEI

toward facilitating conditions among preservice teachers (Tondeur, Pareja

Roblin, van Braak, Voogt, & Prestridge, 2017). However, schools and teacher
educators should also understand that facilitating conditions are only add-
itional approaches to teaching and learning, it is more important to equip
preservice teachers with the ability to utilize appropriate educational technol-
ogy in line with their teaching beliefs (Niederhauser & Stoddart, 2001).
Summing up, this study through the SEM approach revealed contribu-
ting factors to preservice L2 Chinese teachers’ intention to use technology
in their future classrooms. To be more specific, model comparison showed
that not all the proposed factors could directly influence intention to use
technology. For instance, both Model 2 and Model 3 found that technol-
ogy self-efficacy and facilitating conditions had a direct influence on atti-
tudes toward use of technology rather than intention to use technology. In
addition, experience of technology use was found to be a direct rather
than an indirect factor influencing intention to use technology. Last but
not least, both Model 2 and Model 3 revealed that perceived usefulness
had a direct influence on both attitudes toward use of technology and
intention to use technology. Therefore, schools and teacher educators
should take the above findings into full consideration when training pre-
service L2 Chinese teachers in this ICT-integrated teaching context.

6. Limitations and suggestions for future research

This study can be expanded in the future to address several limitations.
First, the hypothesized structural models are by no means inclusive in
explaining the possible variables that may influence preservice L2
Chinese teachers’ intention of technology use. To be more specific,
although the modified Model 3 demonstrated the best fit with the data
collected, constructs such as subjective norms and perceived ease of use
were either excluded or replaced in this study. There may be other struc-
tural models that could better explain preservice L2 Chinese teacher’s
intention of technology use when taking other latent variables into con-
sideration. Second, the data were collected from a single source using
self-reports which may raise validity issues in terms of data quality and
response validity (Fan et al., 2006). It is not only because single-sourced
data can suffer from a lack of cross verification but also because self-
perceived surveys may not be able to reflect participants’ actual feelings.
Third, the sample size was acceptable but not large enough for general-
ization. Therefore, the findings of the study may not be replicable in
different contexts with other preservice teachers or in-service teachers.
Lastly, this study is a cross-sectional study. The findings may not be
able to confirm the causal relationships among these variables.
 COMPUTER ASSISTED LANGUAGE LEARNING 17

Future research may consider constructing a more comprehensive

structural model through factoring in all potential variables that may
influence individuals’ intention of technology use. The possible contribu-
ting variables could be screened through a meticulous literature review
or a well-designed methodology. Future research may also consider
adopting different methods for data triangulation so that findings of
such research could be more reliable and convincing. Last but not least,
researchers may consider recruiting more participants from a wider
range of universities for the sake of generalization or conducting experi-
mental studies to reveal causal relationships among these variables. For
instance, a large-scale study could be conducted to confirm the role of
technology self-efficacy and facilitating conditions on attitudes toward
use of technology and intention to use technology.

Acknowledgments
The authors would like to acknowledge the constructive feedback from the anonymous
reviewers and timely support from the journal editors. The study was supported by the
Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities in China.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes on contributors
Dr Peijian Paul Sun is a ZJU100 Young Professor in the School of International
Studies, Zhejiang University. His research focuses on L2 teaching and learning, teacher
education, and educational technology. His publications appear in various journals such
as Interactive Learning Environments, TESOL Quarterly, Journal of Psycholinguistic
Research, Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, and Journal of Education for Teaching.
Dr Bing Mei is a lecturer at Henan University. His research interests include computer-
assisted language learning, technology acceptance, online surveys, and teacher education.
His recent publications have appeared in Social Science Computer Review, Journal of
Educational Computing Research and Interactive Learning Environments.

ORCID
Bing Mei http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9185-7509

References
Abdullah, F., & Ward, R. (2016). Developing a General Extended Technology
Acceptance Model for E-Learning (GETAMEL) by analysing commonly used external
factors. Computers in Human Behavior, 56, 238–256. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.11.036
18 P. P. SUN AND B. MEI

Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211. doi:10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
Albarracın, D., Johnson, B. T., Fishbein, M., & Muellerleile, P. A. (2001). Theories of
reasoned action and planned behavior as models of condom use: A meta-analysis.
Psychological Bulletin, 127(1), 142–161. doi:10.1037//0033-2909.127.1.142
Armenteros, M., Liaw, S., Fernandez, M., Dıaz, R. F., & Sanchez, R. A. (2013). Surveying
FIFA instructors’ behavioral intention toward the multimedia teaching materials.
Computers & Education, 61, 91–104. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.09.010
Aubusson, P., Burke, P., Schuck, S., Kearney, M., & Frischknecht, B. (2014). Teachers
choosing rich tasks: The moderating impact of technology on student learning, enjoy-
ment, and preparation. Educational Researcher, 43(5), 219–229.
Bai, B., Wang, J., & Chai, C. S. (2019). Understanding Hong Kong primary school
English teachers’ continuance intention to teach with ICT. Computer Assisted
Language Learning, 1–23. doi:10.1080/09588221.2019.1627459
Baydas, O., & Goktas, Y. (2017). A model for preservice teachers’ intentions to use ICT
in future lessons. Interactive Learning Environments, 25(7), 930–916. doi:10.1080/
10494820.2016.1232277
Becker, S. A., Brown, M., Dahlstrom, E., Davis, A., DePaul, K., Diaz, V., & Pomerantz, J.
(2018). NMC horizon report: 2018 higher education edition. Louisville, CO: EDUCAUSE.
Cai, Z., Fan, X., & Du, J. (2017). Gender and attitudes toward technology use: A meta-
analysis. Computers & Education, 105, 1–13. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2016.11.003
Carr, J. C., & Sequeira, J. M. (2007). Prior family business exposure as intergenerational
influence and entrepreneurial intent: A theory of planned behavior approach. Journal
of Business Research, 60(10), 1090–1098. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2006.12.016
Cheung, M., & To, W. M. (2017). The influence of the propensity to trust on mobile
users’ attitudes toward in-app advertisements: An extension of the theory of planned
behavior. Computers in Human Behavior, 76, 102–111. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2017.07.011
Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (2016). E-learning and the science of instruction: Proven
guidelines for consumers and designers of multimedia learning. San Francisco, CA:
John Wiley & Sons.
Compeau, D., & Higgins, C. (1995). Computer self-efficacy: Development of a measure
and initial test. MIS Quarterly, 19(2), 189–211. doi:10.2307/249688
Confucius Institute Headquarters. (2019). Confucius institute annual development report
2018. Author. Retrieved from http://www.hanban.org/report/2018.pdf
Coutinho, C. P. (2008). Web 2.0 tools in pre-service teacher education programs: An
example from Portugal. In D. Remenyi (Ed.), The proceedings of the 7th European
conference on e-learning (pp. 239–245). Reading, UK: Academic Publishing
Limited.
Crompton, H., Burke, D., & Gregory, K. H. (2017). The use of mobile learning in PK-12
education: A systematic review. Computers & Education, 110, 51–63. doi:10.1016/j.com-
pedu.2017.03.013
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of
information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340. doi:10.2307/249008
Edison, S. W., & Geissler, G. L. (2003). Measuring attitudes towards general technology:
Antecedents, hypotheses and scale development. Journal of Targeting, Measurement
and Analysis for Marketing, 12(2), 137–156. doi:10.1057/palgrave.jt.5740104
Ertmer, P. A. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for
technology integration? Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4),
25–39.
 COMPUTER ASSISTED LANGUAGE LEARNING 19

Ertmer, P. A., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T., Sadik, O., Sendurur, P., & Sendurur, E. (2012).
Teacher beliefs and technology integration practices: A critical relationship.
Computers & Education, 59(2), 423–435. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.02.001
Fan, X., Miller, B. C., Park, K., Winward, B. W., Christensen, M., Grotevant, H. D., &
Tai, R. H. (2006). An exploratory study about inaccuracy and invalidity in adolescent
self-report surveys. Field Methods, 18(3), 223–244. doi:10.1177/152822X06289161
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction
to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Fonseca, D., Martı, N., Redondo, E., Navarro, I., & Sanchez, A. (2014). Relationship
between student profile, tool use, participation, and academic performance with the
use of augmented reality technology for visualized architecture models. Computers in
Human Behavior, 31, 434–445.2013.03.006 doi:10.1016/j.chb
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unob-
servable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1),
39–50. doi:10.1177/002224378101800104
Granic, A., & Marangunic, N. (2019). Technology acceptance model in educational con-
text: A systematic literature review. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(5),
2572–2593. doi:10.1111/bjet.12864
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2014). Multivariate data ana-
lysis (7th ed.). Harlow, UK: Pearson.
Hao, Y., & Lee, K. S. (2017). Inquiry of pre-service teachers’ concern about integrating
web 2.0 into instruction. European Journal of Teacher Education, 40(2), 191–209. doi:
10.1080/02619768.2017.1285278
Hocevar, K. P., Flanagin, A. J., & Metzger, M. J. (2014). Social media self-efficacy and
information evaluation online. Computers in Human Behavior, 39, 254–262. doi:10.
1016/j.chb.2014.07.020
Huang, F., Teo, T., & Zhou, M. (2019). Factors affecting Chinese English as a foreign
language teachers’ technology acceptance: A qualitative study. Journal of Educational
Computing Research, 57(1), 83–105. doi:10.1177/0735633117746168
Jeong, H. I., & Kim, Y. (2017). The acceptance of computer technology by teachers in
early childhood education. Interactive Learning Environments, 25(4), 496–512. doi:10.
1080/10494820.2016.1143376
Jin, L. (2018). Digital affordances on WeChat: Learning Chinese as a second language.
Computer Assisted Language Learning, 31(1–2), 27–52. doi:10.1080/09588221.2017.1376687
Kearney, M., Schuck, S., Aubusson, P., & Burke, P. F. (2018). Teachers’ technology
adoption and practices: Lessons learned from the IWB phenomenon. Teacher
Development, 22(4), 481–496. doi:10.1080/13664530.2017.1363083
Kirkwood, A., & Price, L. (2014). Technology-enhanced learning and teaching in higher
education: What is ‘enhanced’ and how do we know? A critical literature review.
Learning, Media and Technology, 39(1), 6–36. doi:10.1080/17439884.2013.770404
Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.).
New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Koropp, C., Kellermanns, F. W., Grichnik, D., & Stanley, L. (2014). Financial decision
making in family firms: An adaptation of the theory of planned behavior. Family
Business Review, 27(4), 307–327. doi:10.1177/0894486514522483
Lai, C. (2015). Modeling teachers’ influence on learners’ self-directed use of technology
for language learning outside the classroom. Computers & Education, 82, 74–83. doi:
10.1016/j.compedu.2014.11.005
20 P. P. SUN AND B. MEI

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. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.03.006
Lai, C., Zhu, W., & Gong, G. (2015). Understanding the quality of out-of-class English
learning. TESOL Quarterly, 49(2), 278–308. doi:10.1002/tesq.171
Lan, Y.-J., Lyu, B.-N., & Chin, C. K. (2019). Does a 3D immersive experience enhance
Mandarin writing by CSL students?. Language Learning & Technology, 23(2), 125–144.
doi:10125/44686
Lei, J. (2009). Digital natives as preservice teachers: What technology preparation is
needed. ? Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 25(3), 87–97.
Liaw, S.-S., & Huang, H.-M. (2003). An investigation of user attitudes toward search
engines as an information retrieval tool. Computers in Human Behavior, 19(6),
751–765. doi:10.1016/S0747-5632(03)00009-8
Li, N., & Kirkup, G. (2007). Gender and cultural differences in Internet use: A study of
China and the UK. Computers & Education, 48(2), 301–317. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.
2005.01.007
Li, K., Li, Y., & Franklin, T. (2016). Preservice teachers’ intention to adopt technology in
their future classrooms. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 54(7), 946–966.
doi:10.1177/0735633116641694
Lim, C. P., & Khine, M. S. (2006). Managing teachers’ barriers to ICT integration in
Singapore schools. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 14(1), 97–125.
Lin, C.-Y., Huang, C.-K., & Chen, C.-H. (2014). Barriers to the adoption of ICT in
teaching Chinese as a foreign language in US universities. ReCALL, 26(1), 100–116.
doi:10.1017/S0958344013000268
Lu, D., & Hong, W. (2013). The development and prospect of information in inter-
national Chinese education. Language Teaching and Linguistics Studies, 6, 23–31.
Luo, H., & Yang, C. (2018). Twenty years of telecollaborative practice: Implications for
teaching Chinese as a foreign language. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 31(5-
6), 546–571. doi:10.1080/09588221.2017.1420083
MacFarlane, K., & Woolfson, L. M. (2013). Teacher attitudes and behavior toward the
inclusion of children with social, emotional and behavioral difficulties in mainstream
schools: An application of the theory of planned behavior. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 29, 46–52. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2012.08.006
Marangunic, N., & Granic, A. (2015). Technology acceptance model: A literature review
from 1986 to 2013. Universal Access in the Information Society, 14(1), 81–95.
Mathews-Aydinli, J., & Elaziz, F. (2010). Turkish students’ and teachers’ attitudes toward
the use of interactive whiteboards in EFL classrooms. Computer Assisted Language
Learning, 23(3), 235–252. doi:10.1080/09588221003776781
McConnon, A., Raats, M., Astrup, A., Bajzova, M., Handjieva-Darlenska, T., Lindroos,
A. K., … Shepherd, R. (2012). Application of the theory of planned behaviour to
weight control in an overweight cohort. results from a pan-European dietary interven-
tion trial (diogenes). Appetite, 58(1), 313–318. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2011.10.017
Mei, B. (2019). Preparing preservice EFL teachers for CALL normalisation: A technology
acceptance perspective. System, 83, 13–24. doi:10.1016/j.system.2019.02.011
Mei, B., Brown, G. T. L., & Teo, T. (2018). Toward an understanding of preservice
English as a foreign language teachers’ acceptance of computer-assisted language
learning 2.0 in the People’s Republic of China. Journal of Educational Computing
Research, 56(1), 74–104. doi:10.1177/0735633117700144
 COMPUTER ASSISTED LANGUAGE LEARNING 21

MOE (Ministry of Education). (2019). Education overview of China in 2018. Retrieved

from http://www.moe.gov.cn/jyb_sjzl/s5990/201909/t20190929_401639.html
Mueller, R. O., & Hancock, G. R. (2008). Best practices in structural equation modeling.
In J. W. Osborne (Ed.), Best practices in quantitative methods (pp. 488–508).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Mueller, J., Wood, E., Willoughby, T., Ross, C., & Specht, J. (2008). Identifying discriminat-
ing variables between teachers who fully integrate computers and teachers with limited
integration. Computers & Education, 51(4), 1523–1537. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2008.02.003
Niederhauser, D. S., & Stoddart, T. (2001). Teachers’ instructional perspectives and
use of educational software. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(1), 15–31. doi:10.1016/
S0742-051X(00)00036-6
Nikou, S. A., & Economides, A. A. (2019). Factors that influence behavioral intention to
use mobile-based assessment: A STEM teachers’ perspective. British Journal of
Educational Technology, 50(2), 587–600. doi:10.1111/bjet.12609
Ong, C. S., & Lai, J. Y. (2006). Gender differences in perceptions and relationships
among dominants of e-learning acceptance. Computers in Human Behavior, 22(5),
816–829. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2004.03.006
Rashid, T., & Asghar, H. M. (2016). Technology use, self-directed learning, student
engagement and academic performance: Examining the interrelations. Computers in
Human Behavior, 63, 604–612.
Sainz, M., & L opez-Saez, M. (2010). Gender differences in computer attitudes and the
choice of technology-related occupations in a sample of secondary students in Spain.
Computers & Education, 54(2), 578–587. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.09.007
Schepers, J., & Wetzels, M. (2007). A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model:
Investigating subjective norms and moderation effects. Information & Management,
44(1), 90–103. doi:10.1016/j.im.2006.10.007
Scherer, R., Siddiq, F., & Tondeur, J. (2019). The technology acceptance model (TAM): A meta-
analytic structural equation modeling approach to explaining teachers’ adoption of digital tech-
nology in education. Computers & Education, 128, 13–35. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2018.09.009
Scherer, R., Siddiq, F., & Tondeur, J. (2020). All the same or different? Revisiting meas-
ures of teachers’ technology acceptance. Computers & Education, 143, 103656. 103656.
doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2019
Sun, P., & Yuan, R. (2018). Understanding collaborative language learning in novice-level
foreign language classrooms: Perceptions of teachers and students. Interactive Learning
Environments, 26(2), 189–205. doi:10.1080/10494820.2017.1285790
Swan, K. (2003). Learning effectiveness online: What the research tells us. In J. Bourne
& J. C. Moore (Eds.), Elements of quality online education, practice and direction (pp.
13–45).Needham, MA: Sloan Center for Online Education.
Tarhini, A., Hone, K., Liu, X., & Tarhini, T. (2017). Examining the moderating effect of
individual-level cultural values on users’ acceptance of E-learning in developing coun-
tries: A structural equation modeling of an extended technology acceptance model.
Interactive Learning Environments, 25(3), 306–328. doi:10.1080/10494820.2015.1122635
Taylor, S., & Todd, P. A. (1995). Understanding information technology usage: A test of
competing models. Information Systems Research, 6(2), 144–176. doi:10.1287/isre.6.2.144
Teo, T. (2009). Modelling technology acceptance in education: A study of pre-service
teachers. Computers & Education, 52(2), 302–312. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2008.08.006
Teo, T. (2010). The development, validation, and analysis of measurement invariance of
the technology acceptance measure for preservice teachers (TAMPST). Educational
and Psychological Measurement, 70(6), 990–1006. doi:10.1177/0013164410378087
22 P. P. SUN AND B. MEI

Teo, T. (2011). Factors influencing teachers’ intention to use technology: Model develop-
ment and test. Computers & Education, 57(4), 2432–2440. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.
2011.06.008
Teo, T. (2012). Examining the intention to use technology among pre-service teachers:
An integration of the technology acceptance model and theory of planned behavior.
Interactive Learning Environments, 20(1), 3–18. doi:10.1080/10494821003714632
Teo, T., Huang, F., & Hoi, C. K. W. (2018). Explicating the influences that explain
intention to use technology among English teachers in China. Interactive Learning
Environments, 26(4), 460–475. doi:10.1080/10494820.2017.1341940
Teo, T., Khlaisang, J., Thammetar, T., Ruangrit, N., Satiman, A., & Sunphakitjumnong,
K. (2014). A survey of pre-service teachers’ acceptance of technology in Thailand.
Asia Pacific Education Review, 15(4), 609–616. doi:10.1007/s12564-014-9348-3
Teo, T., & Milutinovic, V. (2015). Modelling the intention to use technology for teach-
ing mathematics among pre-service teachers in Serbia. Australian Journal of
Educational Technology, 31(4), 363–380.
Teo, T., & Noyes, J. (2010). Exploring attitudes towards computer use among pre-service
teachers from Singapore and the UK: A multi-group invariance test of the technology
acceptance model (TAM). Multicultural Education & Technology Journal, 4(2),
126–135. doi:10.1108/17504971011052331
Teo, T., & Zhou, M. (2017). The influence of teachers’ conceptions of teaching and
learning on their technology acceptance. Interactive Learning Environments, 25(4),
513–527. doi:10.1080/10494820.2016.1143844
Tondeur, J., Pareja Roblin, N., van Braak, J., Voogt, J., & Prestridge, S. (2017). Preparing
beginning teachers for technology integration in education: Ready for take-off?.
Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 26(2), 157–177. doi:10.1080/1475939X.2016.1193556
Venkatesh, V. (2000). Determinants of perceived ease of use: Integrating control, intrin-
sic motivation, and emotion into the technology acceptance model. Information
Systems Research, 11(4), 342–365. doi:10.1287/isre.11.4.342.11872
Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology accept-
ance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186–204. doi:
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. doi:
10.2307/30036540
Xie, Y., Chen, Y., & Ryder, L. H. (2019). Effects of using mobile-based virtual reality on
Chinese L2 students’ oral proficiency. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 1–21.
doi:10.1080/09588221.2019.1604551
Xu, J., & Shi, Y. (2013). Review of the development of digitized Chinese teaching and
learning to foreigners for ten years. Modern Educational Technology, 23(12), 54–58.
doi:10.3969/j.issn.1009-8097.2013.12.010
Yueh, H.-P., Huang, J.-Y., & Chang, C. (2015). Exploring factors affecting students’ con-
tinued wiki use for individual and collaborative learning: An extended UTAUT perspec-
tive. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 31(1), 16–31. doi:10.14742/ajet.170
Zheng, Y. (2013). Status and trends of world education technology and its enlightenment
to Chinese teaching. Chinese Teaching in the World, 2, 278–288.
Zinn, K. L. (2003). Computer-assisted learning and teaching. In E. D. Reilly, A. Ralston,
& D. Hemmendinger (Eds.), Encyclopedia of computer science (4th ed., pp. 328–336).
Chichester, UK: Wiley.
 COMPUTER ASSISTED LANGUAGE LEARNING 23

Appendix 1. Hypothesized models

24 P. P. SUN AND B. MEI

Appendix 2. Self-report educational technology questionnaire

Perceived usefulness (PU)

PU1: Using educational technologies will be beneficial to my teaching.
使用教育技术将能增强我的教学效果。
PU2: Using educational technologies will enhance my teaching effectiveness.
使用教育技术将会提高我的教学有效性。
PU3: Using educational technologies will improve my teaching efficiency.
使用教育技术将会增进我的教学效率。
PU4: I think educational technologies will be helpful for my teaching.
我认为教育技术有益于我的教学。
Attitude toward use of technology (AUT)
AUT1: I like using educational technologies to support my teaching.
我喜欢使用教育技术来辅助教学。
AUT2: I found it is interesting to explore how to use educational technologies.
我觉得摸索如何使用教育技术的过程很有意思。
AUT3: I look forward to using educational technologies to facilitate my teaching.
我很期待使用教育技术来辅助教学。
Technology self-efficacy (TSE)
TSE1: I think I have the ability to use educational technologies to assist my teaching.
我觉得我有能力使用教育技术辅助教学。
TSE2: I think I am competent in using educational technologies to support my teaching.
我觉得我有能力将教育技术融入我的教学。
TSE3: It is not difficult for me to learn new educational technologies.
我觉得学习新的教育技术对我来说不难。
Facilitating conditions (FC)
FC1: When I have difficulties of using educational technologies, I have resorts for help.
当我在教育技术使用上有困难时, 我有求助的渠道。
FC2: When I have difficulties of using educational technologies, I know there are IT staff in my school to
answer my questions.
当我遇到教育技术使用上的困难, 我知道学校有技术人员可以帮忙回答我的问题。
FC3: When I have difficulties of using educational technologies, I know there are IT staff in my school to
help me.
当我遇到教育技术使用上的困难, 我知道学校有技术人员可以帮助我。
Experience of technology use (ETU)
ETU1: I have adopted some educational technologies to support my teaching.
我使用过一些教育技术来辅助我的教学。
ETU2: I had some knowledge about how to use educational technologies.
我对教育技术使用有所了解。
ETU3: I had some experience with educational technologies.
我对教育技术有一些接触。
Intention to use technology (IUT)
IUT1: In future, I plan to use educational technologies to assist my teaching.
未来, 我有打算利用教育技术辅助我的教学。
IUT2: In future, I would like to use educational technologies to support my teaching.
未来, 我愿意使用教育技术来辅助我的教学。
IUT3: In future, I think I will utilize educational technologies for my classroom teaching.
未来, 我会将教育技术应用到我的课堂教学。