See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/333757552

Exploring the Structural Relationship Among Teachers’ Technostress,

Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK), Computer Self-
efficacy and School Support

Article  in  The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher · June 2019

DOI: 10.1007/s40299-019-00461-5

CITATIONS READS

101 2,719

4 authors:

Yan Dong Chang Xu

Beijing Normal University Beijing Normal University
31 PUBLICATIONS   637 CITATIONS    7 PUBLICATIONS   184 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Ching Sing Chai Xuesong Zhai

The Chinese University of Hong Kong Beijing Normal University
267 PUBLICATIONS   11,562 CITATIONS    34 PUBLICATIONS   940 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

project based learning View project

MyCLOUD (My Chinese Language ubiquitOUs learning Days) View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Yan Dong on 12 September 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Asia-Pacific Edu Res (2020) 29(2):147–157
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-019-00461-5
REGULAR ARTICLE
Exploring the Structural Relationship Among Teachers’
Technostress, Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge
(TPACK), Computer Self-efficacy and School Support
Yan Dong1 · Chang Xu1 · Ching Sing Chai2 · Xuesong Zhai1,3
Published online: 13 June 2019
© De La Salle University 2019
Abstract With the rapid development of technologies and
the gradually increasing requirements of technology inte-
gration into teaching, teachers have been facing stress to
keep pace with new technologies and to design pedagogical
usage of technologies. Although prior studies have exam-
ined the creators and negative impacts of technostress,
insights into the effective factors relieving teachers’ tech-
nostress are rather limited. To facilitate teacher improve-
ment with technology usage and help school administrators
develop preventive stress management strategies, this study
constructed a structural model among teachers’ technos-
tress, TPACK, computer self-efficacy, administration sup-
port, and collegial support, which were examined through a
composite instrument adapted from previous studies. Data
were collected from 366K-12 in-service teachers in China.
After the exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory
factor analysis, the results showed that the adapted
instrument had adequate validity and reliability. Further,
through structural equation modeling, the results indicated
that administration support predicts teachers’ computer
self-efficacy, and collegial support predicts both teachers’
TPACK and computer self-efficacy, which in turn nega-
tively predict their technostress. The findings imply that
primary and secondary school principals need to support
& Chang Xu
merryxc_1991@163.com
1
School of Educational Technology, Faculty of Education,
Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875, China
2 There is a constant call for teachers to continuously
Faculty of Education, The Chinese University of Hong Kong,
Shatin, NT, Hong Kong SAR
3 grate new technologies into their teaching (Graham et al.
Anhui Provincial Key Laboratory of Intelligent Building and
Building Energy Saving, Anhui Jianzhu University, Hefei
230022, China
teachers both administratively and through the creation of
collegial professional learning communities to develop
TPACK and computer efficacy to reduce teachers’
technostress.
Keywords Technology integration ·
Computer self-efficacy · TPACK · Technostress ·
School support
Introduction
The rapid development of information and communication
technologies (ICT) since the 1990s has influenced all
professions. Today’s teachers are expected to positively
and effectively integrate technology into their teaching in
the classroom (Graham et al. 2009). On the one hand, the
adoption of ICT can benefit student learning processes and
performance when teachers use it effectively in the class-
room (Kim and Hannafin 2011; Vandeyar 2015). On the
other hand, it could create extra workload, challenges, and
stress for teachers. Teachers constantly struggle with the
time available to keep pace with emerging technology and
with the associated innovations in pedagogy (Tarus et al.
2015; Voet and De Wever 2017). In addition, teachers
usually see the technology as tools for lesson preparation,
knowledge delivery, or to attract students, but they lack
adequate skills and competencies in designing and imple-
menting constructive use of technology in the teaching and
learning process (Chen 2008; Munyengabe et al. 2017).
enhance their knowledge and competences to better inte-
2012; Hew and Brush 2007). Therefore, technologies may
also be inadequately designed and cause confusion and
123
148
frustration when teachers lack abilities or are unwilling to
adapt technology-based pedagogy. Recently, some
researchers have focused on technostress (Al-Fudail and
Mellar 2008; Joo et al. 2016) to shed light on the complex
transformation that today’s teachers have to face.
Technostress is defined as ‘‘a modern disease of adap-
tation caused by an inability to cope with new computer
technologies in a healthy manner’’ (Brod 1984, p. 16). Due
to the constantly emerging ICT and its various functions
and applications, the prior studies in different organizations
have argued that technostress can cause some negative
consequences. For instance, leading to users’ negative
feelings such as anxiety, mental fatigue, skepticism, and
inefficacy (Salanova et al. 2013), reducing users’ innova-
tion and productivity directly or indirectly by reducing
their satisfaction with ICT use (Tarafdar et al. 2010),
reducing users’ continuous usage intention for various
technologies (Maier et al. 2015; Ragu-Nathan et al. 2008),
and negatively influencing individual’ job satisfaction and
commitment (Jena 2015; Ragu-Nathan et al. 2008). In
particular, stress related to technology is also be found to
negatively influence teachers’ feelings and intention to
adopt ICT in teaching (Hennessy et al. 2005; Joo et al.
2016). However, relatively few studies provide insights
into how to effectively reduce teachers’ technostress.
Identifying such important variables could support teach-
ers’ professional development to reduce teachers’
technostress.
Prior studies in other organizations have mainly
explored the creators of technostress from individual and
environmental factors. The results suggest that the lack of
environmental support (e.g., technical support, ICT use
facilitators) and the low-level individual ability (e.g., ICT
literacy, mental competences) positively predict technos-
tress (Fuglseth and Sørebø 2014; Ragu-Nathan et al. 2008;
Salanova et al. 2013). In school teaching situation, some
studies also explored the possible factors of teachers’
technostress from intrinsic and extrinsic aspects. For
instance, based on person–environment fit theory (Edwards
et al. 1998), Al-Fudail and Mellar (2008) proposed a tea-
cher–technology interaction model and conducted a qual-
itative study. Their study found that teachers experienced
technostress when there was a discrepancy between their
characteristics (e.g., abilities, needs) and the school tech-
nology support (e.g., training, technical support). However,
their study is small in scale, so the conclusion needs to be
further tested in larger scale studies. Given there are vari-
ous kinds of creators and inhibitors influencing technos-
tress, many existing studies using structural equation
modeling (SEM) to test the structural relationships among
these factors (e.g., Fuglseth and Sørebø 2014; Jena 2015;
Koo and Wati 2011). Joo et al. (2016) considered school
support as an external resource and teachers’
123
Y. Dong et al.
Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK)
as internal resource. Their study verified that the two fac-
tors both negatively predicted teachers’ technostress using
SEM. However, their study failed to distinguish the influ-
ences of support from administration and colleagues. In
addition, Ertmer (1999) have proposed a framework elab-
orating the first-order barriers (such as training, access,
time) and second-order barriers (such as teachers’ peda-
gogical beliefs, technology beliefs) for technology inte-
gration in education. In his framework, Ertmer (1999)
especially pointed out the second-order factors may reduce
the effects of first-order factors. However, Joo et al. (2016)
ignored to investigate TPACK’s possible mediating effect
when considering the effect of school support on teachers’
technostress. Moreover, as an important individual psy-
chological characteristic, existing studies in other organi-
zations have provided evidence that higher computer self-
efficacy is associated with more positive attitude toward
the obstacles in technology use (Compeau and Higgins
1995), thus reducing the negative effect of technostress
(Tarafdar et al. 2014). Nonetheless, its effect on teachers’
technostress is unclear. Joo et al. (2016) also suggested that
other factors related to technostress such as self-efficacy
need to be investigated.
In summary, this study tries to explore the potential
factors which contribute to reducing teachers’ technostress
both from individuals’ internal and external factors
according to the person–environment theory. Accordingly,
this study adopted an SEM approach to investigate the
relationships among teachers’ TPACK level, computer
self-efficacy, administration support, collegial support, and
their effects on technostress.
Theoretical Background and Hypotheses
Development
Teachers’ Technostress
With the widespread and rapid proliferation of ICT, tech-
nostress is becoming a focus topic for scholars in different
contexts such as ergonomics, computer science, and busi-
ness (Hwang and Cha 2018; Krishnan 2017). Studies on the
effects of technostress have found that it is negatively
related with individual outcomes, job satisfaction, and
intention to use technology (Maier et al. 2015; Suh et al.
2017). Technological advancements and digitization are
also affecting teachers (Revilla Muñoz et al. 2017). In this
study, technostress specifically refers to stress arising from
teachers’ use of technology (Şahin and Çoklar 2009).
Teachers’ anxiety and stress on technology also have
negative effects on their motivation and intention to use
ICT (Pamuk and Peker 2009; Sabzian and Gilakjani 2013).
Exploring the Structural Relationship Among Teachers’ Technostress, Technological…
The transactional theory of stress in Lazarus and Folk-
man (1984) proposed that the unbalance between envi-
ronment demands and individual capability to cope with
external demands usually causes stress experiences. In
school cases, teachers are pressured by external influences,
such as policy, colleagues, and institution management, to
integrate ICT into their teaching (Drent and Meelissen
2008; Hew and Brush 2007; Voet and De Wever 2017). In
addition, the continuous upgrading of technology exposes
teachers to constant technostress because teachers do not
always have the knowledge required to use the new/up-
dated technologies (Altınay-Gazi and Altınay-Aksal 2017).
However, teachers’ ability to integrate technology in
classroom pedagogical is crucial to education innovation
(Koh et al. 2017). Moreover, according to Bandura’s
(1986) social cognitive theory, beliefs of teachers regarding
their ability to coping the difficulties with technologies
affects their feelings and attitudes toward technology
integration (Yeşilyurt et al. 2016). Therefore, teachers’
confidence on computer using may be an important internal
factor influencing their technostress.
Grounding on transactional theory (Lazarus and Folk-
man 1984) and social cognition theory (Bandura 1986), this
study selected the administration support and collegial
support as external factors, and TPACK and computer self-
efficacy as internal factors, to explore the effective factors
supporting teacher deal with technostress. What’s more,
followed the first- and second-order barriers to change
perspective which highlighted the effects of second-order
barriers (Ertmer 1999), administration support and colle-
gial support were hypothesized to have indirect effect on
technostress through influencing TPACK and computer
self-efficacy, apart from playing a direct role in
technostress.
Possible Factors of Teachers’ Technostress
TPACK
Shulman (1986) postulated that qualified teachers should
be equipped with pedagogical content knowledge (PCK)
which synthesizes the content knowledge (CK) and peda-
gogical knowledge (PK), to design and organize proper
curricula satisfying different interests and demands of
students. With the arrival of information era, teachers’
ability in pedagogical uses of technology has been one of
the essential elements in educational innovation (Pineida
2011). Koehler and Mishra (2005) proposed additional
knowledge arising from the synthesis of PK, CK, and
technological knowledge (TK) as technological content
knowledge (TCK), technological pedagogical knowledge
(TPK), and technological pedagogical content knowledge
(TPCK/TPACK). The TPACK describes the
149
comprehensive knowledge and skills teachers need to
adopt the educational technology in curriculum design and
organization in effective ways (Schmidt et al. 2009). The
lack of TPACK has been identified as one major barrier to
technology integration (Blackwell et al. 2016; Koh et al.
2017).
Prior studies in other organizations have examined the
negative effect of individual ICT literacy on uses’ tech-
nostress (Fuglseth and Sørebø 2014; Ragu-Nathan et al.
2008). Finding of Joo et al. (2016) indicated that the higher
level of teachers’ TPACK reduced teachers’ stress
regarding computer use. However, their study has not
examined the comprehensive effects combined with other
factors. This study considered the TPACK as an important
individual internal factor influencing teachers’ technostress
and aimed to find the potential integrated effects combined
with other factors. Based on this, we propose Hypothesis 1
as follows:
Hypothesis 1 TPACK has a negative effect on teachers’
technostress.
Computer Self-efficacy
Self-efficacy refers to the general beliefs of individuals in
their abilities to perform whatever tasks (Bandura 1986).
Self-efficacy theory indicates that the individual’s attitude
toward his/her competence on performing specific task
influence the emotional response (including stress and
anxiety) and actions (Bandura 1997). The definition of
computer self-efficacy is developed on the basis of self-
efficacy which reflects one person’s confidence or attitude
on his/her capabilities to use technologies (Compeau and
Higgins 1995).
The self-efficacy beliefs of teachers regarding their
ability to use specific technologies is a critical factor that
affects their attitude and the way that teachers integrate
technologies in their curriculum teaching (Blonder et al.
2013; Yeşilyurt et al. 2016). Studies showed that high
computer self-efficacy contributed to the solving of diffi-
culties caused by computer technology (Paul and Glassman
2017), reducing of perceived technostress degree (Shu
et al. 2011), and moderating of the negative effect of
technostress on innovation (Tarafdar et al. 2014). In addi-
tion, if teachers have higher self-efficacy for technology
integration, it is likely to mean that they possess higher
TPACK (López-Vargas et al. 2017; Semiz and Ince 2012).
Thus, this study aimed to explore the influencing of com-
puter self-efficacy on teachers’ TPACK and technostress.
Based on this reasoning, we propose Hypotheses 2 and 3 as
follows:
Hypothesis 2 Computer self-efficacy has positive effects
on teachers’ TPACK.
123
150 Y. Dong et al.

Hypothesis 3 Computer self-efficacy has negative effects

on teachers’ technostress.

School Support

As an important contextual factor, the support from school

environment is a key force in promoting teachers’ intention
to use technology (Drossel et al. 2017; Eickelmann et al.
2017; Inan and Lowther 2010). As Porter and Graham
(2016) suggest, strong infrastructure, technological sup-
port, and pedagogical support should be provided for Fig. 1 Hypothesized research model
teachers to facilitate ease of use. Besides, previous studies
identified that a significant relationship exists between
collegial support were perceived as critical variables
groups of social factors and the technology adoption
affecting teachers’ technostress. The hypothetical model
intention which suggests that the mutual help and collab-
for this study is shown in Fig. 1.
oration among colleague groups could motivate and facil-
itate teachers’ technology integration (Brown et al. 2010;
Weber and Kauffman 2011).
Method
Inspired by the above studies, in this study, we selected
administration support that denotes infrastructure and
Participants
technical assistance, and collegial support from colleagues
as sub-constructs of school support. Some existing studies
The target participants of our study were teachers of K-12
have discussed the considerable influence of school support
schools in China. The data were collected through dis-
on teachers’ development of ICT skills and self-efficacy in
tributing an online survey in March 2017. Teachers par-
technology integration (Meristo and Eisenschmidt 2014;
ticipated in the anonymous survey voluntarily. Although
Joo et al. 2016). In this study, we expected to see an
convenient sampling was used for data collection, these
association between school support, TPACK, computer
teachers were from different geographical areas in China,
self-efficacy, and technostress from more refined (i.e.,
including provinces of Hunan, Henan, Anhui, Shanxi, and
administration and collegial support) perspectives. Based
Shandong and in the cities of Beijing and Shanghai in
on previous literature, we proposed the following
China. Most regions are located in the east and central part
hypotheses:
of China, with above-average socio-economic status.
Hypothesis 4 Administration support has a negative Moreover, these schools have already required teachers to
effect on teachers’ technostress. integrating ICT in curriculum teaching.
A total of 375 teachers finished the questionnaires and
Hypothesis 5 Collegial support has a negative effect on
366 usable questionnaires were retained for the following
teachers’ technostress.
analysis. Based on the demographic information collected,
Hypothesis 6 Administration support has a positive 42.3% were male and 57.7% were female; 29.0% were
effect on teachers’ TPACK. from primary schools; 25.7% were from junior high
schools, and 45.4% were from senior high schools.
Hypothesis 7 Collegial support has a positive effect on
Teachers were aged between 22 and 57 years (M = 41.3,
teachers’ TPACK.
SD = 8.2) and their teaching experience ranged from 1 to
Hypothesis 8 Administration support has a positive 43 years (M = 17.5, SD = 9.4).
effect on teachers’ computer self-efficacy.
Instruments
Hypothesis 9 Collegial support has a positive effect on
teachers’ computer self-efficacy.
The questionnaire used in the study consisted 25 items (see
Appendix). All items were rated on a 5-point Likert scale,
Research Hypotheses
with 1 indicating strongly disagree to 5 indicating strongly
agree. Because some instruments are in English and our
Integrating the above hypotheses, the study intended to
participants are Chinese speakers, we adopted back-trans-
explore structural relationships among factors influencing
lation procedures (Wind et al. 2018) to ensure validity and
teachers’ technostress in technology integration. TPACK,
appropriateness of the survey questions in the Chinese
computer self-efficacy, administration support, and

123
Exploring the Structural Relationship Among Teachers’ Technostress, Technological…
context. First, three professors (two majoring in educa-
tional technology and one in English teaching) translated
the original English questionnaire items to Chinese, and
some items were consolidated and modified in response to
the ICT context. Then, another three researchers (majoring
in educational technology) retranslated the Chinese version
of questionnaire to English. At last, all the six researchers
discussed the differences found in translation process and
revised the Chinese version.
The instrument of administration and collegial support
administered in this study was developed from Lam et al.
(2010). The original instrument was designed to measure
the support given to teachers to implement project-based
learning. This study contextualized items for teacher ICT
integration in teaching, with 3 items in each subscale. The
administration support mainly assesses the degree to which
teachers acquired their schools’ supporting technical
training and reasonable arrangements. Collegial support
measures the extent to which teachers acquired the level of
support from their fellow teachers.
The existing computer self-efficacy scales (e.g., Com-
peau and Higgins 1995; Murphy et al. 1989) were overly
technical (Chen 2017), measuring the individual’s confi-
dence in their ability to perform particular computer
operations (e.g., using a software package, writing a letter).
In this research, we aimed to investigate whether individ-
uals feel that they can use a computer to manage chal-
lenging computer tasks in general. Therefore, we
developed five items to determine computer self-efficacy
with reference to the work of Smith and Hung (2017),
which measuring general self-efficacy, and Liang et al.
(2013), which measuring teacher technological knowledge.
The instrument to measure teachers’ TPACK was
developed by Chai et al. (2011) and translated into Chinese
by Sang et al. (2016). We adopted the Chinese version with
four items of TPCK scale.
The technostress instrument was modified from the
subscales of the Computer Attitude Scale developed by
Loyd and Loyd (1985). The original instrument included
computer confidence, computer liking, and computer anx-
iety. The ten items of computer anxiety were designed to
measure teachers’ level of technostress.
Data Analysis
The data analysis in this study involved three phases,
including exploratory factor analysis (EFA) to explore the
constructs and internal reliability of the instruments, con-
firmatory factor analysis (CFA) to further confirm the
construct convergent and discriminant, and structural
equation modeling (SEM) to evaluate the hypothetical
structural model. According to the recommended amount
of samples (Byrne 2010), a suitable sample case when
151
conducting CFA could be five to ten times of the total
number of items in the surveying scales, this study ran-
domly divided the samples in two pieces, 161 samples for
EFA, 205 samples for CFA, and final overall 366 samples
for SEM.
We performed the EFA using SPSS (version 20.0). The
Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling ade-
quacy and Bartlett’s test of sphericity to verify whether the
sample was appropriate for such analysis. Next, by using
principal axis factoring analysis as the extraction method,
and the rotation method of Varimax with Kaiser Normal-
ization, the items with a factor loading of less than .50 and
with multiple cross-loadings (i.e., CSE2, TS1, TS3 and
TS10) were removed from the questionnaire. Factor anal-
ysis extracted five dimensions. The total variance explained
was 71.8%. The internal reliability of each factor was good
as all had Cronbach alphas of at least .88 (Table 1).
Moreover, since the maximum of the absolute values of
skewness was 1.03 (below 3), and the maximum of the
absolute values of kurtosis was .86 (below 10), the
assumption for the multivariate normal distribution of data
was met for the structural equation modeling (Byrne 2010).
The CFA and path analysis of structural model were
performed with AMOS (version 22.0) using maximum
likelihood estimation. Construct validity was examined
through the standardized regression weights of measure-
ment items, composite reliability (CR), average variance
extracted (AVE), the square root of the AVE, and the
model fit indices (Schumacker and Lomax 2016). As sug-
gested by Byrne (2010), model fit was evaluated by the
comparative fit index (CFI), Tracker-Lewis index (TLI),
the normed fit index (NFI), and root-mean-square error of
approximation (RMSEA), etc. The structural model was
tested by examining the relationships among the latent
variables and detecting the fitness of the proposed models.
Results
Measurement Model
The study examined the convergent and discriminant
validity in terms of coefficients among variables using
confirmatory factor analysis. As Schumacker and Lomax
(2016) recommended, all of the items in the CFA stan-
dardized factor loadings should be higher than .60, there-
fore, item AS3 in administration support and item TS6 in
technostress were omitted from survey. Moreover, as
shown in Table 1, AVEs of all constructs ranged from .58
to .82 (above .50); CRs of all constructs ranged from .95 to
.99 (above .70). The overall goodness of fit showed in
Table 2 can be considered satisfactory for this measure-
ment model (χ2/df = 1.465, GFI = .905, TLI = .973, NFI =
123
152 Y. Dong et al.

Table 1 Results of confirmatory factor analysis (n=205)

Latent variable Measurement variable Loadings CA CR AVE

Administration support AS1 .86 .88 .95 .80

AS2 .93
Collegial support CS1 .83 .92 .99 .82
CS2 .91
CS3 .97
Computer self-efficacy CSE1 .93 .88 .98 .69
CSE2 .79
CSE3 .86
CSE5 .72
TPACK TPACK1 .90 .93 .99 .70
TPACK2 .88
TPACK3 .92
TPACK4 .60
Technostress TS2 .63 .91 .97 .58
TS4 .72
TS5 .79
TS7 .83
TS8 .88
TS9 .71
CA Cronbach’s alpha, CR composite reliability, AVE average variance extracted

Table 2 Model fit results for the measurement model (n=205), hypothesized model (n=377) and final model (n=377)
χ2 df χ2/df GFI TLI NFI CFI RMSEA

Measurement model 206.587 141 1.465 .905 .973 .934 .978 .048
Hypothesized model 281.480 142 1.982 .921 .968 .948 .973 .052
Final model 286.931 145 1.979 .919 .968 .947 .973 .052
Criteria \3 [.90 [.90 [.90 [.90 \.08

.934, CFI = .978, RMSEA = .048). The results indicated
the measurement model had good reliability and conver-
gent validity. In addition, the square roots of the AVEs of
all constructs were greater than the correlations between
constructs (Table 1). Thus, the measurement model had
good discriminant validity (Schumacker and Lomax 2016).
Structural Model and Hypothesis Testing
The test of the structural model includes examining the
model fit and statistical significance of the hypothesized
path among the five variables. The overall goodness of fit
was χ2/df = 1.982, GFI = .921, TLI = .968, NFI = .948, CFI
= .973, RMSEA = .052, as shown in Table 2. The indica-
tors shows a satisfactory fitness for the hypothetical model
proposed in this study.
The path coefficients of the hypothesized model are
shown in Table 3. TPACK (β = -.330, p \ .001) and
computer self-efficacy (β = -.209, p \ .05) had significant
negative effects on technostress, providing support for H1
and H2. Computer self-efficacy had a significant positive
effect on TPACK (β = .622, p\.001). The result supported
H3 empirically. However, administration support and col-
legial support did not have direct significant effects on
technostress. H4 and H5 were unsupported. The results also
revealed that administration support had a significant pos-
itive effect on computer self-efficacy (β = .272, p\.01), as
well as collegial support having a significant positive effect
on TPACK (β = .307, p \ .001) and computer self-efficacy
(β = .187, p\.05). Hence, the study supported H8, H7, and
H9. However, the coefficient between administration sup-
port and TPACK was not statistically significant. H6 was
thus unsupported.
Therefore, this study deleted the three non-significant
paths from prior hypothesized structural model and per-
formed path analysis again to test the modified model. The
results showed that the modified model also presented a
good fit, with χ2/df = 1.979, GFI = .919, TLI = .968, NFI =

123
Exploring the Structural Relationship Among Teachers’ Technostress, Technological… 153

Table 3 Results of the hypothesis (n=366)

Hypothesis Path Unstandardized coefficient (B) Standardized coefficient (β) SE t Supported?

H1 TPACK→TS −.340 −.330 .091 −3.741*** Yes

H2 CSE→TS −.200 −.209 .081 −2.487* Yes
H3 CSE→TPACK .566 .622 .049 11.617*** Yes
H4 AS→TS .134 .085 .063 2.136 No
H5 CS→TS −.089 −.016 .070 −1.279 No
H6 AS→TPACK −.038 −.052 .047 −.798 No
H7 CS→TPACK .244 .307 .051 4.826*** Yes
H8 AS→CSE .217 .272 .067 3.250** Yes
H9 CS→CSE .163 .187 .072 2.271* Yes
TS technostress, CSE computer self-efficacy, AS administration support, CS collegial support
***p \.001; **p\.01; *p\.05

et al. 2016). Moreover, the results show that the indirect

Fig. 2 The final structural model with standardized coefficients
.947, CFI = .973, RMSEA = .052, as reported in Table 2.
Figure 2 shows the t values of the final model and the
significant values were labeled with asterisks. There were
five path coefficients that are significant at .05 in the final
model.
Discussion
This study analyzes the interplay among the latent vari-
ables of administration support, collegial support, com-
puter self-efficacy, and TPACK on the technostress of 366
Chinese K-12 in-service teachers. The results show that the
negative effects of TPACK and computer self-efficacy on
the teachers’ technostress are significant, which provides
some suggestions for reducing teachers’ stress when using
technology in teaching.
First, TPACK shows a significant effect on teachers’
technostress with the highest path coefficients (−.45). This
indicates that teachers’ TPACK plays a key role in helping
teachers cope with psychological stress resulting from
technology. Similar findings have also been reported that
teachers’ technology competence is a significant factor
predicting computer stress (Al-Fudail and Mellar 2008; Joo
effect of computer self-efficacy on technostress (through
TPACK) is higher than the direct effect of computer self-
efficacy on technostress. This interesting finding further
confirms the key role of TPACK in reducing teachers’
stress when using ICT. Stress would arise if the demanding
competence in technology use beyond individual’s existing
skills (Fuglseth and Sørebø 2014). Teachers are required to
use multiple sources of knowledge (as implied by the
TPACK framework), consider multiple contextual factors,
and find ways to test the feasibility of the lesson designed.
The required level of knowledge and design abilities takes
long-term support to develop (Koh et al. 2017). It is thus
essential for school leaders to provide high-quality long-
term professional development support. As suggested in
the literature, future research should aim to explore
strategies for coping with technostress. Our findings indi-
cate that perhaps the forms and strength of teacher pro-
fessional development such as long-term co-design
between colleagues (Koh et al. 2017) may mediate teach-
ers’ technostress. Training programs should create more
opportunities for teachers to accumulate hands-on experi-
ence, conduct more contextualized evaluation, and provide
feedback timely to improve teachers’ perceived knowledge
and ability (Xie et al. 2017), thus reducing teachers stress
when adopting ICT in classroom.
In addition, the significant relationship between com-
puter self-efficacy and technostress confirms the hypothe-
ses that we set up based on social cognitive theory
(Bandura 1986). Considering the significant effect of
computer self-efficacy both to TPACK and technostress,
with computer self-efficacy is much higher than the path
coefficient between school support and TPACK, the results
indicates that the influence of computer self-efficacy is
much higher than school support. Training programmes
should provide teachers with ICT problem-solving skills
instead of detailed procedure to solve very specific

123
154
technological problems (Revilla Muñoz et al. 2017). This
way can improve not only teachers’ level of ICT literacy,
but also their level of confidence in using the technology
and thus, reduce their technostress.
As for the effect of school support, the analysis results in
our study show that administration support only has a
positive effect on teachers’ computer self-efficacy, while
collegial support has a positive effect both on teachers’
computer self-efficacy and TPACK. This finding implies
that encouraging mutual collaboration with colleagues is a
more effective method of enriching teachers’ development
of TPACK than just providing sufficient infrastructure and
technical training. As previous studies suggest, collabora-
tive lesson plan design decreases teachers’ load and assists
them as they learn about technology integration, which is
helpful for enhancing the TPACK learning process (An-
syari 2015; Inan and Lowther 2010). Thus, it is important
for school leaders to encourage teachers to form curriculum
design teams and collaboratively work on integrating
technology into teaching (see Koh et al. 2017). Addition-
ally, the significant effect of school support on computer
self-efficacy in this study implies that appropriate technical
and social support from colleagues is necessary for the
development of computer self-efficacy. The finding that
school support has a positive effect on computer self-effi-
cacy also concurs with Blonder and Rap (2017) study in
which they provided continuing technological assistance
and encouragement from more experienced instructors.
Moving forwards, researchers could look further into what
forms of collegial support could develop teachers’ com-
puter efficacy and TPACK. Current research in TPACK
(Chai et al. 2018; Koh et al. 2017) may suggest that col-
legial support can play some role in three areas: innovative
design, orchestrated implementation, and reflective con-
solidation. They are targeted activities that form the cycle
of TPACK development among teachers.
The interesting results show that neither administration
support nor collegial support has direct significant effects on
teachers’ technostress, in contrast to the claims that school
support significantly affects teachers’ stress related to tech-
nology use (Joo et al. 2016). However, the significant effects
of these two kinds of school support on TPACK and com-
puter self-efficacy show that school plays a critical role in
improving teachers’ technology literacy and confidence in
technology use, which are effective in reducing teachers’
stress when integrating technology in their teaching. This
finding suggests that the effect of school support may be
mediated by computer self-efficacy and TPACK, which
informs school leaders of what to focus the support on. This
finding also corroborates with Ertmer (1999) theory that
second-order barrier for ICT integration may magnify or
decrease the effects of the first-order barriers. Further review
and explication of the possible relationships between
123
Y. Dong et al.
teachers’ technostress and other factors is needed. For
example, teachers’ beliefs have been identified as a second-
order barrier to technology integration. While constructivist
beliefs may help to boost teachers’ interest in integrating
technology and thus reduce their technostress because
technology is viewed as the tools to actualize one’s vision,
teachers holding passivism views of teaching may feel more
stress because of technology invasion.
Conclusions
In conclusion, the finding of our study contributes to the
current research by exploring the comprehensive effects of
teachers’ TPACK level, computer self-efficacy, support
from school administration and colleagues on their tech-
nostress. The negative effect of computer self-efficacy and
TPACK on teachers’ technostress is significant, which
confirms that teachers’ confidence in computer use and
competences of technology integration have significant
effects on teachers’ stress arising from the use of ICT. In
addition, TPACK plays the key role in reducing teachers’
technostress, which suggests that it is essential to enhance
teachers’ TPACK skills through school support and by
increasing computer self-efficacy. Lastly, this study dis-
tinguishes the different effects of administration support
and collegial support on teachers’ computer self-efficacy
and TPACK, thus transcending the existing studies. We
believe that the findings and the implications based on this
empirical study can provide some suggestions and inspire
future studies about teachers’ technostress.
There are still some limitations and follow-up questions
that need to be determined in the future. First, in this study,
teachers’ technostress was measured as a whole using Loyd
and Loyd’s (1985) questionnaire. More detailed dimen-
sions of technostress should be included and then the
corresponding influencing factors in certain dimensions can
be verified. For example, Çoklar et al. (2017) developed a
Likert-type scale to define teachers’ technostress level with
five dimensions: technostress in Learning-Teaching Pro-
cess Oriented, Profession Oriented, Technical Issue Ori-
ented, Personal Oriented, and Social Oriented. More
research is required to explore ways to address those dif-
ferent dimensions of teachers’ technostress. Another limi-
tation is that the data in this study were collected through
convenient sample method, which is unable to cover the
schools with different levels of technology-enhanced
teaching. Given the fact that the conditions of teachers’
ICT competences and support supplied by school vary with
districts of different economic development levels in
China, studies with large-scale participants using stratified
sampling need to be conducted to obtain more accurate
results and in-depth understand of how contextual factors
Exploring the Structural Relationship Among Teachers’ Technostress, Technological… 155

dynamically influence teachers’ technostress in different 如果我投入必要的努力,我就可以解决大部分使用信

situation. Finally, it would also be meaningful for future 息与通讯技术时的问题
studies to explore more contextual factors such as teachers’ 5. When I am confronted with a problem when using
beliefs of ICT integration in teaching which are helpful in ICT, I can usually find several solutions
reducing teachers’ technostress. 当我在使用信息与通讯技术遇到问题时,我总能找到
几种解决方法
Acknowledgements The research is funded by the International Joint Part 4. technological pedagogical content knowledge
Research Project of Faculty of Education, Beijing Normal University
[ICER201902].
(TPACK) 整合技术的学科教学知识
1. I can structure activities to help students to construct
different representations of the content knowledge using
Appendix appropriate ICT tools (e.g., Webspiration, Mindmaps,
Wiki).
Part 1. Administration support 行政支持 我可以根据学科内容规划活动,帮助学生使用恰当的
1. My school provided sufficient training to us so that I 多媒体来建构不同的学科知识表述方式 (例如使用在
know how to integrate ICT in teaching. 线思路图,维基网等)
学校为我提供充足的培训支持,因此我知道如何应用 2. I can create self-directed learning activities of the
信息与通讯技术进行教学 content knowledge with appropriate ICT tools (e.g., Blog,
2. The requirement and time table for implementing ICT Webquest)
integration was reasonable in my school so that I can at my 我能够针对学科内容设计电脑辅助学生自主学习(如
own pace. 利用博客,网络探究Webquest等)
学校制定了合理的应用信息与通讯技术进行教学的 3. I can design inquiry activities to guide students to
要求和时间表,因此我可以按照我的节奏来进行 make sense of the content knowledge with appropriate ICT
3. My school provide enough infrastructure and resource tools (e.g., simulations, Web-based materials).
so that I could do well on the task. 我能够设计探究活动,并以适当的多媒体(例如模拟软
学校提供充足的设备和资源,所以我能顺利地完成任 件,网络资源)引导学生理解学科知识
务 4. I can design lessons that appropriately integrate con-
Part 2. Collegial support 同事支持 tent, technology and pedagogy for student-centred learning.
1. I got encouragement from my colleagues when I 我能恰当整合教学内容、多媒体技术和教学方法来
encountered difficulties in integrating ICT in teaching. 设计教学,实现以学生为中心的学习
当我在教学中整合信息与通讯技术遇到困难时,我能 Part 5. Technostress技术压力
得到同事的鼓励 1. ICT do not scare me at all.
2. Many colleagues shared useful resources and expe- 信息与通讯技术不会让我感到惊慌
rience with me about integrating ICT in teaching. 2. Working with ICT would make me very nervous.
许多同事能与我分享应用信息与通讯技术教学的资 应用信息与通讯技术让我感到忐忑不安
源与经验 3. I do not feel threatened when others talk about ICT.
3. My colleagues and I made a concerted effort to 当他人谈论信息与通讯技术时,我不会感觉受到威
integrating ICT in teaching. 胁
我的同事能与我共同推动信息与通讯技术在教学中 4. It would not bother me at all to take ICT courses.
的应用 参加信息与通讯技术课程不会打扰到我
Part 3. Computer self-efficacy 计算机效能感 5. ICT makes me feel uncomfortable.
1. I can always manage to solve difficult problems in 信息与通讯技术让我感到不舒服
using ICT if I try hard enough. 6. I would feel at ease in ICT class.
如我过尽力去做的话,我总是能够解决应用信息与通 我在信息与通讯技术课程中感到轻松
讯技术时的困难 7. I get a sinking feeling when I think of trying to use
2. It is easy for me to keep up with important new ICT. ICT.
对我来说,跟上新的重要的信息与通信技术发展步伐 当我想到要尽量使用信息与通讯技术时,我就会感到
是很容易的 失落
3. I am confident that I have the technical skills to use 8. I would feel comfortable working with ICT.
ICT effectively. 用信息与通讯技术进行工作让我感到舒服
我相信我拥有有效使信息与通讯技术的技巧 9. ICT make me feel uneasy and confused.
4. I can solve most technical problems when using ICT 信息与通讯技术让我感到不舒服和困惑
if I invest the necessary effort. 10. I need to pay much effort to learn ICT.
我需要花费很多的努力来学习信息与通讯技术

123
156
References
Al-Fudail, M., & Mellar, H. (2008). Investigating teacher stress when
using technology. Computers & Education, 51(3), 1103–1110.
Altınay-Gazi, Z., & Altınay-Aksal, F. (2017). Technology as
mediation tool for improving teaching profession in higher
education practices. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science
& Technology Education, 13(3), 803–813.
Ansyari, M. F. (2015). Designing and evaluating a professional
development programme for basic technology integration in
English as a foreign language (EFL) classrooms. Australasian
Journal of Educational Technology, 31(6), 699–712.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundation of thought and action: A social-
cognitive view. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1997). Editorial. American Journal of Health Promotion,
12(1), 8–10.
Blackwell, C. K., Lauricella, A. R., & Wartella, E. (2016). The
influence of TPACK contextual factors on early childhood
educators’ tablet computer use. Computers & Education, 98, 57–
69.
Blonder, R., Jonatan, M., Bardov, Z., Benny, N., Rap, S., & Sakhnini,
S. (2013). Can You Tube it? Providing chemistry teachers with
technological tools and enhancing their self-efficacy beliefs.
Chemistry Education Research & Practice, 14(3), 269–285.
Blonder, R., & Rap, S. (2017). I like Facebook: Exploring Israeli high
school chemistry teachers’ TPACK and self-efficacy beliefs.
Education and Information Technologies, 22(2), 697–724.
Brod, C. (1984). Technostress: The human cost of the computer
revolution. Boston: Addison Wesley Publishing Company.
Brown, S. A., Dennis, A. R., & Venkatesh, V. (2010). Predicting
collaboration technology use: Integrating technology adoption
and collaboration research. Journal of Management Information
Systems, 27(2), 9–54.
Byrne, B. M. (2010). Structural equation modeling using AMOS.
Basic concepts, applications, and programming (2nd ed.). New
York: Routledge.
Chai, C. S., Koh, J. H. L., & Teo, Y. H. (2018). Enhancing and
modeling teachers’ design beliefs and efficacy of technological
pedagogical content knowledge for 21st century quality learning.
Journal of Educational Computing Research, 57, 360–384.
Chai, C. S., Koh, J. H. L., & Tsai, C. C. (2011). Exploring the factor
structure of the constructs of technological, pedagogical, content
knowledge (TPACK). Asia-Pacific Education Researcher (De La
Salle University Manila), 20(3), 595–603.
Chen, C. H. (2008). Why do teachers not practice what they believe
regarding technology integration? The Journal of Educational
Research, 102(1), 65–75.
Chen, I. S. (2017). Computer self-efficacy, learning performance, and
the mediating role of learning engagement. Computers in Human
Behavior, 72, 362–370.
Çoklar, A. N., Efilti, E., & Şahin, Y. L. (2017). Defining teachers’
technostress levels: A scale development. Online Submission, 8
(21), 28–41.
Compeau, D. R., & Higgins, C. A. (1995). Computer self-efficacy:
Development of a measure and initial test. MIS Quarterly, 19(2),
189–211.
Drent, M., & Meelissen, M. (2008). Which factors obstruct or
stimulate teacher educators to use ICT innovatively? Computers
& Education, 51(1), 187–199.
Drossel, K., Eickelmann, B., & Gerick, J. (2017). Predictors of
teachers’ use of ICT in school: The relevance of school
characteristics, teachers’ attitudes and teacher collaboration.
Education & Information Technologies, 22(2), 551–573.
Edwards, J. R., Caplan, R. D., & Harrison, R. V. (1998). Person-
environment fit theory: Conceptual foundation, empirical
123
Y. Dong et al.
evidence, and directions for future research. In C. L. Cooper
(Ed.), Theories of organizational stress. Oxford: Oxford Univer-
sity Press.
Eickelmann, B., Gerick, J., & Koop, C. (2017). ICT use in
mathematics lessons and the mathematics achievement of
secondary school students by international comparison: Which
role do school level factors play? Education & Information
Technologies, 22, 1–25.
Ertmer, P. A. (1999). Addressing first- and second-order barriers to
change: Strategies for technology integration. Educational
Technology Research and Development, 47(4), 47–61.
Fuglseth, A. M., & Sørebø, Ø. (2014). The effects of technostress
within the context of employee use of ICT. Computers in Human
Behavior, 40(40), 161–170.
Graham, C. R., Borup, J., & Smith, N. B. (2012). Using TPACK as a
framework to understand teacher candidates’ technology inte-
gration decisions. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 28(6),
530–546.
Graham, R., Burgoyne, N., Cantrell, P., Smith, L., St Clair, L., &
Harris, R. (2009). Measuring the TPACK confidence of inservice
science teachers. TechTrends, 53(5), 70–79.
Hennessy, S., Ruthven, K., & Brindley, S. (2005). Teacher perspec-
tives on integrating ICT into subject teaching: Commitment,
constraints, caution, and change. Journal of Curriculum Studies,
37(2), 155–192.
Hew, K. F., & Brush, T. (2007). Integrating technology into K-12
teaching and learning: Current knowledge gaps and recommen-
dations for future research. Educational Technology Research
and Development, 55(3), 223–252.
Hwang, I., & Cha, O. (2018). Examining technostress creators and
role stress as potential threats to employees’ information security
compliance. Computers in Human Behavior, 81, 282–293.
Inan, F. A., & Lowther, D. L. (2010). Factors affecting technology
integration in K-12 classrooms: A path model. Educational
Technology Research and Development, 58(2), 137–154.
Jena, R. (2015). Technostress in ICT enabled collaborative learning
environment: An empirical study among Indian academician.
Computers in Human Behavior, 51, 1116–1123.
Joo, Y. J., Lim, K. Y., & Kim, N. H. (2016). The effects of secondary
teachers’ technostress on the intention to use technology in
South Korea. Computers & Education, 95, 114–122.
Kim, M. C., & Hannafin, M. J. (2011). Scaffolding problem solving in
technology-enhanced learning environments (TELEs): Bridging
research and theory with practice. Computers & Education, 56
(2), 403–417.
Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2005). What happens when teachers
design educational technology? The development of technolog-
ical pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Educational
Computing Research, 32(2), 131–152.
Koh, J. H. L., Chai, C. S., & Lim, W. Y. (2017). Teacher professional
development for TPACK-21CL: Effects on teacher ICT integra-
tion and student outcomes. Journal of Educational Computing
Research, 55(2), 172–196.
Koo, C., & Wati, Y. (2011). What factors do really influence the level
of technostress in organizations? An empirical study. Interna-
tional Journal on Information, 14(11), 339–348.
Krishnan, S. (2017). Personality and espoused cultural differences in
technostress creators. Computers in Human Behavior, 66, 154–
167.
Lam, S. F., Cheng, W. Y., & Choy, H. C. (2010). School support and
teacher motivation to implement project-based learning. Learn-
ing & Instruction, 20(6), 487–497.
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping.
New York: Springer.
Liang, J. C., Chai, C., Koh, J., Yang, C. J., & Tsai, C. C. (2013).
Surveying in-service preschool teachers’ technological
Exploring the Structural Relationship Among Teachers’ Technostress, Technological…
pedagogical content knowledge. Australasian Journal of Educa-
tional Technology, 29(4), 586.
López-Vargas, O., Duarte-Suárez, L., & Ibáñez-Ibáñez, J. (2017).
Teacher’s computer self-efficacy and its relationship with
cognitive style and TPACK. Improving Schools, 20(3), 264–277.
Loyd, B. H., & Loyd, D. E. (1985). The reliability and validity of an
instrument for the assessment of computer attitudes. Educational
and Psychological Measurement, 45(4), 903–908.
Maier, C., Laumer, S., Weinert, C., & Weitzel, T. (2015). The effects
of technostress and switching stress on discontinued use of social
networking services: A study of Facebook use. Information
Systems Journal, 25(3), 275–308.
Meristo, M., & Eisenschmidt, E. (2014). Novice teachers’ perceptions
of school climate and self-efficacy. International Journal of
Educational Research, 67, 1–10.
Munyengabe, S., Yiyi, Z., Haiyan, H., & Hitimana, S. (2017). Primary
teachers’ perceptions on ICT integration for enhancing teaching
and learning through the implementation of One Laptop Per
Child program in primary schools of Rwanda. Eurasia Journal of
Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 13(11), 7193–
7204.
Murphy, C. A., Coover, D., & Owen, S. V. (1989). Development and
validation of the computer self-efficacy scale. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 49(4), 893–899.
Pamuk, S., & Peker, D. (2009). Turkish pre-service science and
mathematics teachers’ computer related self-efficacies, attitudes,
and the relationship between these variables. Computers &
Education, 53(2), 454–461.
Paul, N., & Glassman, M. (2017). Relationship between internet self-
efficacy and internet anxiety: A nuanced approach to under-
standing the connection. Australasian Journal of Educational
Technology, 33(4), 147–165.
Pineida, F. O. (2011). Competencies for the 21st century: Integrating
ICT to life, school and economical development. Procedia-
Social and Behavioral Sciences, 28, 54–57.
Porter, W. W., & Graham, C. R. (2016). Institutional drivers and
barriers to faculty adoption of blended learning in higher
education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 47(4),
748–762.
Ragu-Nathan, T. S., Tarafdar, M., Ragu-Nathan, B. S., & Tu, Q.
(2008). The consequences of technostress for end users in
organizations: Conceptual development and empirical valida-
tion. Information Systems Research, 19(4), 417–433.
Revilla Muñoz, O., Alpiste Penalba, F., Fernández Sánchez, J., &
Santos, O. C. (2017). Reducing techno-anxiety in high school
teachers by improving their ICT problem-solving skills. Be-
haviour & Information Technology, 36(3), 255–268.
Sabzian, F., & Gilakjani, A. P. (2013). Teachers’ attitudes about
computer technology training, professional development, inte-
gration, experience, anxiety, and literacy in English language
teaching and learning. International Journal of Applied Science
and Technology, 3(1), 67–75.
Şahin, Y. L., & Çoklar, A. N. (2009). Social networking users’ views
on technology and the determination of technostress levels.
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1(1), 1437–1442.
Salanova, M., Llorens, S., & Cifre, E. (2013). The dark side of
technologies: Technostress among users of information and
communication technologies. International Journal of Psychol-
ogy, 48(3), 422–436.
Sang, G., Tondeur, J., Chai, C. S., & Dong, Y. (2016). Validation and
profile of Chinese pre-service teachers’ technological pedagog-
ical content knowledge scale. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher
Education, 44(1), 49–65.
View publication stats
157
Schmidt, D. A., Baran, E., Thompson, A. D., Mishra, P., Koehler, M.
J., & Shin, T. S. (2009). Technological pedagogical content
knowledge (TPACK) the development and validation of an
assessment instrument for preservice teachers. Journal of
Research on Technology in Education, 42(2), 123–149.
Schumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (2016). A beginner’s guide to
structural equation modeling (4th ed.). New York: Routledge.
Semiz, K., & Ince, M. L. (2012). Pre-service physical education
teachers’ technological pedagogical content knowledge, tech-
nology integration self-efficacy and instructional technology
outcome expectations. Australasian Journal of Educational
Technology, 28(7), 1248–1265.
Shu, Q., Tu, Q., & Wang, K. (2011). The impact of computer self-
efficacy and technology dependence on computer-related tech-
nostress: A social cognitive theory perspective. International
Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 27(10), 923–939.
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in
teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.
Smith, C. S., & Hung, L. C. (2017). Using problem-based learning to
increase computer self-efficacy in Taiwanese students. Interac-
tive Learning Environments, 25(3), 329–342.
Suh, A., Suh, A., Lee, J., & Lee, J. (2017). Understanding
teleworkers’ technostress and its influence on job satisfaction.
Internet Research, 27(1), 140–159.
Tarafdar, M., Pullins, E. B., & Ragunathan, T. S. (2014). Examining
impacts of technostress on the professional salesperson’s
behavioural performance. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales
Management, 34(1), 51–69.
Tarafdar, M., Tu, Q., & Ragu-Nathan, T. (2010). Impact of
technostress on end-user satisfaction and performance. Journal
of Management Information Systems, 27(3), 303–334.
Tarus, J. K., Gichoya, D., & Muumbo, A. (2015). Challenges of
implementing e-learning in Kenya: A case of Kenyan public
universities. The International Review of Research in Open and
Distributed Learning, 16(1), 120–141.
Vandeyar, T. (2015). Policy intermediaries and the reform of
e-Education in South Africa. British Journal of Educational
Technology, 46(2), 344–359.
Voet, M., & De Wever, B. (2017). Towards a differentiated and
domain-specific view of educational technology: An exploratory
study of history teachers’ technology use. British Journal of
Educational Technology, 48(6), 1402–1413.
Weber, D. M., & Kauffman, R. J. (2011). What drives global ICT
adoption? Analysis and research directions. Electronic Com-
merce Research and Applications, 10(6), 683–701.
Wind, S. A., Jami, P. Y., & Mansouri, B. (2018). Exploring the
psychometric properties of the empathy quotient for Farsi
speakers. Current Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-
018-9938.
Xie, K., Min, K. K., Cheng, S. L., & Luthy, N. C. (2017). Teacher
professional development through digital content evaluation.
Educational Technology Research and Development, 65(4), 1–
37.
Yeşilyurt, E., Ulaş, A. H., & Akan, D. (2016). Teacher self-efficacy,
academic self-efficacy, and computer self-efficacy as predictors
of attitude toward applying computer-supported education.
Computers in Human Behavior, 64, 591–601.
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affiliations.
123