Professional Self-Efficacy Scale for Information and Computer Technology Teachers: Validity and Reliability Study

References

• Ashley M 1989. Ideologies and Schooling in South Africa. Rondebosch: SATA.
   Google Scholar
• Aesaert K, Vanderlinde R, Tondeur, J, van Braak J 2013. The content of educational technology curricula: A cross-curricular state of the art. Educational Technology Research and Development, 61: 131-151.
   Google Scholar
• Albright JJ, Park HM 2009. Confirmatory Factor Analysis Using Amos, LISREL, Mplus, SAS/STAT CAMS. Indiana University, Indiana/USA: Information Technology Service Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Armfield SWJ 2010. Planning, designing, Implementing and evaluating technology. In: Rosemary Papa (Ed.): Technology Leadership for School Improvement. Thousand Oaks, CA/USA: Sage Publications, pp. 109-128.
   Google Scholar
• Bandura A 1986. Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Banoglu K 2011. School principals’ technology Leadership competency and technology coordinatorship. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 11 (1): 199–213.
   Google Scholar
• Brinkerhoff J 2006. Effects of a longduration, Professional development academy on technology skills, computer self-efficacy, and technology integration beliefs and practices. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 39: 24–33.
   Google Scholar
• Compeau DR, Higgins CA 1995. Computer self-Efficacy: Development of a measure and initial test. MIS Quarterly, 19: 189–211.
   Google Scholar
• Connelly FM, Clandinin DJ, He MF 1997. Teachers personal practical knowledge on the professional knowledge landscape. Teaching and Teacher Education, 13: 665–674.
   Google Scholar
• Dagiene V 2003. Focus on the Pedagogical Dimension in ICT Literacy for Teachers. In: A McDougall, JS Murnane, C Stacey, C Dowling, (Eds.): Proc. ICT and the Teacher of the Future - Selected Papers from the International Federation for Information Processing Working Groups 3.1 and 3.3 Working Conference, Melbourne, Australia. CRPIT, 23. ACS. pp. 27-29D
   Google Scholar
• Danner RB, Pessu COA 2013. A survey of ICT competencies among students in teacher preparation Programmes athe the University of Benin, Benin City, Nigeria. Journal of Information Technology Education, 12: 33–49.
   Google Scholar
• Devolder A, Vanderlinde R, van Braak J, Tondeur J 2010. Identifying multiple roles of ICT coordinators. computers and Education, 55: 1651–1655.
   Google Scholar
• Eurydice.org 2004. Key Data on Information and Communication Technology in Schools in Europe. From http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/education/eurydice/Documents/keydataseries/048EN.pdf (Retrieved November 12, 2009)
   Google Scholar
• Frazier M, Bailey GD 2004. The Technology Coordinator’s Handbook. Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education.
   Google Scholar
• Gillaspy JA 1996. A Premier on Confirmatory Factor Analysis. Austin, ED: 395 040.
   Google Scholar
• Gorsuch, RL 1983. Factor Analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
   Google Scholar
• Hair JFJ, Anderson RE, Tatham R, Black WC 2010. Multivariate Data Analysis. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Hulland J 1999. Use of partial least squares in strategic management research: A review of four recent Studies. Strategic Management Journal, 20: 195–204.
   Google Scholar
• International Society for Technology in Education [ISTE] 2008. National Educational Technology Standards for Teachers. 2nd Edition. Washington DC.: ISTE.
   Google Scholar
• Keskinkilic FE 2010. Ilkogretim Bilisim Teknolojileri Oaretmenlerinin Yeterliklerinin Okul Mudurlerinin Goruslerine Gore Degerlendirilmesi [Review of Primary School ICT Teachers’ Proficiency in terms of Principals’ Views]. Uluslararasi Ogretmen Yetistirme Politikalari ve Sorunlari Sempozyumu Bildiri Kitabi. From http://www.egitim.hacettepe.edu.tr/belge/uoypss2bildirikitabi.pdf (Retrieved on 25 August 2010).
   Google Scholar
• Kline RB 2011. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. NY: The Guilford Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lai KW, Pratt K 2004. Information and Communication technology (ICT) in secondary schools: The role of the computer coordinator. British Journal of Educational Technology, 35 (4): 461–475.
   Google Scholar
• Lesisko LJ 2005. The K-12 technology coordinators. The Annual Meeting of the Eastern Educational Research, ED: 490035.
   Google Scholar
• Tavsancil E 2002. Tutumlarin Olculmesi ye SPSS ile Veri Analizi. Ankara: Nobel Yayincilik.
   Google Scholar
• Turkish Ministry of National Education [MEB] 1993. Milli Egitim Bakanligina Bagli Orgun ve Yaygin Egitim Kurumlarinda Bilgisayar Labaratuarlarinin Kurulmasi ve Isletilmesi ile Bilgisayar ve Bilgisayar Koordinator Oaretmenlerinin Gorevleri Hakkindaki Yonerge [Instruction on Building and Running ICT Classrooms in Formal and Informal Education Organizations Connected with Turkish Ministry of National Education and the Tasks of ICT Coordinators] 2378 Sayili Teblialer Dergisi. Ankara: Author. From kahta.meb.gov.tr/ 2378 sayili teblig.pdf (Retrieved on 25 May 2010).
   Google Scholar
• Ministère de l’Education 2001. Teacher Training : Orientations, Professional Competencies. Québec: Ministère. From http://www.mels.gouv.qc.ca/dftps/inter-ieur/pdf/formationensa.pdf (Retrieved on 7 August 2011).
   Google Scholar
• Papa R 2010. Technology leadership standards for the next generation. In: Rosemary Papa (Ed.): Technology Leadership for School Improvement. Thousand Oaks, CA/USA : Sage Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Lee JY, Podsakoff NP 2003. Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88 (5): 879–903.
   Google Scholar
• Prain V, Hand B 2003. Using new technologies for Learning: A case study of a whole school approach. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 35 (4): 441–458.
   Google Scholar
• Queensland Departmant of Education 1999. Minimum Standards for Teachers Learning Technology. Queensland/Australia: Queensland Publishing Service.
   Google Scholar
• Ross JA, Hogaboam-Gray A, Hannay L 2001. Effect of teacher efficacy on computer skills and computer cognitions of Canadian students in grades 3-K. The Elemantary School Journal, 102 (2): 141–156.
   Google Scholar
• Sam HK, Othman AEA, Nordin ZS 2005. Computer self-efficacy, computer anxiety, and attitudes toward the Internet: A study among undergraduates in Unimas. Educational Technology and Society, 8: 205–219.
   Google Scholar
• Schumacker RE, Lomax, RG 2004. A Beginner’s Guide to Structural Equation Modeling. Lawrance Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Scott T, Cole M, Engel M 1992. Computers and Education: A cultural constructivist perspective. Review of Research in Education, 18: 191–251.
   Google Scholar
• Settlage J, Odom AL, Pedersen JE 2004. Uses of Technology by Science Education Professors: Comparisons With Teachers: Uses and the Current Versus Desired Technology Knowledge Gap. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 4 (3). From http://www.citejournal.org/vol4/iss3/science/article2.cfm (Retrieved on 12 January 2011).
   Google Scholar
• Streiner DL 1994. Figuring out factors: The use and misuse of factor analysis. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 39: 135–140.
   Google Scholar
• Strudler NB 1995. The Role of School-Based Technology Coordinators as Change Agents in Elementary School Programs: A Follow-up Study. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA, 1995. Sumer N 2000. Yapisal esitlik modelleri: Temel Kavramlar ve ornek uygulamalar [Structural equation Modelling: Basic concepts and sample applications]. Turk Psikoloji Yazilari, 3 (6): 74–79.
   Google Scholar
• Teo T, Chai CS, Hung D, Lee CB 2008. Beliefs about teaching and uses of technology among preservice teachers. Asia Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 36 (2): 165–176.
   Google Scholar
• Ullman JB 2001. Structural equation modeling. In: BG Tabachnick, LS Fidell (Eds.): Using Multivariate Statistics. Needhem Heights, MA: Ally and Bacon.
   Google Scholar
• UNESCO 2011. UNESCO ICT Competency Framework for Teachers. Paris: United Nations Educational Press. Worthington RL, Whittaker TA 2006. Scale Development research: A content analysis and recommendation for best practices. The Counseling Psychologist, 34 (6): 806–838.
   Google Scholar
• Vanderlinde R, Van Braak J, Dexter S 2012. ICT policy planning in a context of curriculum reform: Disentanglements of ICT policy domains and artifacts. Computers and Education, 58: 1139–1350.
   Google Scholar
• Vossler KR 2006. Preparing Teachers as Professional Educators: A New Conception for Preservice Teacher Education. PhD Thesis, Unpublished. New Zealand: Massey University.
   Google Scholar
• Ashley M 1989. Ideologies and Schooling in South Africa. Rondebosch: SATA.
   Google Scholar
• Aesaert K, Vanderlinde R, Tondeur, J, van Braak J 2013. The content of educational technology curricula: A cross-curricular state of the art. Educational Technology Research and Development, 61: 131-151.
   Google Scholar
• Albright JJ, Park HM 2009. Confirmatory Factor Analysis Using Amos, LISREL, Mplus, SAS/STAT CAMS. Indiana University, Indiana/USA: Information Technology Service Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Armfield SWJ 2010. Planning, designing, Implementing and evaluating technology. In: Rosemary Papa (Ed.): Technology Leadership for School Improvement. Thousand Oaks, CA/USA: Sage Publications, pp. 109-128.
   Google Scholar
• Bandura A 1986. Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Banoglu K 2011. School principals’ technology Leadership competency and technology coordinatorship. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 11 (1): 199–213.
   Google Scholar
• Brinkerhoff J 2006. Effects of a longduration, Professional development academy on technology skills, computer self-efficacy, and technology integration beliefs and practices. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 39: 24–33.
   Google Scholar
• Compeau DR, Higgins CA 1995. Computer self-Efficacy: Development of a measure and initial test. MIS Quarterly, 19: 189–211.
   Google Scholar
• Connelly FM, Clandinin DJ, He MF 1997. Teachers personal practical knowledge on the professional knowledge landscape. Teaching and Teacher Education, 13: 665–674.
   Google Scholar
• Dagiene V 2003. Focus on the Pedagogical Dimension in ICT Literacy for Teachers. In: A McDougall, JS Murnane, C Stacey, C Dowling, (Eds.): Proc. ICT and the Teacher of the Future - Selected Papers from the International Federation for Information Processing Working Groups 3.1 and 3.3 Working Conference, Melbourne, Australia. CRPIT, 23. ACS. pp. 27-29.
   Google Scholar
• Danner RB, Pessu COA 2013. A survey of ICT competencies among students in teacher preparation Programmes athe the University of Benin, Benin City, Nigeria. Journal of Information Technology Education, 12: 33–49.
   Google Scholar
• Devolder A, Vanderlinde R, van Braak J, Tondeur J 2010. Identifying multiple roles of ICT coordinators. computers and Education, 55: 1651–1655.
   Google Scholar
• Eurydice.org 2004. Key Data on Information and Communication Technology in Schools in Europe. From http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/education/eurydice/Documents/keydataseries/048EN.pdf (Retrieved November 12, 2009)
   Google Scholar
• Frazier M, Bailey GD 2004. The Technology Coordinator’s Handbook. Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education.
   Google Scholar
• Gillaspy JA 1996. A Premier on Confirmatory Factor Analysis. Austin, ED: 395 040.
   Google Scholar
• Gorsuch, RL 1983. Factor Analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
   Google Scholar
• Hair JFJ, Anderson RE, Tatham R, Black WC 2010. Multivariate Data Analysis. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Hulland J 1999. Use of partial least squares in strategic management research: A review of four recent Studies. Strategic Management Journal, 20: 195-204.
   Google Scholar
• International Society for Technology in Education [ISTE] 2008. National Educational Technology Standards for Teachers. 2nd Edition. Washington DC.: ISTE.
   Google Scholar
• Keskinkilic FE 2010. Ilkogretim Bilisim Teknolojileri Oaretmenlerinin Yeterliklerinin Okul Mudurlerinin Goruslerine Gore Degerlendirilmesi [Review of Primary School ICT Teachers’ Proficiency in terms of Principals’ Views]. Uluslararasi Ogretmen Yetistirme Politikalari ve Sorunlari Sempozyumu Bildiri Kitabi. From http://www.egitim.hacettepe.edu.tr/belge/uoypss2bildirikitabi.pdf (Retrieved on 25 August 2010).
   Google Scholar
• Kline RB 2011. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. NY: The Guilford Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lai KW, Pratt K 2004. Information and Communication technology (ICT) in secondary schools: The role of the computer coordinator. British Journal of Educational Technology, 35 (4): 461–475.
   Google Scholar
• Lesisko LJ 2005. The K-12 technology coordinators. The Annual Meeting of the Eastern Educational Research, ED: 490035.
   Google Scholar
• Tavsancil E 2002. Tutumlarin Olculmesi ye SPSS ile Veri Analizi. Ankara: Nobel Yayincilik.
   Google Scholar
• Turkish Ministry of National Education [MEB] 1993. Milli Egitim Bakanligina Bagli Orgun ve Yaygin Egitim Kurumlarinda Bilgisayar Labaratuarlarinin Kurulmasi ve Isletilmesi ile Bilgisayar ve Bilgisayar Koordinator Oaretmenlerinin Gorevleri Hakkindaki Yonerge [Instruction on Building and Running ICT Classrooms in Formal and Informal Education Organizations Connected with Turkish Ministry of National Education and the Tasks of ICT Coordinators] 2378 Sayili Teblialer Dergisi. Ankara: Author. From http://kahta.meb.gov.tr/2378sayiliteblig.pdf (Retrieved on 25 May 2010).
   Google Scholar
• Ministère de l’Education 2001. Teacher Training : Orientations, Professional Competencies. Québec: Ministère. From http://www.mels.gouv.qc.ca/dftps/inter-ieur/pdf/formationensa.pdf (Retrieved on 7 August 2011).
   Google Scholar
• Papa R 2010. Technology leadership standards for the next generation. In: Rosemary Papa (Ed.): Technology Leadership for School Improvement. Thousand Oaks, CA/USA : Sage Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Lee JY, Podsakoff NP 2003. Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88 (5): 879–903.
   Google Scholar
• Prain V, Hand B 2003. Using new technologies for Learning: A case study of a whole school approach. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 35 (4): 441–458.
   Google Scholar
• Queensland Departmant of Education 1999. Minimum Standards for Teachers Learning Technology. Queensland/Australia: Queensland Publishing Service.
   Google Scholar
• Ross JA, Hogaboam-Gray A, Hannay L 2001. Effect of teacher efficacy on computer skills and computer cognitions of Canadian students in grades 3-K. The Elemantary School Journal, 102 (2): 141–156.
   Google Scholar
• Sam HK, Othman AEA, Nordin ZS 2005. Computer self-efficacy, computer anxiety, and attitudes toward the Internet: A study among undergraduates in Unimas. Educational Technology and Society, 8: 205–219.
   Google Scholar
• Schumacker RE, Lomax, RG 2004. A Beginner’s Guide to Structural Equation Modeling. Lawrance Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Scott T, Cole M, Engel M 1992. Computers and Education: A cultural constructivist perspective. Review of Research in Education, 18: 191–251.
   Google Scholar
• Settlage J, Odom AL, Pedersen JE 2004. Uses of Technology by Science Education Professors: Comparisons With Teachers: Uses and the Current Versus Desired Technology Knowledge Gap. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 4 (3). From http://www.citejournal.org/vol4/iss3/science/article2.cfm (Retrieved on 12 January 2011).
   Google Scholar
• Streiner DL 1994. Figuring out factors: The use and misuse of factor analysis. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 39: 135–140.
   Google Scholar
• Strudler NB 1995. The Role of School-Based Technology Coordinators as Change Agents in Elementary School Programs: A Follow-up Study. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA, 1995. Sumer N 2000. Yapisal esitlik modelleri: Temel Kavramlar ve ornek uygulamalar [Structural equation Modelling: Basic concepts and sample applications]. Turk Psikoloji Yazilari, 3 (6): 74–79.
   Google Scholar
• Teo T, Chai CS, Hung D, Lee CB 2008. Beliefs about teaching and uses of technology among preservice teachers. Asia Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 36 (2): 165–176.
   Google Scholar
• Ullman JB 2001. Structural equation modeling. In: BG Tabachnick, LS Fidell (Eds.): Using Multivariate Statistics. Needhem Heights, MA: Ally and Bacon. UNESCO 2011. UNESCO ICT Competency Framework for Teachers. Paris: United Nations Educational Press. Worthington RL, Whittaker TA 2006. Scale Development research: A content analysis and recommendation for best practices. The Counseling Psychologist, 34 (6): 806–838.
   Google Scholar
• Vanderlinde R, Van Braak J, Dexter S 2012. ICT policy planning in a context of curriculum reform: Disentanglements of ICT policy domains and artifacts. Computers and Education, 58: 1139–1350.
   Google Scholar
• Vossler KR 2006. Preparing Teachers as Professional Educators: A New Conception for Preservice Teacher Education. PhD Thesis, Unpublished. New Zealand: Massey University.
   Google Scholar
• Ashley M 1989. Ideologies and Schooling in South Africa. Rondebosch: SATA.
   Google Scholar
• Aesaert K, Vanderlinde R, Tondeur, J, van Braak J 2013. The content of educational technology curricula: A cross-curricular state of the art. Educational Technology Research and Development, 61: 131-151.
   Google Scholar
• Albright JJ, Park HM 2009. Confirmatory Factor Analysis Using Amos, LISREL, Mplus, SAS/STAT CAMS. Indiana University, Indiana/USA: Information Technology Service Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Armfield SWJ 2010. Planning, designing, Implementing and evaluating technology. In: Rosemary Papa (Ed.): Technology Leadership for School Improvement. Thousand Oaks, CA/USA: Sage Publications, pp. 109-128.
   Google Scholar
• Bandura A 1986. Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Banoglu K 2011. School principals’ technology Leadership competency and technology coordinatorship. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 11 (1): 199–213.
   Google Scholar
• Brinkerhoff J 2006. Effects of a longduration, Professional development academy on technology skills, computer self-efficacy, and technology integration beliefs and practices. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 39: 24–33.
   Google Scholar
• Compeau DR, Higgins CA 1995. Computer self-Efficacy: Development of a measure and initial test. MIS Quarterly, 19: 189–211.
   Google Scholar
• Connelly FM, Clandinin DJ, He MF 1997. Teachers personal practical knowledge on the professional knowledge landscape. Teaching and Teacher Education, 13: 665–674.
   Google Scholar
• Dagiene V 2003. Focus on the Pedagogical Dimension in ICT Literacy for Teachers. In: A McDougall, JS
   Google Scholar
• Murnane, C Stacey, C Dowling, (Eds.): Proc. ICT and the Teacher of the Future - Selected Papers from the International Federation for Information Processing Working Groups 3.1 and 3.3 Working Conference, Melbourne, Australia. CRPIT, 23. ACS. pp. 27-29.
   Google Scholar
• Danner RB, Pessu COA 2013. A survey of ICT competencies among students in teacher preparation Programmes athe the University of Benin, Benin City, Nigeria. Journal of Information Technology Education, 12: 33-49.
   Google Scholar
• Devolder A, Vanderlinde R, van Braak J, Tondeur J 2010. Identifying multiple roles of ICT coordinators. computers and Education, 55: 1651–1655.
   Google Scholar
• Eurydice.org 2004. Key Data on Information and Communication Technology in Schools in Europe. From http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/education/eurydice/Documents/keydataseries/048EN.pdf (Retrieved November 12, 2009)
   Google Scholar
• Frazier M, Bailey GD 2004. The Technology Coordinator’s Handbook. Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education.
   Google Scholar
• Gillaspy JA 1996. A Premier on Confirmatory Factor Analysis. Austin, ED: 395 040.
   Google Scholar
• Gorsuch, RL 1983. Factor Analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
   Google Scholar
• Hair JFJ, Anderson RE, Tatham R, Black WC 2010. Multivariate Data Analysis. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Hulland J 1999. Use of partial least squares in strategic management research: A review of four recent Studies. Strategic Management Journal, 20: 195-204. International Society for Technology in Education [ISTE] 2008. National Educational Technology Standards for Teachers. 2nd Edition. Washington DC.: ISTE.
   Google Scholar
• Keskinkilic FE 2010. Ilkogretim Bilisim Teknolojileri Oaretmenlerinin Yeterliklerinin Okul Mudurlerinin Goruslerine Gore Degerlendirilmesi [Review of Primary School ICT Teachers’ Proficiency in terms of Principals’ Views]. Uluslararasi Ogretmen Yetistirme Politikalari ve Sorunlari Sempozyumu Bildiri Kitabi. From http://www.egitim.hacettepe.edu.tr/belge/uoypss2bildirikitabi.pdf (Retrieved on 25 August 2010).
   Google Scholar
• Kline RB 2011. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. NY: The Guilford Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lai KW, Pratt K 2004. Information and Communication technology (ICT) in secondary schools: The role of the computer coordinator. British Journal of Educational Technology, 35 (4): 461–475.
   Google Scholar
• Lesisko LJ 2005. The K-12 technology coordinators. The Annual Meeting of the Eastern Educational Research, ED: 490035.
   Google Scholar
• Tavsancil E 2002. Tutumlarin Olculmesi ye SPSS ile Veri Analizi. Ankara: Nobel Yayincilik.
   Google Scholar
• Turkish Ministry of National Education [MEB] 1993. Milli Egitim Bakanligina Bagli Orgun ve Yaygin Egitim Kurumlarinda Bilgisayar Labaratuarlarinin Kurulmasi ve Isletilmesi ile Bilgisayar ve Bilgisayar Koordinator Oaretmenlerinin Gorevleri Hakkindaki Yonerge [Instruction on Building and Running ICT Classrooms in Formal and Informal Education Organizations Connected with Turkish Ministry of National Education and the Tasks of ICT Coordinators] 2378 Sayili Teblialer Dergisi. Ankara: Author. From http://kahta.meb.gov.tr/2378sayiliteblig.pdf (Retrieved on 25 May 2010).
   Google Scholar
• Ministère de l’Education 2001. Teacher Training : Orientations, Professional Competencies. Québec: Ministère. From http://www.mels.gouv.qc.ca/dftps/inter-ieur/pdf/formationensa.pdf (Retrieved on 7 August 2011).
   Google Scholar
• Papa R 2010. Technology leadership standards for the next generation. In: Rosemary Papa (Ed.): Technology Leadership for School Improvement. Thousand Oaks, CA/USA : Sage Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Lee JY, Podsakoff NP 2003. Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88 (5): 879–903.
   Google Scholar
• Prain V, Hand B 2003. Using new technologies for Learning: A case study of a whole school approach. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 35 (4): 441–458.
   Google Scholar
• Queensland Departmant of Education 1999. Minimum Standards for Teachers Learning Technology. Queensland/Australia: Queensland Publishing Service.
   Google Scholar
• Ross JA, Hogaboam-Gray A, Hannay L 2001. Effect of teacher efficacy on computer skills and computer cognitions of Canadian students in grades 3-K. The Elemantary School Journal, 102 (2): 141–156.
   Google Scholar
• Sam HK, Othman AEA, Nordin ZS 2005. Computer self-efficacy, computer anxiety, and attitudes toward the Internet: A study among undergraduates in Unimas. Educational Technology and Society, 8: 205–219.
   Google Scholar
• Schumacker RE, Lomax, RG 2004. A Beginner’s Guide to Structural Equation Modeling. Lawrance Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Scott T, Cole M, Engel M 1992. Computers and Education: A cultural constructivist perspective. Review of Research in Education, 18: 191–251.
   Google Scholar
• Settlage J, Odom AL, Pedersen JE 2004. Uses of Technology by Science Education Professors: Comparisons With Teachers: Uses and the Current Versus Desired Technology Knowledge Gap. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 4 (3). From http://www.citejournal.org/vol4/iss3/science/article2.cfm (Retrieved on 12 January 2011).
   Google Scholar
• Streiner DL 1994. Figuring out factors: The use and misuse of factor analysis. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 39: 135–140.
   Google Scholar
• Strudler NB 1995. The Role of School-Based Technology Coordinators as Change Agents in Elementary School Programs: A Follow-up Study. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA, 1995. Sumer N 2000. Yapisal esitlik modelleri: Temel Kavramlar ve ornek uygulamalar [Structural equation Modelling: Basic concepts and sample applications]. Turk Psikoloji Yazilari, 3 (6): 74–79.
   Google Scholar
• Teo T, Chai CS, Hung D, Lee CB 2008. Beliefs about teaching and uses of technology among preservice teachers. Asia Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 36 (2): 165–176.
   Google Scholar
• Ullman JB 2001. Structural equation modeling. In: BG Tabachnick, LS Fidell (Eds.): Using Multivariate Statistics. Needhem Heights, MA: Ally and Bacon.
   Google Scholar
• UNESCO 2011. UNESCO ICT Competency Framework for Teachers. Paris: United Nations Educational Press. Worthington RL, Whittaker TA 2006. Scale Development research: A content analysis and recommendation for best practices. The Counseling Psychologist, 34 (6): 806–838.
   Google Scholar
• Vanderlinde R, Van Braak J, Dexter S 2012. ICT policy planning in a context of curriculum reform: Disentanglements of ICT policy domains and artifacts. Computers and Education, 58: 1139–1350.
   Google Scholar
• Vossler KR 2006. Preparing Teachers as Professional Educators: A New Conception for Preservice Teacher Education. PhD Thesis, Unpublished. New Zealand: Massey University.
   Google Scholar