Despite a steady supply of equipment and continuous training, teachers' use of computers for instruction seems to be limited. Whether the problem is due to teachers' ability or usage of computers for instruction is not well understood. In order to better understand the role of ability and usage in technology integration, teachers' proficiency of technology integration was evaluated by separate ability and usage scales. Based on performance indicators from the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE), two scales were developed that measured teachers' self-perceived ability and their frequency of usage of technology integration. The survey was administered to grade 1–9 teachers in Taiwan (n = 3729). The results showed a positive correlation between teachers' technology integration ability and usage (Pearson r = .56). Further examination using Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) confirmed the structure of the scales and revealed a higher correlation between the two scales after adjusting for measurement error.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AndersonS. E., & ManingerR. M. (2007). Preservice teacher's abilities, beliefs, and intentions regarding technology integration. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 37(2), 151–172.
2.
AngeliC., & ValanidesN. (2009). Epistemological and methodological issues for the conceptualization, development, and assessment of ICT-TPCK: Advances in technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK), Computers & Education, 52(1), 154–168.
3.
AnscombeF. J. (1973). Graphs in statistical analysis. American Statistician, 27, 17–21.
4.
BanduraA. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191–215.
5.
BaylorA. L., & RitchieD. (2002). What factors facilitate teacher skill, teacher morale, and perceived student learning in technology-using classroom?Computers & Education, 39(4), 395–414.
BichelmeyerB., & MolendaM. (2006). Issues and trends in instructional technology: Gradual growth atop tectonic shifts. In OreyM.McClendonV. J., & BranchR. M. (Eds.), Educational media and technology yearbook, 31 (pp. 3–32). Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited.
8.
xBunzU.CurryC., & VoonW. (2007). Perceived versus actual computer-email-web fluency. Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 2321–2344.
9.
CompeauD. R., & HigginsC. A. (1995). Computer self-efficacy: Development of a measure and initial test. MIS Quarterly, 19(2), 189–211.
10.
CubanL.KirkpatrickH., & PeckC. (2001). High access and low use of technologies in high school classrooms: Explaining an apparent paradox. American Educational Research Journal, 38, 813–834.
11.
CulpK. M.HoneyM., & MandinachE. (2003). A retrospective on twenty years of education technology policy. Office of Educational Technology. Retrieved September 9, 2010, from http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/tech/20years.pdf
12.
DunningD.JohnsonK.EhrlingerJ., & KrugerJ. (2003). Why people fail to recognize their own incompetence. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12(3), 83–87.
13.
HennessyS.RuthvenK., & BrindleyS. (2005). Teacher perspectives on integrating ICT into subject teaching: Commitment, constraints, caution, and change. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 37(2), 155–192.
14.
HermansR.TondeurJ.van BraakJ., & ValckeM. (2008). The impact of primary school teachers' educational beliefs on the classroom use of computers. Computers & Education, 51, 1499–1509.
15.
HsuS.KuanP. Y., & YangC. H. (2008). Teachers' perspectives on technology richness—Digital divides in county and different economic development areas. In YuanH. M.LiaoY. H.HuangH. Y.ChungT. M. & ChenS. L. (Eds.), Proceeding of National Computer Symposium (NCS 2007) (pp. 656–663). Taichung, Taiwan: Asia University.
16.
HsuS. (2010). Developing a scale for teacher integration of information and communication technology in Grades 1–9. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(3), 175–189.
LevinT., & WadmanyR. (2008). Teachers' views on factors affecting effective integration of information technology in the classroom: Developmental scenery. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 16(2), 233–263.
20.
MoerschC. (1999). Assessing current technology use in the classroom: A key to efficient staff development and technology planning. Learning and Leading with Technology, 26(8), 40–49.
21.
MuellerJ.WoodE.WilloughbyT.RossC., & SpechtJ. (2008). Identifying discriminating variables between teachers who fully integrate computers and teachers with limited integration. Computers & Education, 51, 1523–1537.
22.
MumtazS. (2000). Factors affecting teachers' use of information and communications technology: A review of the literature. Journal of Information Technology for Teacher Education, 9(3), 319–341.
23.
SeberG. A. F., & LeeA. J. (2003). Linear regression analysis.Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Interscience.
24.
ShapkaJ. D., & FerrariM. (2003). Computer-related attitudes and actions of teacher candidates. Computer in Human Behavior, 19, 319–334.
25.
ShiueY. M. (2007). Investigating the sources of teachers' instructional technology use through the decomposed theory of planned behavior. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 36(4), 425–453.
26.
SmarkolaC. (2008). Efficacy of a planned behavior model: Beliefs that contribute to computer usage intentions of student teachers and experienced teachers. Computers in Human Behavior, 24, 1196–1215.
27.
YangS. C., & HuangY. F. (2008). A study of high school English teachers' behavior, concerns and beliefs in integrating information technology into English instruction. Computers in Human Behavior, 24, 1085–1103.
