Students’ attitudes toward technology: exploring the relationship among affective, cognitive and behavioral components of the attitude construct
Abstract
When studying attitudes toward technology education, the affective attitudinal component has primarily been the focus. This study focuses on how the affective, cognitive and behavioral attitudinal components of technology education can be incorporated using a two-step survey: the traditional PATT-questionnaire (PATT-SQSE) and the recently developed Mitcham Score questionnaire. The aim of this study is to explore the relationship among the cognitive, affective and potential behavioural components of students’ attitudes toward technology in a Swedish context, using the PATT-SQ-SE instrument including the Mitcham score open items. Results of the analyses show that relationships among the attitudinal components are observable. The results also imply that relationships among the attitudinal components are different for girls than boys. A key factor for the participating students’ attitudinal relations was interest (affective component) in technology education. An individual interest in technology education was related to both the cognitive component and behavioral intention. Another key relationship, for girls, was that the cognitive component had a strong relationship with behavioral intention, which was not the case for boys. Based on the observed relations between the cognitive, affective and behavioural components we have identified two key implications for educational practice: Girls should learn a broader conception of technology in technology education, if we want them to pursue technology-related careers to a higher degree; Students’ interest in technology should be stimulated through engaging tasks in technology education.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
The four-phase model of interest development
Hidi, S., & Renninger, K. A. (2006) · Educational Psychologist · doi:10.1207/s15326985ep4102_4 · Cited by 4,702 · see citing works
Answering the Call for a Standard Reliability Measure for Coding Data
Hayes, A. F., & Krippendorff, K. (2007) · Communication Methods and Measures · doi:10.1080/19312450709336664 · Cited by 4,225 · see citing works
Reliability in content analysis: some common misconceptions and recommendations.
Krippendorff, K. (2004) · Human Communication Research · doi:10.1093/hcr/30.3.411 · Cited by 1,027 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Students’ attitudes towards using ChatGPT as a learning tool: the case of the University of Jordan.
O. Ajlouni, A., Abd-Alkareem Wahba, F., & Salem Almahaireh, A. (2023) · International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies (iJIM) · doi:10.3991/ijim.v17i18.41753 · Cited by 116 · see citing works
- Authors
- Svenningsson, J., Höst, G., Hultén, M., & Hallström, J.
- Venue
- International Journal of Technology and Design Education
- Published
- 2021-02-13
- Volume
- 32
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 1531-1551
- ISSN
- 0957-7572
- 1573-1804
- Cited by
- 125
- References
- 3
- Language
- en
- Funders
- Linköping University
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review