The COVID-19 pandemic has necessitated the integration of digital technologies into teachers’ practice as most teaching moved online. However, an interrogation of the resource and capability needs for teaching in the dynamic technological environment remains missing. Therefore, the study sought to determine the resource and capability needs for teaching in a dynamic and technological online environment. The study was critical because learner context differs, thereby limiting the applicability of existing knowledge. In addition, existing knowledge remains inconclusive on the influence of various capabilities on teaching in dynamic technological environments. It was, therefore, crucial to provide empirical evidence from the Zimbabwean context. The study adopted a cross-sectional approach to data collection using a structured questionnaire. The population comprised teachers from selected schools in Harare. Due to the COVID-19 restrictions, the sample was conveniently chosen. A structural equation model was conducted using WarpPLS 7.0. The results show that technological capability (TechCap), technological experience (TechExp), and technological access (TechAcc) significantly influence teaching in technological environments (β = 0.41, p < .01; β = 0.31, p < .05 and β = 0.27, p < .01) respectively. Technological will (TechWill) was found not to significantly influence teaching (β = −0.05, p > .05). The study recommended the enhancement of teachers’ technological capability, experience and access. Further, the study made policy recommendations for pre-service and in-service training, capacity and infrastructure development programmes, and technology-integrated teaching and learning framework design.
AgyeiDDVoogtJM (2011) Exploring the potential of the will, skill, tool model in Ghana: predicting prospective and practising teachers' use of technology. Computers and Education56: 91–100. DOI: 10.1016/j.compedu.2010.08.017.
2.
AjzenI (1991) The theory of planned behaviour. Organizational behaviour and human decision processes50(2): 179–211. DOI: 10.1016/0749-5978(91).90020-t.
3.
AjzenI (2005) EBOOK:Attitudes, Personality and Behaviour, UK: McGraw-Hill education.
4.
AkinwandeMODikkoHGSamsonA (2015) Variance Inflation Factor: as a condition for the inclusion of a suppressor variable(s) in regression analysis. Open Journal of Statistics5: 754–767. DOI: 10.4236/ojs.2015.57075.
5.
ArchambaultlMBarnettJH (2010) Revisiting technological pedagogical content knowledge: exploring the TPACK framework. Computers and Education55: 1656–1662. DOI: 10.1016/j.compedu.2010.07.009.
6.
BackfischILachnerAHischeC, et al. (2020) Professional knowledge or motivation? Investigating the role of teachers’ expertise on the quality of technology-enhanced lesson plans. Learning and Instruction66: 1–13. DOI: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2019.101300.
7.
BackfischILachnerAStürmerK, et al. (2021) Variability of teachers’ technology integration in the classroom: a matter of utility! Computers and Education166: 104159. DOI: 10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104159.
8.
BarneyJBHesterlyWS (2015) Strategic Management and Competitive Advantage. Concepts and Cases. 5th Edition. Edingburgh Gate Harlow: Pearson.
9.
BataneTNgwakoA (2017) Technology use by pre-service teachers during teaching practice: are new teachers embracing technology right away in their first teaching experience?Australasian Journal of Educational Technology33(1). DOI: 10.14742/ajet.2299.
10.
BrownJP (2015) Complexities of digital technology use and the teaching and learning of function. Computers and Education87: 112–122. DOI: 10.1016/j.compedu.2015.03.022.
11.
CareEGriffinPWislonM (2018) Assessment and Teaching of 21st Century Skills. Research and Applications. Sl. Springer.
12.
ChinakidzwaMPhiriM (2020a) Impact of digital marketing capabilities on market performance of small to medium entreprise agro-processors in Harare, Zimbabwe. Business: Theory and Practice21(2): 746–757. DOI: 10.3846/btp.2020.12149.
13.
ChinakidzwaMPhiriM (2020b) Market orientation and market sensing capabilities in a digital world: relationships and impact on market performance. The Retail and Marketing Review16(3): 1–17. Available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10520/ejc-irmr1-v16-n3-a2.
14.
ChristensenRKnezekG (2001) Instruments for assessing the impact of technology in education. Computers in the Schools18(2-3): 5–25. DOI: 10.1300/j025v18n02_02.
15.
ChristensenRKnezekG (2002) Impact of new information technologies on teachers and students. Networking the Learner: Computers in education: 169–178. DOI: 10.1007/978-0-387-35596-2_17.
16.
ChristensenRKnezekG (2006) Pathway for preparing tomorrow's teachers to infuse technology. Computers in the Schools23(3-4): 1–21. DOI: 10.1300/J025v23n03_01.
17.
DrakeSMReidJL (2018) Integrated curriculum as an effective way to teach 21st Century capabilities. Asia Pacific Journal of Educational Research1(1): 31–50. DOI: 10.30777/APJER.2018.1.1.03.
18.
DrentMMeelissenM (2008) Which factors obstruct or stimulate teacher educators to use ICT innovatively?Computers and Education51(1): 187–199. DOI: 10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104360.
19.
DrosselKEickelmannBGerickJ (2017) Predictors of teachers’ use of ICT in school–the relevance of school characteristics, teachers’ attitudes and teacher collaboration. Education and Information Technologies22: 551–573. DOI: 10.1007/s10639-016-9476-y.
20.
FalloonG (2020) From digital literacy to digital competence: the teacher digital competency (TDC) framework. Education Technology Research Development68: 2449–2472. DOI: 10.1007/s11423-020-09767-4.
21.
FarjonDSmitsAVoogtJ (2019) Technology integration for pre-service teachers explained by attitudes and beliefs, competency, access and experience. Computers and Education130: 81–93. DOI: 10.1016/j.compedu.2018.11.010.
22.
FornellCLarckerDF (1981) Sructural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: algebra and statistics. Journal of Marketing Research18: 382–388. DOI: 10.1177/002224378101800313.
23.
GellerstedtMBabaheidariSMSvenssonL (2018) A first step towards a model for teachers' adoption of ICT pedagogy in schools. Heliyon4. DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2018.e00786.
24.
HairJFRisherJJSarstedtM, et al. (2019) When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. European Business Review31(1): 2–24. DOI: 10.1108/EBR-11-2018-0203.
25.
HasseC (2017) Technological literacy for teachers. Oxford Review of Education43(3): 365–378. DOI: 10.1080/03054985.2017.1305057.
26.
HatosACosmaMLClipaO (2022) Self-assessed digital competences of Romanian teachers during the COVID-19 pandemic. Frontiers in Psychology. 13: 810359. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.810359.
27.
IfinedoEKankaanrantaM (2021) Understanding the influence of context in technology integration from teacher educators’ perspective. Technology, Pedagogy and Education30(2): 201–215. DOI: 10.1080/1475939X.2020.1867231.
28.
LachnerABackfischISturmerK (2019) A test-based approach of modeling and measuring technological pedagogical knowledge. Computers and Education142. DOI: 10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103645.
29.
MarshallGCoxMJ (2008) Research methods: Their design, applicability and reliability. International handbook of information technology in primary and secondary education983–1002. DOI: 10.1007/978-0-387-73315-9_62.
30.
MishraPKoehlerMJ (2006) Technological pedagogical content knowledge: a framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record108(6): 1017–1054. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x.
31.
MoralesCKnezekGChristensenR (2008) Self-efficacy ratings of technology proficiency among teachers in Mexico and Texas. Computers in the Schools25(1-2). DOI: 10.1080/07380560802158004.
32.
NelsonMJVoithoferRChengSL (2019) Mediating factors that influence the technology integration practices of teacher educators. Computers and Education128: 330–344. DOI: 10.1016/j.compedu.2018.09.023.
33.
NunnallyJBernsteinI (1994) Psychometric Theory. 3rd Edition. New York: McGraw-Hill.
34.
OkeAFernandesFA (2020) Innovations in teaching and learning: exploring the perceptions of the education sector on the 4th industrial revolution (4IR). Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market and Complexity6(31). DOI: 10.3390/joitmc6020031.
35.
Oster-LevinzAAvivaA (2010) Online tasks as a tool to promote teachers’ expertise within the Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK). Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences2(2): 354–358. DOI: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.03.024.
36.
PelgrumWJAndersonRE (1999) ICT and the Emerging Paradigm for Life-Long Learning. Amsterdam: IEA Publishers.
37.
RyutaTKobayashiKTakanoY, et al. (2019) Mixed integer quadratic optimization formulations for eliminating multicollinearity based on variance inflation factor. Journal of Global Optimisation73(2): 431–446. DOI: 10.1007/s10898-018-0713-3.
38.
SasotaRSCristobalRRSarioIS, et al. (2021) Will–skill–tool (WST) model of technology integration in teaching science and mathematics in the Philippines. Journal of Computers in Education8(3):443–464. DOI: 10.1007/s40692-021-00185-w.
39.
SchererRTondeurJSiddiqF, et al. (2018) The importance of attitudes towards technology for pre-service teachers' technologocal, pedagogical, and content knowledge: comparing structural equation modelling approaches. Computers in Human Behaviour80: 67–80. DOI: 10.1016/j.chb.2017.11.003.
40.
StarkeyL (2020) A review of research exploring teacher preparation for the digital age. Cambridge Journal of Education50(1): 37–56. DOI: 10.1080/0305764X.2019.1625867.
41.
TondeurJvan BraakJSiddiqF, et al. (2016) Time for a new approach to prepare future teachers for educational technology use: its meaning and measurement. Computers and Education94: 134–150. DOI: 10.1016/j.compedu.2015.11.009.
42.
TondeurJSchererRSiddiqF, et al. (2017) A comprehensive investigation of TPACK within pre-service teachers’ ICT profiles: mind the gap! Australasian Journal of Educational Technology33(3): 46–60. DOI: 10.14742/ajet.3504.
43.
UnderwoodPR (2012) Teacher beliefs and intentions regarding the instruction of English grammar under national curriculum reforms: a Theory of Planned Behaviour perspective. Teaching and Teacher Education28: 911–925. DOI: 10.1016/j.tate.2012.04.004.
44.
United Nations (2019) Sustainable development goal 4: ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning for all.Available at: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/sdg4 (Accessed 15 April 2020).
45.
WuDZhouCLiangX, et al. (2022) Integrating technology into teaching: factors influencing rural teachers’ innovative behavior. Education and Information Technologies1–24. DOI: 10.1007/s10639-021-10815-6.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
