<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><xml><records><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Kateřina Chroustová</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Andrej Šorgo</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Martin Bílek</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Martin Rusek</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">DIFFERENCES IN CHEMISTRY TEACHERS’ ACCEPTANCE OF EDUCATIONAL SOFTWARE ACCORDING TO THEIR USER TYPE: AN APPLICATION OF EXTENDED UTAUT MODEL</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Journal of Baltic Science Education</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">chemistry teachers’ motivation</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">educational software use</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">secondary education</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">technology acceptance</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2022</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">October/2022</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">https://oaji.net/articles/2022/987-1667236618.pdf</style></url></web-urls></urls><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">21</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Continuous</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">In this research, a model to determine chemistry teachers’ acceptance of educational software in secondary education is proposed. The model extends the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT) model. Data were collected from 556 Czech chemistry teachers and analysed using structural equation modelling. With respect to the significant differences among technology users and various types of nonusers, the research model for each user group was tested too. The results showed significant differences in the individual models for each group of technology user. In the model for ‘current users’ of educational software, the influence of facilitating conditions on current users’ use of educational software behavioural intention is stressed. In addition, non-planning users’ behavioural intention seems to be influenced by their personal innovativeness in IT, social influence, and performance expectancy. Behavioural intention and attitude towards using educational software affect each of the tested models, with attitudes being an even stronger predictor of educational software usage than behavioural intention. The models contribute to the understanding of teachers’ acceptance of educational software, which can be utilized in both pre- and in-service teacher training, considering technology mastery a necessary teacher competence.</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">5</style></issue><work-type><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Original article</style></work-type><section><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">762-787</style></section></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Kateřina Chroustová</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Martin Bílek</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Andrej Šorgo</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">VALIDATION OF THEORETICAL CONSTRUCTS TOWARD SUITABILITY OF EDUCATIONAL SOFTWARE FOR CHEMISTRY EDUCATION: DIFFERENCES BETWEEN USERS AND NONUSERS</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Journal of Baltic Science Education</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">chemistry education</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">education software</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">technology acceptance</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2017</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">December/2017</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://oaji.net/articles/2017/987-1513970871.pdf</style></url></web-urls></urls><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">16</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Continuous</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">The aim of this research was to empirically validate constructs for evaluation of teachers' attitudes toward usage of educational software in chemistry teaching. Questionnaire with items transformed from UTAUT (Unified theory of acceptance and use of technology) and other technology acceptance theories were filled in by 556 Czech chemistry teachers. All constructs passed recommended .7 thresholds of Cronbach’s alpha so they can be used in acceptability researches before and after introduction of educational software or building models. However, analyses of effect sizes show that there are not only differences between users and all nonusers generally, but also prove differences between various types of nonusers. Nonusers were established as a) those who had used educational software and abandoned it; b) those who do not use educational software, but are planning to use it in the future, and c) those who do not use educational software and have no intentions to use it. An unexpected finding reveals that differences among subgroups of nonusers can be even larger than between users and nonusers, especially the group c) is an outstanding group. Consequently, factors and their influence on the acceptance and use of educational software in chemistry teaching should be explored for each group separately.</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">6</style></issue><work-type><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Original article</style></work-type><section><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">873-897</style></section></record></records></xml>