Workplace Predictors of Family Educators' Technology Acceptance Attitudes

• Published date: 01 December 2021
• Author: Susan K. Walker,Sun‐Kyung Lee,Seonghee Hong
• Date: 01 December 2021
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/fare.12583

S K. W, S-K L,  S HUniversity of Minnesota

Workplace Predictors of Family Educators’

Technology Acceptance Attitudes

Objective: The purpose of the study was to

examine workplace conditions as inuences on

professional parentand family educator technol-

ogy acceptance attitudes and to describe their

technology use.

Background: The rise of new media and infor-

mation and communications technologies (ICT)

has signicantly affected the eld of parenting

and family education in the rst part of the 21st

century.

Methods: On the basis of responses from a

national sample to an online survey (N=631

participants), information search and com-

munications technologies (e.g., email) were

employed most frequently; social media, texting,

and online learning platforms were used infre-

quently. Structural equation modeling tested a

hypothesized model of inuences based on a

modied technology acceptance model (TAM,

Davis, 1989).

Results: Technology attitudes were related

directly to perceived ease of use and perceived

usefulness of technology. Workplace encourage-

ment and workplace infrastructure indirectly

inuenced acceptance attitudes as mediated

by perceived usefulness and perceived ease of

use, respectively. Workplace encouragement

also showed a small but direct inuence on

technology acceptance.

Department of Family Social Science, University of Min-

nesota, 290 McNeal Hall, 1985 Buford Av., St Paul, MN

55108 (skwalker@umn.edu).

Key Words: family education, parenting education, technol-

ogy acceptance, technology attitudes, workplace conditions.

Implications: Adequate technology resources,

supports, training, and working in a culture

that values technology use offer tangible ways

to promote competence and comfort in technol-

ogy adoption by parenting and family educators,

thus helping the profession address necessary

and changing needs of families.

The use of the Internet has never been as preva-

lent in education as during the events of the

spring 2020, when social distancing caused

by the COVID-19 virus meant the need for

instruction delivery with virtual means creating

dilemmas for families (Horowitz, 2020) and

for parenting and early childhood educators

(Walker et al., 2020) alike. The sudden shift to

online delivery raised questions about educator

readiness to deploy new media (Castelo, 2020).

Although technology integration research

with educators in formal learning settings is

widespread, less well known are the technol-

ogy integration support needs of educators

in nonformal settings, including family life

educators.

Family life education offers instruction and

enrichment opportunities beyond the reach of

required or degree-based education, often in

home, community, or organizational settings

(Darling et al., 2020). This can include school

district community education, recreational

education, Extension classes, group and home

visits, evidence-based parenting education,

and peer-led discussion groups. Family life

education and specialized foci, such as par-

enting education, can affect positive change

1626Family Relations 70 (December 2021): 1626–1642

DOI:10.1111/fare.12583

Technology Attitudes and Use1627

in knowledge, condence, and skill that not

only benet the individual but indirectly affect

other family members’ well-being (e.g., Letarte

et al., 2010; Sandler et al., 2011). Yet because

the contexts, institutional structures, audiences,

and qualications of professionals involved in

family education vary widely compared with

their education counterparts in formal education

(Schroeder Measurement Technologies, 2014;

Walker, 2019), their technology integration,

support, and preparation needs are not well

understood (Diem et al., 2011).

There is need, therefore, for research on

technology adoption by nonformal educators

in family life education and specialized focus

areas of family education while building on

accepted conceptual frameworks that guide

practice. Further, studies are needed that use

analytical techniques that take us beyond the

descriptive to more concrete results on which

to base our actions for support. The aim of the

present study is to examine the technology atti-

tudes and practices of family life educators and

other professionals who identify as educators in

parent and family education, and to assess the

inuence of a key factor on their perspectives on

technology integration: workplace conditions.

The workplace is a common inuence for all

family educators and previous research has

suggested that its level of support on technology

assistance and training can affect parenting

educators’ comfort (Walker & Hong, 2017).

The current study explores technology use in a

large, national, and diverse sample of parent and

family education professionals and investigates

the role that workplace conditions has in their

technology acceptance.

P  F L E

 T I

Family life education is key component to

an “investment portfolio” of programmatic

resources to support family life. The Family

Strengthening Policy Center of the National

Human Services Assembly (2007) identied

education to families on parenting and fam-

ily topics as a strategy along with stronger

community environments for families (e.g.,

improving employment and health care) and

building child and family assets. Unlike family

services or family therapy, family life education

focuses on promoting skills and knowledge and

empowering individual change. Darling and

colleagues (2020) conveyed family life edu-

cation’s preventive emphasis, which builds on

strengths of the individual (rather than viewing

family members as decient and in need of

correction), emphasizes cultural differences and

developmental nature (change over time), and

views the family as an open system that is inu-

enced by ecological forces. The service model

of family life education covers up to seven con-

tent areas (e.g., human growth and development,

human sexuality, parenting education, family

resource management), practice inclusive of

family life education methodology, and the fam-

ily lifespan and ecological context. International

attention to family life education is increasingly

popular, with new professional development

programs developing in universities worldwide

(Taylor & Robila, 2018).

A study of Certied Family Life Educators

by the National Council on Family Relations

(Schroeder Measurement Technologies, 2014)

revealed the profession’s diversity. Along

with variations by gender, age, and years of

experience, family life educators also vary by

workplace, with 55% working at nonprot orga-

nizations, 31% for government agencies, and

the remainder in private industry. Workplace

locations included urban/metro areas (46%), and

a fairly even split between suburban and rural

areas. Sixteen categories of practice settings

were identied, along with 42 categories of prac-

tice areas including university education, Coop-

erative Extension, counseling/therapy, early

childhood education, and relationship education.

Evidence of technology integration in family

life education has primarily focused on prepa-

ration or evaluation of programs. For example,

Hughes and colleagues (2012) offered guid-

ance for the translation of family education

programs for online adoption. The dominant

research on parenting education technology inte-

gration examines the value of evidence-based

models adopted for the Internet compared with

traditional face-to-face delivery (e.g., Breiten-

stein et al., 2014; Hall & Beirman, 2015; Nieuw-

bower et al., 2013). Although this work advances

our understanding of technology as a mechanism

for content delivery and participant satisfaction

or learning outcome success, only minimally

does this research recognize the comfort or tech-

nology competence needs of professionals who

practice family education. In the section that fol-

lows, research on parenting and family life edu-

cator technology use and factors that inuence