Examining the Relationships Between UTAUT Constructs and Elementary ESL Teachers’ Behavioural Intention to Integrate Technology in Malaysian Public Schools

Authors

Nur Amanina Mohd Noor

Faculty of Languages and Communication, Sultan Zainal Abidin University (Malaysia)

Nurshafawati Ahmad Sani

Sultan Zainal Abidin University (Malaysia)

Article Information

DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS.2026.100500587

Subject Category: Education

Volume/Issue: 10/5 | Page No: 8721-8730

Publication Timeline

Submitted: 2026-05-10

Accepted: 2026-05-16

Published: 2026-06-08

Abstract

This study examines the relationships between performance expectancy, effort expectancy, social influence, and facilitating conditions, and elementary English as a Second Language (ESL) teachers’ behavioural intention to integrate technology in instructional practices. In the context of increasing emphasis on digital education in Malaysia, understanding teachers’ acceptance of technology is critical for effective implementation. Guided by the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT), a quantitative descriptive correlational design was employed. Data were collected using a structured questionnaire from 162 elementary ESL teachers in public primary schools in the Kuala Terengganu district, Malaysia. The data were analysed using descriptive statistics, Pearson correlation analysis, and multiple linear regression. The findings indicate that all four UTAUT constructs are significantly and positively related to teachers’ behavioural intention to use technology. Social influence demonstrated the strongest correlation, followed by performance expectancy, effort expectancy, and facilitating conditions. Regression analysis further shows that all four constructs significantly predict behavioural intention, with performance expectancy contributing the most, followed by effort expectancy, social influence, and facilitating conditions. The model explains a moderate proportion of variance in behavioural intention. These findings support the relevance of the UTAUT framework in understanding technology-related behavioural intention among elementary ESL teachers in Malaysian public primary schools. The study highlights the importance of perceived usefulness, ease of use, and social and institutional support in shaping teachers’ intention to integrate technology. The results provide empirical insights for policymakers and educators to strengthen technology integration initiatives, particularly through targeted professional development, improved infrastructure, and sustained institutional support to enhance digital teaching practices.

Keywords

UTAUT, technology integration, behavioural intention

Downloads

References

1. Al-Maashani, S., & Mudhsh, B. A. (2023). Educational and Instructional Technology in EFL/ESL Classrooms: A Literature Review. International Journal of Language and Literary Studies, 5(2), 292–304. https://doi.org/10.36892/IJLLS.V5I2.1347 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Godwin-Jones, R. (2021). Evolving technologies for language learning. Language Learning & Technology, 25(3), 6–26. http://hdl.handle.net/10125/73443 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Hemawati. (2025). Integrating Technology to Enhance Teaching and Learning: A Mixed-Methods study. International Journal of Scientific Research in Science and Technology, 12(5), 274–278. https://doi.org/10.32628/IJSRST25125131 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Lai, C. (2019). Learning beliefs and autonomous language learning with technology beyond the classroom. Language Awareness, 28(4), 291–309. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2019.1675679 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Mailizar, M., Almanthari, A., & Maulina, S. (2021). Examining teachers’ behavioral intention to use e-learning in teaching of mathematics: An extended tam model. Contemporary Educational Technology, 13(2), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.30935/CEDTECH/9709 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Ministry of Education Malaysia. (2013). Malaysia Education Blueprint 2013-2025. In Preschool to Post-Secondary Education. www.moe.gov.my [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Ministry of Education Malaysia. (2023). Digital Education Policy (Dasar Pendidikan Digital). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Mosa, C. P. (2022). The Influence of Technology on English Language Communication: Implications for Language Education. International Journal of Advanced Research in Science, Communication and Technology (IJARSCT, 2(2). https://doi.org/10.48175/IJARSCT-6596 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. OECD. (2021). Education at a Glance 2021: OECD Indicators. Education at a Glance, Education at a Glance, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1787/B35A14E5-EN [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. OECD. (2023). Shaping Digital Education: Enabling Factors for Quality, Equity and Efficiency. In Shaping Digital Education. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/BAC4DC9F-EN [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. OECD. (2021). OECD Digital Education Outlook 2021: Pushing the Frontiers with Artificial Intelligence, Blockchain and Robots. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/589b283f-en [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Pakirdinova Abdumutalijonovna, S., & Mohinur Rasul kizi, M. (2025). The Impact of Digital Technology on Students’ Language Proficiency. International Journal of Science and Technology, 2(06), 83–85. https://doi.org/10.70728/TECH.V2.I06.030 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Parasar, A., & Bhatt, A. (2025). Social Media Platforms for Collaborative Learning and Knowledge Sharing. Transforming Outcome-Based Education with Social Media Strategies and AI-Driven Digital Marketing for Personalized Learning and Institutional Growth, 119–148. https://doi.org/10.71443/9789349552685-05 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Pongen, L. (2024). Exploring The Integration of Digital Communication Tools in Language Education: A Comprehensive Review. ShodhGyan-NU: Journal of Literature and Culture Studies, 2(2). https://doi.org/10.29121/shodhgyan.v2.i2.2024.20 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Scherer, R., Siddiq, F., & Tondeur, J. (2019). The technology acceptance model (TAM): A meta-analytic structural equation modeling approach to explaining teachers’ adoption of digital technology in education. Computers and Education, 128, 13–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.09.009 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Scherer, R., Siddiq, F., & Tondeur, J. (2020). All the same or different? Revisiting measures of teachers’ technology acceptance. Computers & Education, 143, 103656. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.COMPEDU.2019.103656 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Shadiev, R., & Wang, X. (2022). A Review of Research on Technology-Supported Language Learning and 21st Century Skills. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 897689. https://doi.org/10.3389/FPSYG.2022.897689/TEXT [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Sulindra, E., Cendra, A. N., & Hartani, T. (2024). Utilization of Instructional Technology in English Language Teaching (ELT) based on Constructivism: A Literature Review. English Education and Literature Journal (E-Jou) Utilization of Instructional Technology in English Language Teaching (ELT) Based on Constructivism: A Literature Review, 4, 141–153. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Tze Pheng, K., Hashim, H., & Ainil Sulaiman, N. (2021). The Use of Technology in Teaching of Writing Among Malaysian ESL Secondary School Teachers. Arab World English Journal, 7(1), 314–330. https://doi.org/10.24093/awej/call7.22 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. UNESCO. (2023). Global Education Monitoring Report 2023: Technology in education: A tool on whose terms? In Global Education Monitoring Report 2023: Technology in education: A tool on whose terms? GEM Report UNESCO. https://doi.org/10.54676/UZQV8501 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly: Management Information Systems, 27(3), 425–478. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Yunus, M. M., Ang, W. S., & Hashim, H. (2021). Factors Affecting Teaching English as a Second Language (TESL) Postgraduate Students’ Behavioural Intention for Online Learning during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Sustainability, 13(6). https://doi.org/10.3390/SU13063524 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

Metrics

Views & Downloads

Similar Articles