Technology use in the classroom has been a tool for impactful teaching and ... some teachers is the negative aspects of technology use and not the good side. ..... personal messages, and uses multiple platforms (e.g., Facebook, Instagram, ...... interested respondents, and the trained assistant scheduled a reasonable time ...
NIGERIA SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHERS’ DEMOGRAPHICS, PERCEPTION, AND LEVEL OF TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION: A CORRELATIONAL STUDY by Abayomi Ayodeji Adedokun
A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy
Keiser University December, 2016
ProQuest Number: 10253517
All rights reserved
INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
ProQuest 10253517 Published by ProQuest LLC (2017 ). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author.
All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.
ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346
NIGERIA SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHERS’ DEMOGRAPHICS, PERCEPTION, AND LEVEL OF TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION: A CORRELATIONAL STUDY
© Abayomi Ayodeji Adedokun, 2016
NIGERIA SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHERS’ DEMOGRAPHICS, PERCEPTION, AND LEVEL OF TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION: A CORRELATIONAL STUDY
by Abayomi Ayodeji Adedokun December, 2016
APPROVED: ANDREA THOMPSON, Ph.D., Faculty Mentor and Chair NANCY MALDONADO, Ph.D., Committee Member THERESA ROUSE, Ph.D., Committee Member
ACCEPTED AND SIGNED:
Kelly Gatewood, Ph.D. Program Chair
John Jones, Ph.D. Vice Chancellor of Academic Affairs
Abstract Technology usage in educational setting has gained ground in African countries, especially in Nigeria. Although technology resources in education are financed by the Nigerian government, the teachers required to use and implement such technology are not always accepting of technology use. The purpose of this quantitative correlational research was to examine any if there was a relationship between teachers’ perceptions of technology integration, level of technology integration, teachers’ age, educational level, grade level taught, years of experience, and content areas taught. The theoretical framework of the study was Bem’s self-perception theory. Participants included 374 teachers from the Oyo State teaching service commission (TESCOM) drafted from two zonal offices in the Ibadan metropolis. Participants completed the Teacher Technology Integration Survey (TTIS) which was adapted from the Technology Integration Survey (TIS). Data analyses included both descriptive and correlational Spearman’s rank. The results indicated there is a positive relationship in teachers’ gender, grade level taught, years of experience, or content areas taught and technology integration. A moderate positive linear relationship was found between technology integration between teachers aged 30 and below and 50 and above; whereas there was a weak positive linear relationship between teachers of age 30 and below and 31–40. A statistically weak negative relationship was found in levels of education; between a doctoral degree and Nigerian certificate of education (NCE), and also between a doctorate and bachelor’s and master’s. Recommendations include increased technology orientation and training for teachers.
Dedication This work is dedicated to the owner of heaven and the earth, the creator and maker of humankind: God Almighty. He gave me the strength to start and to complete this program, to Him alone be the glory. I would also dedicate this dissertation to my wife Mobolaji; my daughters Blessing and Iyanuoluwa; and the baby boy Oluwadamilare. Their support cannot be quantified. They all showed me love, cried with me, laughed with me, read my papers, and endured my nagging, yelling, ignoring, and neglecting due to my obsession with my coursework. Mobolaji took charge of our home, feeding the family, and encouraging me when I was thinking of quitting. She spoke sweet words, prayed, and stayed all night with me to make sure all my assignments were done and submitted. I could have not done it without her gentle touch, love, and care. She is a wonderful and special woman for me. Mobolaji, I love you. I would never forget my parents and siblings; Chief David Adeola and Chief Magaret Ademorin Adedokun: Your words of encouragement, love, support, and prayer cannot be overemphasized. My dedication will not be complete if I did not include my siblings: Kunle Adedokun, Dr. Femi Adedokun, and Dr. Fisayo Adedokun. They worked tirelessly during my data collection and data analysis. I would never trade you for anything, but continue loving you. To the one with whom I started this journey together and who left me, my baby sister Abiola, Yetunde, Amope Akinkunmi-Adedokun (Late). I can never forget your prayers, words of comfort, and encouragement. I love you but God loves you most: RIP my only sister.
iii
Acknowledgements I would like to thank numerous people who have influenced me one way or the other in this journey of success. Firstly, I would like to thank Dr. Lynette Molsted Gorder who allowed me to use Technology Integration Survey (TIS). I would like to thank all my friends, my church members, and all other well-wishers. My thanks cannot be completed if I failed to mention the following names: Mrs. Oluyemis Iyanda; Dr. & Pastor (Mrs.) Mike and Nike Adebiyi; Mr. & Mrs. Ogedengbe; Pastor ‘Kemi Oluwakoya; Dr. & Mrs. Charles and Kemi Ogunnoiki; Pastor & Mrs. Daniel and Tobi Ndukwe; Mr. & Mrs. John Ajibewa; Mr. & Mrs. Siyanbade; Mr. & Mrs. Ogunremi; Pastor ‘Segun Folahan; Mr. & Mrs. Bakrin; Minister ‘Bola Salimonu; Mr. Kolawole; Mr. Jide Durowoju; Mr. & Mrs. Segun Olabosipo (Dsenator); Mr Peter Okhawe; Dr. Lanre Idowu; Dr. Rainge; Mrs. Caroline McPhil; and Mr. Russell for their encouragement, support, prayers, and care. I am indebted to my dissertation Chair Dr. Andrea Thompson for her support, influence, encouragement, and words of wisdom. Her guidance and feedback were invaluable to me. The time you dedicated to my work and your prompt response will never be forgotten. Also, I would extend my sincere gratitude to Dr. Nancy Maldonado and Dr. Theresa Rouse for their immeasurable contribution in reading, criticizing, and given prompt feedback. You reached out to me from your wealth of wisdom to make this process a successful one, and I really appreciate you all. What else would I say but to thank Dr Kelly Gatewood for her sincerity and honesty in making me who I am: I say thank you to you, ma’am. To the mother of all, Dr. Sue Adragna for believing in me and accepting me the way I am, you show your loyalty and dedication to bring all your
iv
students to a successful end: I salute your courage and say thank you to you, ma. To all my professors who have imparted me one way or the other during the journey of this program I sincerely thank you all. I cannot but say thank you to my late professors, they have labored and are not there to see more of their product successfully completing their program; Dr. Larry Pace and Dr. Flag, may their souls rest in peace. I am indebted to my editor, Dr. Jeanmarie Pinto for a good work done in reading, correcting, and pointing out valuable and necessary points that will add value to the work. I say thank you to you ma. To all other people that could not be mentioned—friends, classmates, coworkers, family members, and associates—thanks for all you have done, especially for understanding me and working with me to reach this final stage: Thank you all.
v
Table of Contents Acknowledgements
iv
List of Tables
ix
List of Figures
xi
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
1
Introduction to the Problem
1
Background of the Study
5
Statement of the Problem
6
Purpose of the Study
11
Rationale
12
Research Questions
14
Hypotheses
15
Study Objectives
16
Significance of the Study
16
Definition of Terms
18
Assumptions and Limitations
19
Theoretical/Conceptual Framework
20
Organization of the Remainder of the Study
23
CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW
24
Technology Integration
25
Integration
27
Teachers’ Perception of Technology Integration
29
Impact of Technology Integration on Students and Teachers
32
Factors That Influence Technology Integration
34
vi
Teachers’ Perceptions of Technology Integration and Gender Differences
35
Technology Integration Barriers
37
Findings on Teachers’ Technology Integration from Other Countries
39
Advantages of Technology Integration in the Educational Environment
41
Disadvantages of Technology Integration in the Educational Environment
42
The Role of Educational Stakeholders in Technology Integration
44
Summary
45
CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY
47
Research Questions
47
Hypotheses
47
Research Design
49
Sample
52
Setting
54
Instrumentation/Measures
54
Data Collection
57
Research Procedure
58
Data Analysis
60
Validity and Reliability
61
Ethical Considerations
62
Conclusion
64
CHAPTER 4. DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS Presentation and Analysis of Data
65 66
Summary
107
vii
CHAPTER 5. DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS
108
Summary of Purpose
109
Research Discussion
110
Teachers’ Demographic Information
113
Research Questions
115
Supplemental Questions
125
Implications of the Study
126
Recommendations for Further Study
127
Conclusion
129
REFERENCES
131
APPENDIX. TEACHERS TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION SURVEY
144
viii
List of Tables Table 1. Demographic Information of the Respondents
66
Table 2. Teachers’ Perceptions of Technology Integration
68
Table 3. Teachers’ Current Level of Technology Integration in the Classroom
69
Table 4. Differences Between Teachers’ Gender and Their Perceptions of Technology
71
Table 5. Relationship Between Teachers’ Gender and Their Perception of Technology
73
Table 6. Differences Between Teachers’ Gender and Their Technology Integration
74
Table 7. Relationship Between Teachers’ Gender and Their Technology Integration
76
Table 8. Relationship Between Teachers’ Age and Their Perceptions of Technology
78
Table 9. Relationship Between Teachers’ Age and Their Technology Integration
80
Table 10. Relationship Between Years of Teaching Experience and Teachers’ Perceptions of Technology
82
Table 11. Relationship Between Years of Teaching Experience and Teachers’ Technology Integration
84
Table 12. Relationship Between Teachers’ Subject Areas and Their Perceptions of Technology
87
Table 13. Relationship Between Teachers’ Subject Areas and Their Technology Integration
92
Table 14. Relationship Between Classes Taught by Teachers and Their Perceptions of Technology 96 Table 15. Relationship Between Classes Taught by Teachers and Their Technology Integration
97
Table 16. Relationship Between Teachers’ Academic Qualifications and Their Perceptions of Technology
99
Table 17. Relationship Between Teachers’ Academic Qualifications and Their Technology Integration
101
Table 18. Extent of Integrating Technology Support to Student Learning in the Classroom
104
ix
Table 19. Barriers That Impacted Integration of Instructional Technology
106
Table 20. Infrastructures to Support Integration of Technology Into the Classroom
107
x
List of Figures Figure 1. Relationship Between Teachers’ Gender and Their Perception of Technology
73
Figure 2. Relationship Between Teachers’ Gender and Their Technology Integration 77 Figure 3. Relationship Between Teachers’ Age and Their Perception Of Technology 79 Figure 4. Relationship Between Teachers’ Age And Their Technology Integration
81
Figure 5. Relationship Between Years of Teaching Experience and Teachers’ Perceptions of Technology
83
Figure 6. Relationship Between Years of Teaching Experience and Teachers’ Technology Integration
85
Figure 7. Relationship Between Teachers’ Subject Areas (Business or Computer, English or Foreign Language, Fine Arts, Math or Science, Social Science, And Others) and Their Perceptions of Technology. 88 Figure 8. Relationship Between Teachers’ Subject Areas (English or Foreign Language, Math or Science, Social Science, and Others) and Their Perceptions of Technology 88 Figure 9. Relationship Between Teachers’ Subject Areas (Fine Arts, Math or Social Science, and Others) and Their Perceptions of Technology.
89
Figure 10. Relationship Between Teachers’ Subject Areas (Math or Science, Social Sciences, Math, and Others) and Their Perceptions of Technology
89
Figure 11. Relationship Between Teachers’ Subject Areas (Social Science and Others) Their Perceptions of Technology 90 Figure 12. Relationship Between Teachers’ Subject Areas (Business or Computers, English or Foreign Language, Fine Arts, Math or Science, Social Science, and Other) and Their Technology Integration 93 Figure 13. Relationship Between Teachers’ Subject Areas (English or Foreign Language, Math or Science, Social Science, and Others) and Their Technology Integration 93 Figure 14. Relationship Between Teachers’ Subject Areas (English or Foreign, Fine Arts, Math or Science, Social Science, and Others) and Their Technology Integration
94
Figure 15. Relationship Between Teachers’ Subject Areas (Fine Arts, Math or Science, and Others) and Their Technology Integration 94
xi
Figure 16. Relationship Between Teachers’ Subject Areas (Math or Science, Social Science, and Others) and Their Technology Integration
95
Figure 17. Relationship Between Teachers’ Subject Areas (Social Science and Others) and Their Technology Integration 95 Figure 18. Relationship Between Classes Taught by Teachers and Their Perceptions of Technology 96 Figure 19. Relationship Between Classes Taught by Teachers and Their Technology Integration 97 Figure 20. Relationship Between Teachers’ Academic Qualifications (NCE, Bachelor’s Degree, Master’s Degree, and Doctoral Degree) and Their Perceptions of Technology 99 Figure 21. Relationship Between Teachers’ Academic Qualifications (Bachelor’s Degree, Master’s Degree, and Doctoral Degree) and Their Perceptions of Technology.
100
Figure 22. Relationship Between Teachers’ Academic Qualifications (Master’s Degree, and Doctoral Degree) and Their Perceptions of Technology 100 Figure 23. Relationship Between Teachers’ Academic Qualifications (NCE, Bachelor’s Degree, Master’s Degree, Doctorate Degree) and Their Technology Integration 102 Figure 24. Relationship Between Teachers’ Academic Qualifications (Bachelor’s Degree, Master’s Degree, Doctoral Degree) and Their Technology Integration
102
Figure 25. Relationship Between Teachers’ Academic Qualifications (Master’s Degree, Doctoral Degree) and Their Technology Integration 103
xii
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION Introduction to the Problem There are factors that surround technology integration, with the most important one being teacher competency (Holland & Piper, 2014). The ability to modulate and shape instructional technology activities to suit students’ needs is now essential for the teaching–learning process in Oyo State secondary schools. Technology use in school entails more than computer and other hardware or networking; the use of technology has been part of the learning process from the inception of abacus introduction in 3000 BC (U.S. Department of Education, 2010). Zheng and Ferris (2008) referred to technology use in curriculum design, instruction delivery, printed books, or media as a merely innovation, and this does not make it a completely new concept in education and this statement was confirmed by the U.S. Department of Education (2013). Typically, teachers fully understand the content of the subjects they teach, and how to deliver the content is not a problem, but integrating technology is time consuming for many of them in Oyo state schools (Kim, Kim, Lee, Spector, & DeMeester, 2013). Teachers see learning technology as learning alongside the students they are teaching (Holland & Piper, 2014; Shih-Hsiung, Hsien-Chang, & Yu-Ting, 2015). Today, use of technology has become a growing and everyday part of society, and technology integration is now being encouraged in the classroom setting all over the globe (Almekhafi & Almeqdadi, 2010). In addition, technology use has become an important aspect that contributes to the teacher’s success (Almekhafi & Almeqdadi, 2010; U. S. Department of Education, 2010; Schaffhauser, 2015).
1
Technology use in the classroom has been a tool for impactful teaching and learning (Andrew, 2014; Davis, 2011; Zheng & Ferris, 2008). Its existence began in the era of instructional technology and educational technology; today, technology is used and appreciated in all aspects of life (Nikian, Nor, & Aziz, 2013; Zheng & Ferris, 2008). However, the importance of technology in education is accepted worldwide by educational researchers, and that is why a variety of approaches have been developed for technology integration in schools (Almekhafi & Almeqdadi, 2010; Andrew, 2014; Cifuentes, Maxwell, & Sanser, 2011). As many educational boards all over the globe clamor for technology use in their school system, the aspiration for teachers to use and integrate it into teaching–learning process was low in Oyo state, Nigeria (Educational World, 2016; Cifuentes et al., 2011). In some of the advanced nations like the United States, technology use in teaching is not a new concept anymore; it is used daily to advance teaching positively (Kiper & Tercan, 2012). The use of technology calls for the inner desire of the teachers to prepare for its purposeful usage. Equally true, students need to be willing to receive technology as complementary to the teaching (Menard, 2010). According to Nigeria’s policy on education (NPE), all colleges of education are required to offer educational courses which include educational technology because of the uniqueness of technology in education development along with other areas like sciences, vocational and technical education, social sciences and arts, and languages (Federal Republic of Nigeria, 2013; Jekayinfa, n.d.). The governments of different nations have budgeted large sums of money to educational departments for technology integration in all facets of schools (Kiper &
2
Tercan, 2012; Taiwo, 2009). Taiwo (2009) mentioned that the Nigerian government is also contributing to the technology funding in all the states of the federation apart from the budgetary allocation to the states. Despite all the training and empowering of the teachers, a majority of them still face issues of accessing computers and the Internet to teach and demonstrate concepts and subject matters to their student (Galvis, 2012). Using technology in the school setting is not limited to graphing, calculating, and using computer software and other technology paraphernalia alone, but also includes other social aspects that will make learning more meaningful when students participate in it (Mundy, Kupczynski, & Kee, 2012). In today’s technological landscape, social media concepts have been integrated into the teaching learning process (Kelm, 2011). All this is occurring in education so students will learn and gain the skills that will help them later in life (Burns, 2014). In Oyo state in Nigeria, not many of the teachers show interest in selfdevelopment regarding technology use and integration because they misunderstand the integration concept with computer usage (Hsu, 2010). The U. S. Department of Education (n.d.) postulated that technology integration has the power to transform teaching by ushering in a new connected model of teaching. Using technology for integration requires knowledge and skill acquisition, which are not technically embedded in education courses at the college level (Ede & Ariyo, 2015; Oviewe & Ojo, 2010). Although government impact is felt in educational development in Oyo state, Nigeria through the provision of computer training to some selected teachers as facilitators, nothing has been done regarding technology integration and use in the school system (Ede & Ariyo, 2015).
3
Apparently, the time for teachers struggling with choices of instructional materials has ended, and the time of adapting technology into the teaching of concepts has arrived (U. S. Department of Education, n.d.). However, not all teachers have the capacity for using technology in their classes (Moruf, 2015). The only thing seen by some teachers is the negative aspects of technology use and not the good side. This includes teachers from advanced nations where the use of technology has gained ground (Kelm, 2011). The use of technology that enhances teaching and understanding of concepts is now gaining broader interest from stakeholders, and many school districts are now opting for their students to use personal tablets and computers to achieve student learning. Bring your own devices (BYOD) is now a common language used in educational settings that encourage students and staff to use what they have to get what would benefit them. Galvis (2012) postulated that the computer has acquired a decisive role in education and society at large; therefore, incorporating it into subjects taught in school would serve as an added advantage to the educational field. Learning can be better achieved when a tool for interaction exists (Fakeye, 2010; Moruf, 2015). Technology use achievement has not been on the increase because of the perceptions of many educators (Galvis, 2012; Menard, 2010). There are many reasons for this ranging from a phobia, a lack of interest, boredom, laziness, and more. Turel (2012) put forward that the success of technology integration in schools is fully in the hands of the teachers. If the perception about technology use is a negative one, technology integration will not occur.
4
Background of the Study There should be a complete change in the teaching and learning process (Aslan & Reigeluth, 2013; Guevara, 2014). Technology integration must take place in true teaching and in the learning process (Kim et al. 2013). The traditional method of teaching needs to give way to a very formative technological method in which the teacher needs to facilitate student learning (Andrew, 2014; Mundy et al., 2012; Taiwo, 2009). Kelm (2011) stated that great teaching occurs when there is a great inspiration that allows the students to be creative in finding appropriate solutions to questions asked by the teacher. The use of technology helps students to be collaborators and experts in their decision-making (Andrew, 2014; Cifuentes et al., 2011). The success of using technology depends on the teachers’ motives and perceptions (Turel, 2014). Student learning is facilitated when students are challenged (Manard, 2010). Engaging in meaningful learning through technology integration initiates creativity in the student (Kelm, 2011). It is clear that students concentrate on certain items when they have an interest in them (Kelm, 2011). This has been the trend with technology use in the classroom where students were engaged without being distracted (Gorder, 2008, Kelm, 2011). Using social media as an example, the majority of students between the ages of 12–27 are active users of social media (Deasy, 2014; King 2015). This shows that social media technology can be used in classroom settings to advance teaching and learning for achieving academic success and not just for socializing; so also other technologies can be used in fostering positive learning process (Burns, 2014; Kelm, 2011).
5
With the advancement in the use of technology in the real world, it would be critical to implement a strategy that will allow and mandate proper use of technology by teachers’ in school settings especially in Oyo state secondary schools (Gorder, 2008; Cifuentes et al., 2011). Manard (2010) posited that technology use and integration is a complex act in the classroom, and it needs to be gradually incorporated to be successful. Kelm (2011) also mentioned that unregulated and unmonitored technology use in the classroom may lead to abuse which is, by definition, disruptive to the learning environment. That is why teachers’ perceptions of technology integration need to be altered. This positive change is the key to successful integration of technology in the classroom. Statement of the Problem Education is one of the priorities of the Oyo state government in Nigeria like many others; this has caused the government to allocate a huge budget to the Ministry of Education to fulfill its responsibilities. Apart from spending on education, the government makes provision for in-service training and seminars for teachers and administrators to increase and update their knowledge on current trends in teaching and learning (Oliaku, 2015; Pan & Franklin, 2011; Sugar & Tryon, 2014). Despite government efforts to make teaching and learning technology oriented, teachers under the Oyo State Teaching Service Commission are failing to make technology integration a priority in their day-to-day duties. Technology in education, especially in teaching and learning, has become a paramount issue globally (U.S. Department of Education, 2016). In the United States, the government’s expectation in 2016 was to intensify the use of technology in students’
6
daily learning to help students meet future challenges (U.S. Department of Education, 2016). In Oyo state, technology use in teaching and learning seems to be a new concept to both teachers and students because majority of the schools do not have computers (Fakeye, 2010). Despite this, technology is also needed to improve teaching and learning for educational purpose. Cell phone use is highly prohibited for students during school time all because it has not been recognized as an emerging technology that can advance teaching and learning. Teachers use cell phones to make calls and send messages and as a socialization tool using social media applications. Unlike in other advanced countries like the United Kingdom and the United States, where each classroom has a computer and other technology, Oyo State schools lack technology in the classroom (Abdullahi, 2014; Moruf, 2015). Technology can only be accessed in the state library at Ibadan the capital city of Oyo State, but the library has limited technological equipment and space, so it can serve only a limited number of students (Moruf, 2015). Technological advancement occurred slowly in Oyo state, which might have discouraged teachers. Technology integration needs to be a cooperative work between the teacher and the learners (Onyia & Onyia, 2011). No hands-on technology equipment is available for use on a regular basis to enhance students’ creativity and knowledge building (Abdullahi, 2014; Moruf, 2015). Although the Oyo state government is not lacking in funds for state educational advancement, the fact still remains that most of the funding is not directly available to schools for technology procurement (Moruf, 2015). Instead of making this technological equipment available in schools, it was taken to the state library board, where a limited number of schools can make use of it due to proximity. Moreover, those schools nearer
7
to these facilities cannot fully utilize them because of time and an insufficient workforce (Armstrong, 2014). The majority of teachers who can navigate some of the existing technologies do so on their own. Technology integration cannot be effective in an environment where eccentric electricity supply rules. This is just one of the challenges schools face. The majority of the technology needed for teaching and learning requires a power supply (Wright, 2014). Many schools do not even have electricity, and some that do need to pay for their electric bills despite being nonprofit institutions. Technology integration facilitates simulation and making things real to the learner (Aebersold, Tschannen, & Bathish, 2012; Kilmon, Brown, Ghosh, & Mikitiuk, 2010). In situations where the necessary tools are not readily available, the success of such integration will be limited. School should be the place where learners obtain current information and information on how to be creative; this cannot be achieved when needed technology is inaccessible for the purpose it was intended. Students in Oyo state public schools do not receive current information, gain hands-on experience, or engage in discovery related to their subject due to limited resources (Moruf, 2015). They do more bookwork than experiencing facets of their subject in real life (Abdullahi, 2014). The resource person who could offer expert explanations on the content is often not reachable due to distance, whereas this limitation would not arise if technologies such as video calling and online streaming were in place. Although technology integration is not the only criterion for academic success, using technology would facilitate positive learning and the development of creativity (Moruf, 2015). The majority of teachers see technology as their rival and do not like
8
using it in their teaching (Huneycut, 2013; Smythe, 2014; Tahnk, 2014). They prefer book usage, and where books are use as the authority in academics, its forms a generational issue in educational environment, which sometimes may not be true. Proponents recognize only written books by popular and proficient authors as sources of genuine and authentic information (Fakeye, 2010; Kalejaye, Fabunmi, & Adewole, 2011; Moruf, 2015). Many teachers focus on simply lecturing students rather than allowing students to make their own discoveries (Abdullahi, 2014). In the technology age, learners should draw inspiration from teachers to do things themselves. The role of the teacher should be as collaborator, and not the director of the class (Machado & Chung, 2015). Teachers not using technology makes them static in terms of their teaching. Technology use is not for learning alone, but also for teaching (Machado & Chung, 2015; Onyia & Onyia, 2011). Teachers in Oyo state can contend with other teachers globally if they step up their game in technology use, and this will help them to be up to date on the integration of new technology that keeps on coming day by day (Onyia & Onyia, 2011). Many of the teachers’ associations in the state are not focusing on educating teachers to use and integrate technology to enhance their teaching proficiency. However, teachers need government assistance in learning how to use and integrate technology in their teaching. Apart from the Ministry of Education organizing training and seminars and encouraging teachers to return to school, teachers should be sponsored to attend conferences locally and internationally. Doing this will allow teachers to meet with people of the same caliber, which will elevate the interest and enthusiasm they have to face challenges of integrating technology, since other teachers across the globe are using technology in the classroom (Johnson, 2011). Procurement of
9
the technology equipment by the government to facilitate teaching and learning alone can never produce results, but giving adequate training to teachers, mentoring, and forming technology groups will help teachers to develop an interest in using and integrating technology into their daily teaching (Moruf, 2015). Since the issue of technology integration has become problematic in schools under the supervision of the Teaching Service Commission (TESCOM) Oyo state Nigeria, teachers do not see themselves as facilitators and students as collaborators (Kelm, 2011; Martinez & McGrath, 2014). This situation means the failure to encourage creativity in students, which would help students to discover for themselves. Moreover, the teachers who should help in building student knowledge and esteem do not avail themselves of the opportunity to do so (Kelm, 2011). Using technology appears to be time consuming, but it is worth doing to organize resources and create impactful teaching and learning (Ramey, 2013). As the use of technology becomes more widespread, teachers should work as collaborators to integrate technology into curriculum contents (Manard, 2010). Many students use technology, especially social media, in the classroom during instruction time (Deasy, 2014; King, 2015), which serves as a distraction and impediment to learning. The teacher needs to monitor technology use in the classroom (Kelm, 2011). If monitored, technology could be viewed as a constructive element that fosters creativity in students. If the teacher denies the use of this catalyst to creativity, students may lose their potential to be creative and never regain it. The Jostens Learning Corporation (1997) conducted a nationwide survey that revealed that the computer was the main technology in schools. Although it has not been
10
used to facilitate teaching and learning in every school and in every classroom, it is an agent linking teaching to the reality of life. Computer use then differed from computer use now; teachers and students obtain information through technology use beyond classroom teaching and learning. Apart from using it for teaching and learning, teachers use it for word processing, spreadsheet creation, and other administrative purposes which are still far from being reached in Oyo state TESCOM. The case of Oyo state public school teachers resembles that of other teachers in 1997. Only a few teachers have the opportunity to use computers, and computer use is completely absent from schools. No computers are available, and many students do not know how to use them. Not even all teachers know how to use computers because many colleges failed to teach computer use. Purpose of the Study The purpose of this correlational study is to determine if there is a relationship between teachers’ perceptions of technology integration, level of technology integration into their teaching, and teachers’ demographics which include age, educational level, gender, grade level taught, years of teaching experience, and content area in selected secondary school in Oyo State Nigeria. In addition, this study also investigates the relationship between teachers’ perceptions of uses and integration of technology based on their personal demographics. It is undeniable that stakeholders have been funding the training and establishing learning centers for technology use not only for the teachers, but also for society in general (Stancy, 2013; Taiwo, 2009). Likewise, both the state and the federal governments have been contributing to instructional technology by providing various educational resources (Almekhlafi & Almeqdadi, 2010; Nikian et al., 2013; Taiwo,
11
2009). In view of this, researcher examined how teachers in the Oyo State TESCOM perceive technology integration and how it affects educational development needs. This study examined and analyzed teachers’ perceptions of integrating technology. And for this reason, a survey was used to collect information regarding teachers’ perspectives on technology integration. However, the integration of technology in the classroom is not that new, but there are a variety of perceptions regarding its use (Nikian et al., 2013; Marwan, 2008). It will be important to understand why some use technology and why some choose not to use it. Rationale The rationale behind this research study is to determine if there is a relationship between teachers’ perceptions of technology integration, level of technology integration into their teaching, and teachers’ demographics in selected secondary school in Oyo State Nigeria. There are many ways by which educators all over the globe use technology to affect their teaching positively (Kelm, 2011). In addition, learners use technology techniques to collaborate and socialize outside the school environment (Clegg, Yip, Ahn, Bonsignore, & Gubbels, 2013). Kelm (2011) postulated that students performed exceedingly well while incorporating and using technology in class activities. Apart from investigating integrating technology into the teaching, it will be interesting to see students and teachers mesmerized by different technologies that encourage positive academic achievement. Based on observations, the majority of teachers are not interested in using technology in their teaching, and this is not specific to Oyo State alone (Tahnk, 2014). The different reasons, such has technology taking the place of a teacher and unskillful in using technology have been associated with the
12
perceptions of many teachers regarding using and integrating technology in schools throughout the world. The case of not utilizing technological tools in Oyo state secondary schools in Nigeria is like using oxen to plow a large farm instead of using a tractor, which would do the work quickly and easily. However, many research studies on technology integration have focused on the advantages of integration and the results of using it in teaching and learning. These studies have been focused more on teachers’ perceptions on technology integration because of the value of technology integration on the economy of the society and issues surrounding technology integration (Taiwo, 2009). Kelm (2011) stated that the importance of using technology and integrating it into teaching is indisputable. Based on societal needs, integrating technology in school is a way of building and developing an effective, agile mind to meet future challenges. If students were able to understand how using technology helps with their academic studies, the mentality of using it during real-life work would have also been developed. This study was not intended to condemn any teacher, but rather to encourage them to develop a positive interest in using technology to enhance the quality of teaching (Moruf, 2015). Moreover, technology integration will create awareness that will allow students to be logical and creative in their thinking. Kelm (2011) postulated that until faculty members purposefully channel technology to engage students, there will not be a difference between those who used it meaningfully and those who use it for socializing.
13
Research Questions The primary research question for this quantitative study is as follows: Is there a relationship between teachers’ perceptions of technology integration, level of technology integration, and teachers’ age, educational level, grade level taught, years of experience, and content areas taught? This research question was broken down to 14 units, and will be used to find the relationships that exist between the variables. 1. What are the teachers’ perceptions of technology integration? 2. What are the teachers’ current levels of technology integration in the classroom? 3. What is the relationship between teachers’ gender and their perceptions of technology? 4. What is the relationship between teachers’ gender and their technology integration? 5. What is the relationship between teachers’ age and their perceptions of technology? 6. What is the relationship between teachers’ age and their technology integration? 7. What is the relationship between years of teaching experience and teachers’ perceptions of technology? 8. What is the relationship between years of teaching experience and teachers’ technology integration?
14
9. What is the relationship between teachers’ subject area and their perceptions of technology? 10. What is the relationship between teachers’ subject area and their technology integration? 11. What is the relationship between classes taught by teachers and their perceptions of technology? 12. What is the relationship between classes taught by teachers and their technology integration? 13. What is the relationship between teachers’ academic qualifications and their perceptions of technology? 14. What is the relationship between teachers’ academic qualifications and their technology integration? Hypotheses Null Hypothesis: There will be no relationship between teachers’ perceptions of technology integration, level of technology integration, and teachers’ age, educational level, grade level taught, years of experience, and content areas taught. Alternate Hypothesis: There is a significant relationship between teachers’ perceptions of technology integration, level of technology integration, and teachers’ age, educational level, grade level taught, years of experience, and content areas taught. Some teachers use technology during classroom teaching either consciously or unconsciously (Nikian et al., 2013). Integrating technology into teaching has not yielded
15
the desired results in Oyo state as the case may be in other parts of the world. This has been an issue, and there is a need to identify the reasons that have contributed to technology’s usage in the classroom. In addition, this study will help bridge the gap between using and integrating technology in subject areas and not using and integrating it at all. The study include a survey, which has been validated for this research, and the survey questions focused on the teachers’ perceptions of technology integration, level of integration of technology in the classroom setting, and teachers’ demographics. Study Objectives The emergence of technology has influenced education greatly, and this trend continues to grow (Marge, 2011). It is undeniable that many teachers in Oyo state are not using technology—and not allowing their students to use and benefit from—technology in the classroom environment (Kelm, 2011). Academic goals could be attained if technology is used purposively. Therefore, the objectives of this study are the following: 1. Understand teachers’ perceptions of technology integration 2. Evaluate level of teachers’ current usage and integration of technology for teaching and learning in the classroom, and 3. Examine teachers’ differences in the extent to which instructional technology is integrated based on personal characteristics. Significance of the Study The essence of this study is to elaborate on the value of technology integration into secondary school teaching in Oyo state, Nigeria. The study will help and encourage many discouraged TESCOM teachers and role players in the educational arena to see the importance of integrating technology into teaching in relationship to societal needs in
16
Oyo state (Wright & Wilson, 2011). The teaching of technology integration has been taught in all teacher training colleges across the globe including Nigeria (Ramey, 2013). However, technology integration has not been well grounded in Oyo state schools’ classroom teaching time (Wright & Wilson, 2011). With the issue of integration, it is imperative to reiterate why technology in education and educational technology were taught in college and not having any effect in the classrooms in Oyo state. The study will benefit schools, policy makers, Oyo state ministry of education, state and federal colleges of education, and parents in decision-making. However, the results of the study could be used to plan a strategy that will help teachers create a positive attitude about technology use (Wright & Wilson, 2011) as well as to reorient teachers as to the benefits of using and integrating technology (Daniels, Jacobsen, Varnhagen, & Friesen, 2013; Galvis, 2012). Because the government is spending money on training and also advocating for technology use in school (Nikian et al., 2013; Taiwo, 2009), it would not be wise to ignore these efforts. Significantly, using and integrating technology in secondary schools in Oyo State would create an atmosphere in which all teachers in the state will find it easy to use technology in their teaching. Regardless of the governmental issues and leadership bottlenecks in Nigeria as a whole, it would be an excellent idea for teachers to step up their teaching methods by using technology-imbedded teaching to enhance their recognition as knowledgeable and current in their subject areas (Galvis, 2012; Taiwo, 2009). Moreover, this will encourage networking and interacting with other colleagues from outside Oyo state and advanced nations on how, when, and where to use technology and on the process of integrating technology without a tremendous amount of effort (Ramey, 2013).
17
In addition, the results of the study will show how to transition from teachercentered classrooms to student-centered classrooms in Oyo state (Andrew, 2014; Kim et al, 2013). The process will significantly foster students’ cognitive ability to solve problems rather than being spoon-fed by the teacher. As part of the intervention, the policymakers would be informed about the perception of the teachers in Oyo TESCOM and the implications of not addressing the issues in terms of education advancement. Finally, the appropriate selection and use of technology for both teaching and during other classroom activities will be extensively elaborated on because of the serious implications of not using effective tools for instruction in the classroom. Definition of Terms Academic achievement: The attainment of a set standard by any educational institution that demonstrates student achievement and fluency in subjects taught (Rivkin, Hanushek, & Kain, 2005). Creativity: The act of using imagination or ideas to resolve academic problems (Pappano, 2014). Educational technology: An academic discipline that helps prepare teachers on how to gain a deeper understanding and mastery of using and integrating learning resources in a school setting (South, 2016). Effect: Denotes the influence that something has on another thing (Ritchtel, 2012). Engagement: The action of involvement in something that could possibly produce creativity and positive results (Erin, 2009; Soundout, 2015). Instructional technology: Ability to use, integrate, and analyze technology in a learning situation (South, 2016).
18
Integration: A way of incorporating a system into another existing system (Moruf, 2015; South, 2016). Social media (SM): Electronic communication platforms and/or sites that allow users to communicate with each other; it may take place via information sharing and personal messages, and uses multiple platforms (e.g., Facebook, Instagram, Skype, Kik, MySpace, LinkedIn, Twitter; Nations, 2016). Socializing: An act of interaction with others, which indicates having been accepted into a community (Deasy, 2014; King, 2015). Teacher’s perception: Denotes the concerns and challenges with and views on integrating technology (Kopcha, 2012; Moruf, 2015; Taiwo, 2009). Technology: A scientific skill or knowledge in the form of machines or software, which helps reduce stress by making things faster and more understandable during the course of its use (U.S. Department of Education, 2010c). Assumptions and Limitations The study includes the assumption that the participants will answer all survey questions truthfully, without any bias, and based on their personal experience and involvement in using and integrating technology into content areas. It cannot be ruled out that some teachers may be cooperative and others not in making accurate responses regarding their roles in using and integrating technology in the classroom teaching. In addition, the findings may be disrupted if the participants decided not to be truthful in completing the survey administered. However, if the stated assumption in the form of a hypothesis is proven true, such obtained results can jeopardize the overall results of the
19
study. Although there are some challenges regarding administration of the survey, none of them disturbed the process. Many teachers were taught the theoretical aspects of educational technology and its accoutrements, but they still cannot carry out its practical aspects. Inabilities to do the hands-on project in integrating and using technology have disadvantaged many teachers in the field. Teachers who can incorporate technology into the learning process will be student favorites (Kelm, 2011). It should be mandatory for all teachers to let students use their natural instincts when it comes to technology use during instruction. As government propagates the investment made in technology-based centers for training teachers, the confidence in and enthusiasm for using technology in class should be built by the teacher (Nikian, Nor, & Aziz, 2013; Taiwo, 2009). However, personal development and networking should be encouraged among the teachers. Limitations to the study are the perceptions and attitudes of the participants regarding the survey questions. There is no doubt that many teachers are not interested in using or integrating technology into their teaching based on reasons known only to them. They likely have bias mind to what the outcome of the research will be and may therefore decide not to participate in answering the survey questions or not provide all the required information. In addition, the research study includes two out of six TESCOM zonal offices; therefore, the study findings cannot be used to generalize the perceptions of other teachers throughout all of Oyo State and Nigeria as a whole. Theoretical/Conceptual Framework Education has always been surrounded by new ideas about teaching and learning. Often, the responsibilities for educational reforms fall to school administrators, teachers,
20
and other stakeholders (Andrew, 2014; U.S. Department of Education, 2010). These responsibilities include engaging students in the learning process (Andrew, 2014; Cifuentes et al., 2011; Kim et al., 2013). Teaching and learning in the current educational system have changed drastically due to technological knowledge, and this has increased the scope of teaching and learning tremendously (Kelm, 2011). That said, the theoretical framework for this study was derived from perception theory. According to Theory of Knowledge (2015), perception is the way individuals perceive things, based on thought and imagination. In other words, the explanation of how perceptions arise depends on the organization, identification, and interpretation of sensory information that help one to understand the environment (Kranzt, 2012). The term perception is dismissive; it is naïve realism, which is related to common sense (Cohan, 2010; Theory of Knowledge, 2016). Naïve realism is also referred to as direct realism, which also refers to perception of the individual to things by imagination and thought (Theory of Knowledge, 2016). Krishnananda (2015) stated that perception is a result of being conscious of certain things. This assertion demonstrates that valid knowledge consists in an inseparable relationship of perceptive consciousness with its content (Cohan, 2010). It is not a mistake for any individual to have a feeling about something based on personal instinct. In the educational field, the role of teachers cannot be overemphasized and, at the same time, their perception of tools that help deliver subject content needs to be considered. According to Ramey (2013), technology has become an effective tool in the education industry and changes the methods of teaching and learning (Andrew, 2014; Kim et al., 2013; Marwan, 2008). In the Western world, the use of technology has
21
benefited both teachers and students, and has created educational opportunities both in the classroom and in society (Kelm, 2011; Ramey, 2013). The issues of perception can only arise when there is no proper foundation for technology use, which has been the issue with teachers working under TESCOM. The perceptions of teachers toward integrating technology into the educational process vary among teachers, whereas using technology in education usually removes barriers that would make teaching difficult (Ramey, 2013). In most of the colleges of education in Nigeria, educational theories and technology being taught and their effects are not seen on the ground after graduation—this has been part of the issue that creates concern within the Ministry of Education and education stakeholders in Nigeria. The perception of teachers is a psychological issue; it engenders the consciousness of a person’s mind. A teacher’s operation of mind is caused by sensory information and a decision, and this makes thinking more of an internal and personal issue that is eventually reflected externally. This framework is based on self-perception theory proposed by Daryl Bem in 1972. Based on his studies, Bem (1972) argued that individuals show attitude to something they like or dislike, such that reaction toward anything is reflected through facial expression that triggered emotion. Teachers in Oyo state developed perceptions toward technology integration based on their emotions that were triggered due to nonavailability of necessary technologies that can improve educational standard of the students, state, and nation of Nigeria. The frustration that results from not being able to work through the process of using and familiarizing oneself with technology use can also create a negative attitude toward integrating technology in school as a teacher.
22
Organization of the Remainder of the Study Chapter 2 includes discussion of the appropriate literature related to the problem to be addressed in the study. The review of literature was conducted to determine what other researchers have found and studied that relate to this study, to encompass the following topics: technology integration, teachers’ perceptions of technology integration, impact of technology integration on students and teachers, factors that influence technology integration, teachers’ perceptions of technology integration and gender differences, technology integration barriers, advantages of technology integration in educational environment, disadvantages of technology integration in the educational environment, and the role of educational stakeholders in technology integration. Chapter 3 encompasses the description and discussion of the research methodology selected, with discussion of the following topics: methodology, research design, sample, setting, instrumentation/measures, data collection, research procedure, data analysis, validity and reliability, and ethical considerations. Chapter 4 includes the presentation and analyses of all the data collected using the methodology described in Chapter 3. The study concludes with Chapter 5, which contains conclusions drawn from the data collected as well as implications based on the study results and recommendations for future research.
23
CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW In the world of education, the teacher’s role cannot be overemphasized. However, the use of technology in education has become vast: governments across the globe are clamoring for its use to build up a prosperous nation (Project Tomorrow, 2013). The brain behind technology use and its integration is teachers (Machado & Chung, 2015; Onyia & Onyia, 2011), and their perspectives on usage matters in successfully executing any form of technology that will improve learning and allow students creativity. Despite the fact that technology use is extremely popular in most of the Western world, this is not the case in many underdeveloped and developing countries (Moruf, 2015). Almekhlafi and Almeqdadi (2010) stated that technology is becoming increasingly important in all facets of learning. The rate at which technology enhances teachers’ efforts in disseminating knowledge not only gives students opportunities to control their learning (Almekhlafi & Almeqdadi, 2010; Machado & Chung, 2015), but also provides students with access to large amounts of information that teachers, with their time limitations during the school day, cannot provide (Davis, 2011). Technology integration in schools all over the globe has become an important aspect of successful teaching (Almekhlafi & Almeqdadi, 2010). This importance has inspired many researchers to look into the appropriateness of integration and the uses of technologies in curriculum that enable successful teaching and learning (Almekhlafi & Almeqdadi, 2010). Despite the increase in technology use in schools, especially smartphones, teachers’ perspectives toward integrating technology into their teaching varies and have not really been examined in Nigeria (Moruf, 2015). One of the major reasons for this is
24
the rivalry created by some teachers toward technology integration (Smythe, 2014; Tahnk, 2014), based on the assumption that technology will take the position of teacher if care is not taken (Huneycut, 2013; Smythe, 2014; Tahnk, 2014). Technology integration has become a very broad concept in the educational setting and has several aspects and implications (Machado & Chung, 2015). Because technology is only a tool used to facilitate teaching and learning, it necessitates dialogue and interaction that calls for creativity (Nikian et al., 2013). Kelm (2011) stated that the use of technology and related objects depends on their integration and the manner in which they are used. Therefore, technology use in school by students always facilitates creativity, of which teachers and students are beneficiaries (Machado & Chung, 2015; Onyia & Onyia, 2013). If the users have little or no idea of how to make proper use of technology to enhance positive teaching and learning, the negative effects of this technology will be readily apparent. This has been the issue arising in many areas where proper use of technology is not enforced (Kelm, 2011). This chapter includes a review of the existing and relevant literature related to this study as well as an explanation of how important the study topic is to the field of education. This chapter also includes an examination of the literature that supports the importance of discovering teachers’ perspectives on technology integration in Nigeria, and also other nations sharing a similar experience. Technology Integration As mentioned, using technology in the classroom setting is not the problem for many teachers, but how to integrate it in an effective manner is the concern of many. Technology integration centers on the ability to adapt and incorporate technologies,
25
which should be one of the teacher’s roles in successful technology integration (Machado & Chung, 2015). Integration of technology should not be limited to classroom modeling, demonstration of invention, and chalkboard use, but should include the use of computer, interactive board, social media, and many other technology applications (Blair, 2012) into the educational setting. Kelm (2011) explicated the use of technology has to do with understanding the technology in question and having a positive attitude about using it. The success of technology use and integration starts with positive mind of the integrator of such. If the teachers’ perceptions are not valid about the use and integration of technology, the outcome of this use might be negative (Abdullahi, 2015; Kelm, 2011). That means the labor and time spent on such use is a waste, and the effect on students and society could be devastating. Technology integration and use has increased tremendously, not only in education, but also in other spheres of life (Young, 2012). In Nigeria, if the same success attained by integrating technology positively in the banking industry can be achieved in the school system, the transformation in education will be noticed globally (Moruf, 2015). Technology cannot integrate itself into use; the only tool that uses technology is the human being, and in the educational setting, that means teachers (Cifuentes, Maxwell, & Bulu, 2011). Meeting the requirements of integrating and using technology in curriculum-based lessons depend entirely on teachers (Machado & Chung, 2015). When the right perspective does not exist, there is no possibility for such integration to take place. Kelm (2011) agreed that using technology in the classroom helps the user be more organized and focused on specific goals. The purpose of having students in the classroom is to teach them and make them better person. Setting educational goals in the
26
classroom for teaching and learning requires proper organizations and itemizing what needed to achieve meaningful success (Garner & Bonds-Raacke, 2013). Taiwo (2009) stated that the Nigerian government has invested millions of naira in technology acquisition for schools, allowing many training centers to be established throughout the country. The fact remains that all this acquisition amounts to nothing if there is nobody to facilitate the usage and integration of technology into lesson plans (Armstrong, 2014). Personnel training tends to be concentrated more on the bookwork than on hands-on methods (Abdullahi, 2015; Moruf, 2015). Teachers like using the tools, but there are no backup plans on what happens if the system does not yield expected results (Armstrong, 2014). Integration For the purpose of this study, integration means infusing technology into classroom teaching in a way that teaching and learning can occur without any hindrances. Plessis and Webb (2012) defined the term technology to include mobile phones, digital cameras, DVD players, computers, and many other devices that reduce the stress of teaching and learning. Moruf (2015) also mentioned that integration does not refer to the mere placement of computer hardware in the classroom alone or its use as a primary focus in classroom teaching. The integration requires putting together all these resources to coordinate teachers’ efforts, not to replace the human role in the classroom (DePountis, Pogrund, Griffin-Shirley, & Lan, 2015). No technology can successfully stand without the cooperation of the user (Machado & Chung, 2015; Onyia & Onyia, 2013). It is common in the educational setting to mention integration and not examine the types. Plessis and Webb (2014) referred to Hodgkinson-Williams (2006) and Du
27
Plessis (2010) respectively, regarding types of integration. Learning about the computer is one type, which focuses on the implementation without integrating it into the learning system. Many teachers believe that computer use in the classroom means integration (Abdullahi, 2015; Moruf, 2015). Teachers, like other workers all over the world, use the computer for many things without incorporating its use into their teaching practices. The computer is just a tool that helps one to work fast, be precise, and to be organized. This has been the basic, which workers need to build their proficiency in order to move to the next level of usage (McNeely, 2016). The second type mentioned by Plessis and Webb (2014) is implementation with integration to achieve traditional goals. Teachers are moving away from traditional teaching as computers are now, in some respects, replacing teachers in the classroom. Students learn and receive instruction via computers without any assistance from teachers (Tahnk, 2014). The final type of integration is full integration within a constructivist learning space and context. This type has been the best option in the educational field in which learners develop critical thinking skills and the ability to construct models or solutions to problems (Kiper & Tercan, 2012). Miller (1997) developed and implemented the evolutionary model, which is used to describe integration in five stages: introduction, entry, intermediate, penultimate, and creation. The phases include how the integration process needs to developed and infused into the classroom or any project. Plessis and Webb (2012) supported the suggestion made by researchers about true and purposeful integration. Integration needs to start with technology introduction, so that it will be known and understood as to how technology works (Guymon, 2014). When technology and other technical capability is understood, there can be easy entry to the classroom because teachers would have tested it and
28
understood how useful it is and what it is intended for. Applying and infusing this identified technology will also require adequate monitoring, modeling, and even just-intime assistance in case the user takes any missteps (Garner & Bonds-Raacke, 2013; Guymon, 2014; Kopcha, 2008). Teachers’ Perception of Technology Integration In many of the schools around the globe, the use of computers has changed the way teachers approach teaching and learning (Mundy et al., 2012). Computer use has replaced many of the teachers’ struggles in the classroom and has complemented part of the teacher’s role in the class. Using technology in the classroom has made the reality of the world come alive to the students. They are able to see the difference between a teacher’s explanation and the illustration of the real-life experience (Efe, 2015). The experience gained from life events linger, whereas the explanation or illustration made by the teacher will be forgotten because no physical evidence of it remains. Kelm (2011) made it clear that many people have a misconception about the use of computers and the Internet to be the sole technology used in advancing learning. The truth is that technology use goes far beyond one or two types of devices. Many devices facilitate learning even more precisely and faster than do desktops use due to their mobility. The use of mobile devices such as smartphones and tablets that are loaded with different apps now function faster than do desktop computers (Bradley, 2016). Mobile devices are connected to the Internet anywhere there is service; can be used to take pictures and upload them to email, social media and other applications; and many other functions. Moreno, Kota, Schoohs, and Whitehill (2013) mentioned that the huge popularity of Facebook has made it a giant among social media. The popularity of
29
Facebook is not only measured in its size, but also in the numerous functions that afford users the ability to upload, display, send instant messages, plan events, and more (Deasy, 2014). The use of social media is now a huge tool that is integrated into the learning process to facilitate meaningful learning in an online platform (Kelm, 2011; Malamed, 2010). Social media integration into the teaching and learning process can be easy if full cooperation from parents, students, teachers, and administrators can be garnered. The use of technology in education is not a newly invented tool and cannot be removed from education. Its impact in teaching and learning can never be quantified; that is why technology integration and use has been a focus of government in order to build a better tomorrow for the nation (U. S. Department of Education, 2010; 2016). The social media era has come to stay, and its uses must be maximized in positive ways. Using technology in school would not only improve educational standard but also improve the thinking ability of the teachers and the students (Abdullahi, 2015; Moruf, 2015). Social media have become educational supplements rather than only recreational and socialization tools (Berk, 2009; Thibaut, 2015). Further, social media have gained entrance into teaching and learning whereby students can access their work on the go, as many times they want it. Abe and Jordan (2013) mentioned the importance of using social media in education as a way of increasing student engagement and interaction with one another, which may increase engagement and interest in course content. Ramey (2013) postulated that technology use in education has continuously transforming the learning habits of learners, especially when reinforced with technology they like best. Social media gives students the opportunity to interact and discuss class work, fully
30
engaged in different ideas and able to identified opinions of others. However, if social media are not appropriately used (Kelm, 2011), there is the potential of drawing students’ attention away from the teaching content (Abe & Jordan, 2013). The flexibilities of using social media in education may create too much interference with the academic performance of students, and successful academic performance is the ultimate goal of integrating social media into education. Technology phobia is a situation in which teachers believe that technology has an enormous mission that has nothing to do with their training. According to Burns (2014), the British government announced that despite the technology integration and use in the classroom, it is a requirement to teach students all the necessary technological skills that would make these students more relevant in their education now and in the future. Therefore, there is a challenge ahead of many teachers globally. Much of the research work demonstrates that technology acceptability into the educational system has not been fully established (Kelm, 2011). This technophobia has increased in Nigeria’s educational system because experienced teachers have little or no professional development in the use and integration of technology in the classroom (Mundy et al., 2012). Although the government is trying to meet the technology challenges in the country, required technology and training have not been provided to the teachers (Abdullahi, 2015; Armstrong, 2014). Teachers’ perceptions regarding integrating technology into classroom teaching can change if adequate time is taken to train the teachers and let them understand the technology (Abdullahi, 2015; Plessis & Webb, 2012; Taiwo, 2009). Procurement of technologies for schools and training centers will not yield positive results if teachers are
31
not well groomed in using and integrating the technology. While change is inevitable, many teachers all over the globe are still shying away from technology use. Some are concerned about what will become of them if technology is fully allowed in the school system (Huneycut, 2013; Smythe, 2014; Tahnk, 2014). There should be an overhaul of education departments in all colleges of education and university in Nigeria. Such change is necessary for technology use and integration to be showcased and demonstrated to the teachers in training, and will help teachers to not depend solely on book knowledge, but to make use of technology’s advantages (Fakeye, 2009; Moruf, 2015). Impact of Technology Integration on Students and Teachers Integrating technology into daily activities helps learners to be fully engaged in the learning process through the use of a variety of types of technology to accomplish targeted learning goals (Blair, 2012; Guymon, 2014). There is a great transition from traditional teaching to a more modern teaching method. Huneycut (2013) mentioned that many faculty members were not interested in using technology in their classroom teaching simply because they were afraid of being replaced by these technologies. Nazzal (2014) explained that using traditional teaching in this manner is like living a primitive life. As human growth is important, so should development in the educational system. Technology in education has broken the barriers of the traditional teaching method because of the reality of the content that can be evident during teaching process. In today’s teaching and learning environments, technology has made teachers and students more organized than before; they have access to their materials when they need them without needing to scan through many piles of book (Kelm, 2011; Nazzal, 2014). There is nothing more convenient in the school environment than having different kinds
32
of facilities to help resolve questions and find the right answer at the right time. Both teachers and students enjoy the collaboration afforded by technology that brings creativity and involvement into the teaching–learning process (Blair, 2012; Nazzal, 2014). Reaching out and receiving immediate feedback are now easy in today’s learning environment, compared with traditional settings where the teacher has the final say in the learning process. Apart from the collaboration that technology fosters in the learning process, the issue of creativity cannot go unmentioned, as the use of integrated technology has helped both teachers and learners be creative in their academic work (Machado & Chung, 2015). In addition, the use of metacognitive skills helps bring together past, present, and future via technology (Almekhlafi & Almeqdadi, 2010). Technology-based learning brings out more from students than just depending on information received from teachers. Moreover, integrating technology increases the knowledge base of teachers because they have a variety of different materials and resources to refer to for their lessons (Onyia & Onyia, 2011). Anyone who works in the school system would find that the smart use of technology brings advancement to education and training and that using and integrating technology should be a goal. Robbins and Singer (2014) advocated for technology uses whereby there will be a positive advancement in the teaching and learning process. The best thing that could happen to teaching and learning is to integrate proper technology into its process. Learning is a continual process in which distance should never be a barrier to learning or gaining information. Technology use has brought education to a level where learning has become accessible.
33
Factors That Influence Technology Integration There are many factors influencing technology integration and how it should be properly applied (Almekhlafi & Almeqdadi, 2010). Vanwyk et al.(2012) stated that the key factor that influences technology integration is the teacher. The competence and ability of personnel designated to function as the integrator of technology matters most in accomplishing this goal. It is the responsibility of the teacher to shape the instructional technology to align with the needs of the students and society. Learning technology is a process that teachers need to experience to be relevant in the education field. Another major factor is the students. Kelm (2011) stated that when technology is not under control and used meaningfully, students typically pretend that their personal technology is used for academic work, whereas it is used for social activities. Cantrell and Visser (2011) postulated that the attitude of students is a precursor of behavior exhibited. Moruf (2015) posited that positive disposition toward technology use is a prerequisite to acquiring a high level of successful pedagogical and computer usage. Having the right resources without the right attitude about using them amounts to nothing. Educational institutions are not well equipped with the necessary technological equipment (Yan & Zhao, 2006). Nikian et al. (2013) argued that successful technology integration lies in the availability of resources, especially technologies and the humans who will use them. The government is trying to make Nigeria look like other developed nations, but the unstructured levels of educational administration serve as the reason for the collapse of the good intention. Many personnel would benefit from training and from
34
hands-on work on how to use and integrate technology into our schools. This technological training and exposure are not made available to those who really need it. It was discovered that many teachers, even at the college level, were against online courses, and their assumption lies in the fear that technology will take their place (Kelm, 2011). This attitude could deprive many students who do not have access to physical classrooms for a number of personal reasons. Technology integration in the school world has reduced the complications of enabling students to be able to learn when they are ready and where they would like (Kelm, 2011; Kiper & Tercan, 2012; Kopcha, 2012; Marwan, 2008). Teachers’ Perceptions of Technology Integration and Gender Differences Because there are gender issues in the teaching profession, it is necessary to identify technology integration based on gender. The issue of gender in technology use and integration is unidirectional (Almekhlafi & Almeqdadi, 2010; Hohlfeld, Ritzhaupt, & Barron, 2013). The reason it is unidirectional is that each gender has same focus and goals in terms of technology integration. However, there is also cross-usage of those technologies depending on the interests that created them. According to Bhargava, Kirova-Petrova, and McNair (1999), studies have shown that there is a significant difference between male and female use of technology. This assertion indicates that depending on the use and role played by each gender, it is evident that males have more of a flare for technology than do females (Kirova-Petrova & McNair, 1999). Wong and Hanafi (2007) discovered that after both male and female teachers are given the same treatment on technology integration, the percentage of confidence in female teachers rises, and there is no longer a significance difference in technology integration. Hu, Al-
35
Gahtani, and Hu (2013) discovered that there is limited acceptance of technology use by ordinary Arabian workers, which can equally trigger negative attitude by teacher teaching or integrating technology to the school curriculum. In modern society, the unidirectional issue has shown that both males and females have an equal chance of using and integrating technology based on their training and the exposure they have to it (Hohlfeld et al., 2013). Hong and Koh (2002) discovered that female teachers are more anxious than are male teachers when it comes to hardware. Using the theory of planned behavior (TPB) and technology acceptance model (TAM), Hu et al. (2013) found that attitude has a direct effect on behavior, which mediates the effect of behavioral beliefs of perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use (Venkatesh, Thong, Chan, Hu, & Brown, 2013). In addition, with all reviewed literature, it is discovered that the level of anxiety of using technology among male teachers was not significantly different from that of female teachers. The hardware aspect of the technology was the area in which anxiety is raised and was significantly different between male and female teachers. Yau and Cheng (2013) mentioned that motivation is an essential catalyst that influences both males and females in using technology. Although in developing countries such as Nigeria, the level of usage of technology such as social media apps on cell phones, especially among the literates and semi-illiterates is now increasing, the use and mesmerizing with the phone functions were the big difference between male and female (Ahn, 2011; Hargittai, 2010). Moreover, the use of technology in Western countries such as the United States cannot be compared with that of developing nations. Fedorowicz, Vilvovsky, and Golibersuch (2010) recounted that using and integrating technology is not a luxury, but a necessity, in the
36
United States because the world of the Internet has unified organizations and business to depend on computer use. Technology Integration Barriers Project Tomorrow (2013) posited that technology integration in the United States is rising on daily basis, but this is not true about other developing countries such like Nigeria that find it difficult to use or integrate technology due to poor facilities. There are still barriers that hinder technology integration, not only in developing countries, but also in much of the Western world where the use is required in daily activities (Davis, 2011). The technology needs a force such like teachers that will engage it to produce the desire results. Until this force is engaged, these 21st century goals on technology integration will not be fulfilled. School activities rest on the ability of the school principal to use and integrate technology into his or her school (Daniels et al., 2013; Machado & Chung, 2015). The role of principal in running the affairs of the school cannot be overstated because he or she serves as the administrative leader. Chang (2012) stated that school principals were likely to have received technology integration training and are therefore more likely to insist on technology’s use in the school than would those without such training. In this sense, it could be explained that knowledge gained is knowledge shared. Regardless of teachers’ perspectives, if the head of the school requires his or her teachers to use technology and provides full support to achieve these goals, those teachers without technology knowledge will learn to use it and will perform well (Almekhlafi & Almeqdadi, 2010).
37
The unavailability of required resources also creates barriers to use and integration (Almekhlafi & Almeqdadi, 2010; Machado & Chung, 2015). It is true that governments all over the world now advocate for technology use; the problem is that not all these clamoring governments are, in fact, ready to sufficiently fund the purchase of needed technology (Peled, Kali, & Dori, 2011). It is important to remember that increases in student academic achievement equally depend on the teachers’ support and contributions when the appropriate technologies are in place to do their work (Daniels et al., 2013). Most often, teachers’ beliefs affect their thinking, which influences teachers’ perceptions regarding technology integration (Machado & Chung, 2015). Students can also act as barriers to using technology for teaching and learning. It has been observed that students look for opportunities to grow. Kelm (2011) mentioned that unsupervised students would misuse the technology given or BYODs. For effective integration and use, teachers need to make technology use engaging so that students will not take advantage and play around in class. Having a vision for the school will automatically help the school leadership focus and determine what it wants (Machado & Chung, 2015). Generally, the roles of teachers in schools go well beyond teaching, and that is why it is essential for teachers to develop the means to facilitate learning. All known technological capability rests on the knowledge of the user. As such, another important barrier could be technical support (Cifuentes et al., 2011; DePountis et al., 2013). Using technology without having someone who can help when educational tools do not work or when difficulties arise would be problematic, especially when urgent needs arise and someone needs technical assistance (Marwen, 2008; Machado & Chung, 2015). Because
38
technology requires servicing from wear and tear, the inability to find any qualified technicians is a big problem (Marwen, 2008). Technical staffs need to be available to offer assistance when required. Nigerian teachers are not motivated or encouraged to adopt technology into their teaching because many of the technologies needed to advance teaching and learning are not readily available in schools (Fakeye, 2009; Moruf, 2015). This alone has greatly contributed to the way teachers react to technology integration (Marwan, 2008; Taiwo, 2009). As the saying goes, “You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink.” Incentives and encouragement work to improve the standard of technology use. As other researchers have mentioned, professional development is the key to the success of technology integration (Mundy et al., 2013; Taiwo, 2009). No amount of training given to teachers on technology integration could be too much; the more training given and encouraged, the more successful the teaching will be. Findings on Teachers’ Technology Integration from Other Countries As earlier discussed, the trend in which technology use and integration in schools is moving will radically change the spheres of teaching and learning for good if judiciously monitored (Kelm, 2011). In the United States of America, the use of technology and its integration is no longer a story because students have been allowed to use their devices for constructive learning during teaching-learning process (Saponano, 2014). Looking through research conducted in some countries of the world regarding teachers’ perceptions of technology integration and use, it was evident in Taiwo’s (2009) study on teachers’ perceptions of the role of media in classroom that gender is not significant when it comes to technology use and integration. The two levels of gender
39
tested—male and female—are equally likely to use media in the classroom, although in Taiwo’s study, the group of teachers without technology training preferred traditional teaching methods rather than using technology resource for classroom teaching. This occurs because teachers were not exposed to technology integration training like others who prefer using technology for easy and precise teaching (Kelm, 2011). Miima, Ondigi, and Mavisi (2013) from Kenya revealed that using technology in teaching the Kiswahili language has not taken root as is the case with the sciences and computer-related areas. Many teachers do not have experience and training regarding utilization, despite government funding. Since the use of technology integration has become a well-known slogan among the government administrators, especially those in charge of education, Kiswahili language teachers preferred using CDs to affect teaching and learning (Miima et al., 2013). However, CDs alone are not enough in teaching language. Moruf (2015) mentioned that although other technologies that serve the subjects areas in which teachers do not have proficiency were available, how to use and integrate those technologies needs to be addressed by a higher authority. Mundy, Kupczynski, and Kee (2012) also concluded that the only reason why faculties are not using technology is lack of knowledge. Governments are doing the procurement of the technologies, but do not facilitate how the users will use, maintain, and integrate it to their teaching areas. Almeklafi and Almeqdadi (2010) confirmed that gender does not really need to be counted as an obstacle to technology integration. They agreed that both genders show proficiency in using and integrating technology in the classroom during the teaching– learning process. Looking at the reviewed authors and their works, it is evident that the
40
role of technology is important, that governments spend huge amounts on education, but do not prioritize their preference by teaching the teachers how to use and integrate technology into the teaching–learning process. Advantages of Technology Integration in the Educational Environment Technology use has been in existence for a while, and its integration continues to grow daily. Social media, as one aspect of technology, embody the latest advancement in fostering communication (Wylie, 2014). Technology is here to stay in the educational system and throughout society, and because of this, the effective use of it in advancing education and training should be the goal. Robbins and Singer (2014) advocated for technology uses whereby there would be advancement in the teaching and learning process. The best thing that could happen to teaching and learning is the integration of proper technology into its process (Taiwo, 2009). Learning is a continual process in which location should never be a barrier to learning or gaining information. The emergence of social media is an aspect of technology that has changed people’s social perspectives; communication has been made easier than ever (Wylie, 2014). This trend is inevitable in the school environment where educational institutes depend on it not only for classroom use, but also to further disseminate school information (Kelm, 2011). Many other aspects of technology can be integrated into the curriculum, such as digital cameras, computers, DVD players, interactive boards, and so on. The use of social media as part of educational technology enhanced feedback and collaboration within project groups. Social media are being used to socialize and for learning purposes, to share personal interests or ideas, to disseminate information related to projects, and for other educational reasons (Kelm, 2011). The
41
majority, however, use social media as a communication channel (Robbins & Singer, 2014). The opportunities gained from social media use are not restricted to the learning environment. According to Richter, Muhlestein, and Wilks (2014), some hospitals use Facebook as a means to connect to people. In addition, it has been noted that Facebook pages are now used to promote the image of the hospital. This shows the importance of creating awareness and proficiency about any organization. Likewise, in the school setting, social media should be used promote social activities in the school rather than serving as a means for students to become distracted work assignments. Disadvantages of Technology Integration in the Educational Environment The essence of integrating technology into teaching is to achieve positive and spontaneous results from both the teacher and students. Robbins and Singer (2014) stated that technology use increases every day, depending on the needs and its availability. In addition, faculties in nations like the United States and other Western countries are provided with resources and encouraged to integrate technology into their teaching; whereas in Oyo state, Nigeria, it is the word of mouth and not in action. Skiera, Hinz, and Spann (2015) postulated that the use of social media technology, especially Facebook, has a negative effect on students’ grades. The reason given is the time devoted to Facebook that could be used for studying. The majority of youths from ages 8–18 spend twice the time spent in school on social media (Deasy, 2014; King, 2015; Sense, 2013). Smith and Glenn (2008) discovered that workers’ functional IQs fall 10 points whenever workers are distracted by external elements that do not relate to their scheduled assignment. In relating this to students who use unmonitored technology in the
42
classroom, especially social media for socializing, it is clear that youth lose their focus on their intended learning activity due to the distraction of social media. The use of social media is a waste of time, according to Sense (2013), who provided statistical data showing average Americans from ages 5–8 spent 168 more hours on media than they spent in school each year. This shows that technology that is not properly integrated and monitored during its use can be detrimental to learners. Part of the misuse of social media is multitasking on the platform, which allows the students to move from educative to noneducative links. This eventually renders student vulnerable to unethical and inappropriate messages. Erb (2015) posited that the havoc wrought by social media in schools and societies is widespread. Bullying in schools can be traced to the emergence of technology and its misuse. This is an era of BYODs, and different devices are now used to communicate within the school community (Bruder, 2014; Kiger & Herro, 2015). As such, some students take advantage of this to bully other students. Students post unflattering and negative images, caricatures, and irritating messages and describe other students derogatorily. Moreno et al. (2013) stated that due to the popularity of Facebook, it has become a giant among the social media. The popularity is not only in size, but also in its myriad functions that afford users the ability to upload photos and display it, send instant messages, plan events, and more. The site has been used as a platform by students to display nude photos, alcohol, cigarettes, and weapons to show to other classmates and to friends how sophisticated they are (Mascheroni, Vincent, & Jimenez, (2015). Adolescents in secondary education feel that these actions show how social they are, but to innocent students, this behavior serves as a negative influence could lead to social
43
violence (Mascheroni, Vincent, & Jimenez, (2015). In addition, Abe and Jordan (2013) discussed the adverse effects of nonverbal communication and elimination of face-to-face interaction in a classroom setting if teachers and school administration personnel do not implement the necessary measures to allow students to use personal own technology positively in the education community. It has become a trend in schools now that two people sitting side by side are not using verbal conversation or face-to-face talk any longer; rather, they take advantage of technology by chatting or sending messages to one another during class session. Conversely, social media is described as the platform on which information and ideas can be created and shared via online networks and virtual communities (Fisher & Clayton, 2012). There is potential for today’s social media to be useful in educational sectors, too. The Role of Educational Stakeholders in Technology Integration It is imperative that all the stakeholders work together to achieve meaningful goals regarding technology use in the schools. Project Tomorrow (2013) mentioned that the right time for digitalized K–12 education is now, and if were to happen, the burden of technology use and integration should not be the sole responsibility of teachers. Taiwo (2009) postulated about the role government has in providing training facilities in the entire geo-zonal region for accessibility to those in need of such training. This measure is not enough because if there are training centers and there is no equipment available to teachers, nothing will come of the training. The role of parents needs to be emphasized; it should be the responsibility of the parents to follow up on the job of teachers when students are home after school. Guiding and monitoring the use of technology at home
44
will minimize students being distracted at school. Because the job of integration is not that of the teacher alone, the coming together of the stakeholders and decision-makers regarding what the school and teacher need and how to help them achieve their technology goals will make a difference in teaching and learning (Marwan, 2008; Mundy et al., 2012; Project Tomorrow, 2013). Technology integration can only be successful when all other necessary factors are in place, especially when perceptions of teachers are changed. Change is inevitable and demands the cooperation of all involved in decision-making (Kelm, 2011; Project Tomorrow, 2013). Availability of technological equipment, technical assistance, and funding will go a long way toward changing teachers’ perceptions about using technology or integrating it. Summary The impact of technology cannot be overemphasized in the current educational environment. Many students now use technologies without educative purposes; instead, they see technology as a tool for fun and socialization (Kelm, 2011). Integrating technology into classroom teaching will go a long way toward bringing about students’ creativity. The role of teachers in achieving this goal is important because of their interaction with students in the classroom. The U.S. government has emphasized the importance of technology in nation building (U.S. Department of Education, 2010), which means national development in terms of creativity cannot be solely achieved if teachers and students are not involved in technology integration process. The use and integration of technology is now discussed in all facets of life throughout the world. Regardless of the clamoring for technology use, many students are still misusing these
45
personal technologies in the school and at home because there is no proper integration by teachers, parents, and all other stakeholders. The teacher alone cannot be enough in achieving technological success; but the joint effort of all educational stakeholders will be required to do so. Chapter 3 includes discussion of the study methodology. The discussion covers the research design, tools, and other statistical methods and formulas to be employed.
46
CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY This methodology chapter includes a description of the procedure used in investigating the correlation between the variables identified in the study. The purpose of this study was to determine if there is a relationship between teachers’ levels of technology integration into their teaching, and teachers’ demographics which include age, educational level, gender, grade level taught, years of teaching experience, and content area in selected secondary school in Oyo State, Nigeria. Anderman (2009) mentioned that correlational research cannot be used to determine cause and effect of the variables involved in a study. Since the essence of this correlational study was to examine the relationship between variables, survey questions was used to collect the data to determine teachers’ level of integration of technology. The two dependent variables are teachers’ perceptions of technology and teachers’ integration of technology. This study encompassed a quantitative method, in which correlation analysis method was used to analyze data collected. Research Questions The primary research question for this quantitative study is as follows: Is there a relationship between teachers’ perceptions of technology integration, level of technology integration, and teachers’ age, educational level, grade level taught, years of experience, and content areas taught? Hypotheses Null Hypothesis: There will be no relationship between teachers’ perceptions of technology integration, level of technology integration, and teachers’ age,
47
educational level, grade level taught, years of experience, and content areas taught. Alternate Hypothesis: There is a significant relationship between teachers’ perceptions of technology integration, level of technology integration, and teachers’ age, educational level, grade level taught, years of experience, and content areas taught. The research question was broken down to 14 units, and was answered by using descriptive statistics and explanatory Spearman rank-order correlation. 1. What are the teachers’ perceptions on technology integration? 2. What are the teachers’ current levels of technology integration in the classroom? 3. What is the relationship between teachers’ gender and their perceptions of technology? 4. What is the relationship between teachers’ gender and their technology integration? 5. What is the relationship between teachers’ age and their perceptions of technology? 6. What is the relationship between teachers’ age and their technology integration? 7. What is the relationship between years of teaching experience and teachers’ perceptions of technology? 8. What is the relationship between years of teaching experience and teachers’ technology integration?
48
9. What is the relationship between teachers’ subject area and their perceptions of technology? 10. What is the relationship between teachers’ subject area and their technology integration? 11. What is the relationship between classes taught by teachers and their perceptions of technology? 12. What is the relationship between classes taught by teachers and their technology integration? 13. What is the relationship between teachers’ academic qualifications and their perceptions of technology? 14. What is the relationship between teachers’ academic qualifications and their technology integration? Research Design In this study, a quantitative correlational research design was employed. There are multiple designs and methods which this researcher could use, but for this study, a quantitative method where a survey instrument was used in collection of data was preferred. Survey use did not require a control group as with an experimental design in which a treatment is needed on another group to determine the impact of a treatment on a sample. In addition to this, the research design that was used is correlation where the survey instrument was used because it is economical and encourages a rapid turnaround on data collection. Finally, a survey was beneficial in identifying attributes of a larger population from a small sample. However, the use of the correlational research method determines a correlation between the variables and determines if there is an increase or
49
decrease—variable corresponds to increase or decrease in another variable. Hence, correlational research method has helped in identifying if the increase or decrease in teachers’ perceptions of technology integration corresponds with teachers’ level of technology use, and teachers’ demographics. The correlational research method has its limitations; specifically, it cannot be used to determine causation. At the same time, it can be used as a step to advance further scientific study that can lead to very limited causal inference (Stanovich, 2007). Using correlation research method allows for scientific prediction. Stanovich (2007) mentioned that if a score from a measure is made, it can be used to accurately predict for another measure that is highly related to the previous variable. Apart from using it to predict a measure, variables used in a correlational study cannot be manipulated for ethical reasons. Since it is permissible to use more than one statistical method when conducting research (Allen, Dorozenko, & Roberts, 2016), some of the research questions were answered by using simple descriptive statistics such as means and percentages. Descriptive statistics was used in answering Research Questions 1–2; while Research Questions 3–14 used Spearman rank order coefficient. 1. What are the teachers’ perceptions on technology integration? Descriptive 2. What are the teachers’ current levels of technology integration in the classroom? Descriptive 3. What is the relationship between teachers’ gender and their perceptions of technology? Spearman’s rank correlational 4. What is the relationship between teachers’ gender and their technology integration? Spearman’s Rank-correlational
50
5. What is the relationship between teachers’ age and their perceptions of technology integration? Spearman’s Rank-correlational 6. What is the relationship between teachers’ age and their level of technology integration? Spearman’s Rank-correlational 7. What is the relationship between years of teaching experience and teachers’ perceptions of technology integration? Spearman’s Rank-correlational 8. What is the relationship between years of teaching experience and teachers’ level of technology integration? Spearman Rank-correlational 9. What is the relationship between teachers’ subject area and their perceptions of technology? Spearman’s Rank-correlational 10. What is the relationship between teachers’ subject area and their technology integration? Spearman’s Rank-correlational 11. What is the relationship between classes taught by teachers and their perceptions of technology? Spearman’s Rank-correlational 12. What is the relationship between classes taught by teachers and their technology integration? Spearman’s Rank-correlational 13. What is the relationship between teachers’ academic qualifications and their perceptions of technology? Spearman’s Rank-correlational 14. What is the relationship between teachers’ academic qualifications and their technology integration? Spearman’s Rank-correlational Creswell (2012a) defined correlation as a statistical test to determine the relationship of two sets of data. It is used when a researcher is investigating the relationship between two or more variables in order to see how one influences the other,
51
and to generalize the result of the larger population (Lodico, Spaulding, & Voegtle, 2010); however, in correlational design, variables show influence on one another that helps researchers to predict scores and explain the relationship between study variables (Creswell, 2012a). Apart from using correlational design to predict and explain the relationship that occurs between the variables, it equally allows for testing the degree of association between the variables in statistical ways (Stanovich, 2007). As earlier stated, correlation research design cannot be used to predict causation between variables since it is used to look for relationships, not the causes, and to use it to ascertain causation is a breach of ethics (Vanderstoep & Johnston, 2009). To examine the relationships between teachers’ characteristics, teachers’ level of technology integration, and teachers’ perceptions of technology integration, explanatory correlational research will be employed. This design will help this researcher to understand the trait or mechanism of relationship that exists between dependent and independent variables (Islahuzzaman, 2014). Explanatory correlation approach also revealed the answer to “why” question that shows why something happened (Islahuzzaman, 2014). Explanatory correlations also test a theory prediction and principle, and it enriches theory explanation. Sample Teachers from Oyo State secondary school was used as the study participants, and purposive sampling was used. Purposive sampling was required for this study because of the characteristics of the study. Since Oyo State teaching service commission has six zonal offices that are spread all across the state to include urban and rural areas, it will be appropriate for the researcher to use participants in the areas that technology is available.
52
Two zonal offices in Ibadan, which is the capital city of the state, were used for this purpose. Sampling is very important in research because it is ethical and practical to conduct tests on large populations (Huck, 2012). This purposive sample is equally referred to as a judgmental sample. This method of selecting research respondents is based on participants’ knowledge and the purpose of the study, so selection of the participants was done randomly (Fraenkel, Wallen, & Hyun, 2012). Haegele and Porretta (2015) found that a purposive sampling procedure is helpful in validating information. In this current study, purposive sampling of the urban teachers was used due to the proximity to technology facilities. Creswell (2012b) postulated using a sample of at least 30 or more participants in a study. Therefore, 700 questionnaires were distributed to the participants, and 374 were returned. This return was reasonable based on Creswell’s (2012a) suggestion in order to reduce sampling error in research studies: The lower the size of the sample, the higher the risk of error. To generalize results of a study, there should be fair representation of the participants. In essence, a reasonable sample simply means a small group of participants that will be appropriate to represent a larger group. TESCOM is the arm of education that hires, posts, and promotes teachers in Oyo state. Apart from TESCOM headquarters, there are six zonal offices that take care of teachers in their zones. Two out of six zonal offices of TESCOM was used for this study. That is, teachers from two zonal offices in Ibadan metropolitan participated in the study. The percentage of retuned questionnaires was 53.4%, and the percentage according to Creswell (2012b) was reasonable because it is over 30% response from participants. The surveys returned to the researcher by the participants after administration of the surveys are more than half.
53
Setting The study participants were secondary school teachers working under the Oyo State government in Nigeria. Eligible participants for this study will be teachers working in secondary school in Ibadan zones 1 and 2 of TESCOM. Eligibility was determined after potential participants were informed of the purpose of the study and signed the consent letter to be involved. Those who signed the consent letter after being informed about the study, purpose, and expectation are considered as eligible. Ibadan zones 1 and 2 were selected because they are the center and capital city of the state. The city is the center of all social and commercial activities and the base of governmental operation and offices. Teachers in this metropolitan area are close to all available technologies that can affect teaching and learning positively. Instrumentation/Measures As earlier mentioned, this study is correlational, and a valid and reliable instrument was used to collect data pertaining to teachers’ perceptions of technology and level of technology integration. A survey is an investigative tool with which information is systematically collected, but it cannot be used in experimental study (Creswell, 2014). Gorder’s (2008) Technology Integration Survey (TIS) was adopted for this current study because the instrument has been validated. This instrument is appropriate, it allow participants privacy in expressing their minds without being purged by interviewer (Baruah, 2012). In addition, the origin and content validity of the TIS was validated in a similar study. Esomonu, Nwankwo, and Adirika (2015) posited that the vitality of any good research study is the validity of its instrumentation, the importance of which cannot be overemphasized in any academic study. The process of establishing confidence in the
54
score interpreting the measurement of a desire concept brings about validation of such concept (Hagan, 2014). This shows that researcher needs to be validity conscious in order to establish facts and generalization of any issue. The survey instrument used for this study mirrors the Lynette TIS, which originated from a survey developed by Mills and Tincher (2003), named Technology Integration Standards Configuration Matrix (TISCM). This instrument was reused after minor modification by Mills (2004) and called the Technology Integration Configuration Matrix (TICM). The new TICM is user-friendly due to its emphasis on what teachers do and what students do in a technology-rich classroom. It is organized into three phases, in which Phase 1addresses teachers’ perceptions of using and understanding technology as an instrument of teaching and learning. Phase 2 addresses how teachers integrate technology and use it in a classroom setting. Phase 3 addresses integration of instructional technology based on teachers’ characteristics including gender, age, years of teaching experience, grade level taught, subject area, and educational level/ qualification. Gorder (2008) adopted Mills’s TICM instrument to develop the Technology Integration Survey (TIS). The adoption of TICM was based on Mills and Tincher’s (2003) validity test that shows coefficient alpha .91 for the start-of-year administration and .89 for the end-ofyear administration. The TICM validity and reliability was based on accurate and gradient of TISCM survey of technology integration (Gorder, 2008) established due to construct validity of TISCM, which was an effective tool used to determine technology integration by teachers (Mills & Tincher, 2003). This researcher has requested and been granted permission to use the TIS by Dr. Gorder. Based on face validity of the already
55
validated instrument, minor modifications that cannot have a negative effect on the instrument were made to the demographics section to conform to Nigeria’s teacher’s certification as well as geographical environment. After the modification, the survey is called the Teachers’ Technology Integration Survey (TTIS), and was used to solicit the information needed for the current study, especially on perceptions of teachers’ about technology integration for classroom use. The TTIS consists of 94 items, including the respondents’ demographics, and it is used to collect data from the respondents (Oyo TESCOM teachers). The preliminary section of the questionnaire addressed background information about the respondents (i.e., demographics), while the other section was focused on teachers’ perceptions on technology integration and teachers’ level of technology use. The objectives of this study were to identify and understand perceptions of the teachers about confidence in technology integration and use; ability to integrate and use technology; level of technology integration and use; anticipated barriers of using and integrating technology; and teachers’ satisfaction about technology use. These helped in evaluating Oyo State teachers’ technology use and integration in the classroom, and examine differences in technology integration by teachers based on their demographics. The TIS has been used repeatedly for technology integration studies by Dr. Gorder and it has been updated frequently. This tested instrument will make the generalization of the results possible. The instrument has been administered in the United States and can be used in any part of the globe, including Nigeria. Although the consistency of the instrument’s contents determine its reliability, the respondents’ feedback on each item confirmed the instrument’s reliability, which is why an existing
56
instrument that has passed through the process is the best when conducting educational research. Data Collection The TTIS surveys were used to collect data from the respondents. The preliminary section of the survey addressed background information about the respondents (i.e., demographics), while the other sections include teachers’ perception on technology integration, level of technology use by teachers, and how teachers integrate technology in classroom, their access to technology learning, and technology use based on teachers’ demographics. Survey questions are known for accuracy and garnering responses centered on the aims and objectives of the research (Pew Research Center, 2016; Shuttleworth, 2013). A survey instrument is good for collecting data for analysis through eliciting responses from participants, because it is an instrument that has been measured for its validity and reliability; in addition, there are other ways to check the usability of such instrument before it is administered to the participants. This form of instrument is not a making of the researcher, but enhanced by peer reviewing, expert critics, and pilot testing (Annum, 2015). Collection of data is essential in quantitative research because the questions can be developed through multistages that give attention to details (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2009). Moreover, briefing about the study and participation expectations will be made clear for understanding and clarity. After information regarding the study was explained to the participants, the questionnaire was distributed to the interested respondents who signed the consent letter, indicating their willingness to take part in the study. The questions in the survey
57
distributed were scored on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from very high (5) to very low (1). A Likert scale was selected for its ease and response uniformity. Accordingly, most of the data collected was based on a scoring system. In this study, a scoring system was appropriate because it helped respondents to select a very close numeric between 1–5 that represented their opinion. This system is referred to as ordinal numbers in statistics because respondents are not observed directly by the researcher (Boari & Ruscone, 2015). Participants use a scale of 1–5 to describe their opinion and respond to the questionnaire. The survey was sent to the respondents through their private emails and by hand delivery. The respondents were invited to complete the questionnaire, and it was collected within a stipulated timeframe. The survey administration was based on participants who signed the consent letter. Any participant who cannot complete the survey on the spot was allowed to do so within 1 week before researcher can collect the completed surveys. Research Procedure Administration of the survey for this study and procedures for data collection was approved by the Keiser University Institutional Review Board (IRB). Once the approval was granted by IRB, I started the process of carrying out the research; the TIS survey originated from TICM that has been used by professionals and has been established by Gorder (2008) was administered in selected secondary schools in Oyo State, Nigeria. After receiving Keiser University IRB approval, a copy of it was sent to Oyo State TESCOM for documentation. The approval letter from TESCOM was presented to principal of each selected schools, and explanation about the study was discussed. After
58
principals from selected secondary school have accepted and approved the surveys for distribution in their schools, another meeting was conducted with the entire staff; it was in the morning during teachers’ briefing. During this session, I explained the purpose of the study and how it will help teachers. The issue of participant confidentiality was mentioned; likewise, the expectation from participants was discussed, such as signing of the consent letter. The teachers were told that the study and survey administration will not have any negative effect on them. The survey distributed was 700 copies and 374 were returned back after 1-week timeframe after distribution. Participants’ data was synthesized and the collected data and information was processed and securely stored electronically with secured password to cloud storage. The hand delivered ones were scanned and stored securely. As part of confidentiality and privacy of the participants, I let them know that the outcome of the data collected will be shared with them as being part of the study. After collection of the surveys from the participants and data have been sorted, the data collected were imported into SPSS statistical software to process the calculation for the descriptive statistics and Spearman rank-order correlation coefficients. Doing this provided the evidence with which I could draw conclusions and determine if a relationship existed between the variables studied. The distribution of the survey was eventually hand delivered because there is no facility for established group email where individual teachers have access to one. In addition, the distributed survey was collected back at a given time for data collation. All the data were imported into the SPSS statistical analysis software where other specific
59
analysis such as Spearman rank-order was used in calculating the correlation coefficient of data for teachers’ age and their years of teaching experience. Data Analysis This study encompassed a quantitative design using a correlation approach. A descriptive analysis was generated via the SPSS data analysis software. The descriptive analysis was used to obtain a summary of the data gathered from the survey questions. The mean scores and percentile of the demographics are shared descriptively in Chapter 4. The descriptive statistics is a discipline of quantitative that is used to describe and summarize a given data set that has been collected (Marshal & Mathur, 2014). Since the results from descriptive statistics are a general summary that show mean scores, it cannot be used to conclusively prove or disprove any of the study’s hypotheses. Correlation between variables is the second phase of the data analysis process. Spearman correlation is used to evaluate the monotonic relationship that occurs between two continual or ordinal variables. It is based on ranked values of each of the variables, rather than on raw data. For these reasons, Spearman’s rank order was used because the age and years of teaching experience will be reported as ranks instead of the data being continuous. Apart from being used to determine the trend of the relationship between the variables if it is increases or decreases, Spearman rank-order was used because there is no assurance of data having normal distribution. I used SPSS software to analyze the data collected. The respondents’ demographic variables, such as teachers’ age, level of education, gender, years of teaching experience, teaching content area, and technology integration, were analyzed statistically to obtain percentile and mean scores. The teachers’ perceptions of technology integration and teachers’ ages and working
60
experiences were analyzed by using Spearman correlation to rank the value of the variables. The third phase pertained to the strength of the relationship; scattered plots generated from SPSS software were used to reveal the relationship and strength of the variables. This allowed me to significantly reveal the link between the variables by identifying how strong the relationship between the variables would be and to determine the quality of relationship (Eda & Mahmut, 2014). Using correlation was not to determine causation, but to determine levels of relationship in numerical form. Validity and Reliability Creswell (2014) mentioned that validation occurs throughout the steps in the research process. Validity and reliability are important aspects in social science as well as in educational research. The quantification of human behavior requires measurement instruments to observe, monitor, quantify, and identify human behavior (Drost, 2011). It is essential to validate any instrument to be used in educational research because the degree of measure and consistency of such an instrument matters in determining the accuracy of the results (Huck, 2012). However, validity is generally measured in degrees because no instrument has 100% validity. To overcome many of the pitfalls, I used an existing instrument that has been tested and deemed reliable for this study. Aside from the validity of the instrument to be used for this study, there are some internal threats that could have hindered the success of the study during the survey administration. There was a statewide workers strike in which teachers participated which slowed down the process. Some other threats that occurred were the inability to receive the surveys sent to teachers’ private emails due to electricity issues and the
61
internet facility distortion. To prevent this threat, I hand-delivered the survey to selected participants. Another anticipated threat would be the participants’ attitude toward the study, over which I might not have had control. It is true that technology is a tool that helps in achieving educational goals quickly; however, many teachers are still slow to accept the fact that technology will complement teachers’ work and not to take the job of any teacher. Many participants who do not have interest in technology use may not be truthful when answering the survey questions. This was one of the imminent threats to this study. To overcome the insincerity of the participants, I embarked on a meeting with the participants in their schools. Doing this allowed concerned teachers to ask questions and to be well-tutored about the importance of technology integration in schools. In addition, it cannot be ruled out that some school principals may not allow talking with the teachers during school session simply because of being biased or arrogating power of authority. Such a situation cannot be ruled out either; in such a case, the researcher look for another school within the zone that accepted the survey administration. Ethical Considerations The ethical issues in a research study need to be considered for proper accountability and responsibility for any liability regarding the research. The British Educational Research Association (2011) reiterated that researchers are responsible for ethical consideration. Such consideration allows researchers to follow the norm for conduct that differentiate acceptable and unacceptable behavior during research studies. To comply with the ethical regulations, the British Educational Research Association (2011) provided many guidelines that need to be considered in educational research.
62
These guidelines were summarized into five principles by Hammersley and Traianou (2007): (a) harm, (b) autonomy, (c) privacy, (d) reciprocity, and (e) equity. These principles were adopted in this study to streamline the focus and intention of the research so as not to negatively affect the study respondents. In no way will this research harm or affect the respondents negatively; instead, it will help to boost awareness on how to use technology in a classroom. The participants have autonomy over the stages of research. They can ask about the states of the study and other related aspects. The privacy of the participants is paramount to a researcher, and was judiciously safeguarded. I kept all the participant’s information confidential in order to build trust. It is trust that can engineer exchange of information or data that may be useful in the future studies. In this research study, I maintained respect for individual respondents and not intrudes into their privacy by pressuring them to participate in the study. The participants were addressed as a group during their morning meeting through Skype, Google Hangout, Facebook Messenger and phone as the case may be during the process by a trained assistant. After informing the participants about the purpose of the study, a consent letter was distributed where interested participants signed for understanding of the study purpose and readiness to participate in the study. The survey was given to interested respondents, and the trained assistant scheduled a reasonable time within the week of survey distribution for collection. The study’s participants were treated with respect and as colleagues. Humor was used to show equity between the respondents and the researcher.
63
Conclusion This quantitative study was conducted to determine teachers’ perceptions regarding technology integration in secondary schools in Oyo State, Nigeria. The survey questions were used to collect data for a descriptive analysis. The Spearman’s rank correlational was used to determine if a relationship exists between the variables and the teachers’ perceptions. This relationship was determined by analyzing the obtained data on SPSS software. Chapter 4 includes discussion of the data analysis and findings. All relevant findings will be presented in narrative and tabular form.
64
CHAPTER 4. DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS The purpose of this study was to determine if there is a relationship between teachers’ perceptions of technology integration, level of technology integration into their teaching, and teachers’ demographics, which include age, educational level/qualification, gender, grade level taught, years of teaching experience, and content area taught. In addition, the study was an investigation of the relationship between teachers’ perceptions of uses and integration of technology based on their personal demographics. Participants of this study were drawn from Oyo State teaching service commission teachers, which include junior and senior schools teachers in Oyo State of Nigeria. During the data collection process 700 surveys were distributed to teachers and only 374 were returned. The number returned reflecting 53% rate, which is considered an acceptable and reasonable sample according to Creswell (2012a), and Moser and Kalton (1985), who mentioned that if the sample size is 20–30%, the results of such could be considered biased and of little significance. This survey was focused on the objectives of the research as well as on the research question: Is there a relationship between teachers’ perceptions of technology integration, level of technology integration, teachers’ age, educational level, grade level taught, years of experience, and content areas taught? This chapter includes the analysis of data, which was done sequentially according to the 14 research questions developed from the primary research question and supplementary questions derived from the data gathered from the responses to the survey. Data were collected using a 5-point Likert scale, and analyzed using the mean, t test, descriptive analysis, and analytical correlation.
65
Presentation and Analysis of Data Table 1 shows the breakdown by gender of the respondents: the majority, 53.2%, was female, while the remaining 46.8% was male. The percentage of the age range of 31–49 years was 56.7%; followed by 32.9%, which accounted for ≥ 30 years of age; while the least (age 50 and above) recorded 10.4%. As for the years of working experience, in the education field for the respondents, it can be seen that 47.9% fell within ≤ 10 years, 46.3% of the respondents were within 11–25 years, while 5.9 have been working for over 26 years. Table 1 Demographic Information of the Respondents Background information
Frequency
Male Female Total
175 199 374
Total
123 212 39 374
Total
179 173 22 374
Total
88 226 48 12 374
≤ 30 31–49 50 and above ≤ 10 11–25 26 and above
*NCE Bachelor’s degree Master’s degree Doctoral degree
Junior secondary school (JSS) 1–3 Senior secondary school (SSS) 1–3 Total Business or computers English or foreign language
140
Percentage Gender 46.8 53.2 100.0 Age range 32.9 56.7 10.4 100.0 Years of experience 47.9 46.3 5.9 100.0 Educational level 23.5 60.4 12.8 3.2 100.0 Grade level taught 37.4
Cumulative percentage 46.8 100.0
32.9 86.9 100.0
47.9 94.1 100.0
23.5 84.0 96.8 100.0
37.4
234
62.6
100.0
374
100.0 Content areas 15.5 23.0
15.5 38.5
58 86
(continued)
66
Table 1 (continued) Background information Fine arts Math or science Social sciences Others Total
Frequency 14 111 72 33 374
Percentage 3.7 29.7 19.3 8.8 100.0
Cumulative percentage 42.2 71.9 91.2 100.0
Note. Age range mean = 37.8; Years of experience mean = 15.8. *NCE: Nigerian certificate in education. Table 2 shows that teachers’ perception of technology integration and the statements were rated in descending order of means with the most highly rated being teachers’ confidence that they could motivate students to participate in technology-based projects (MS = 3.775), followed by confidence of teachers regularly incorporating technology into their lessons for student learning (MS = 3.729). None of the statements were found to be below 3.488 mean score. It is evident from Table 3 that the teachers’ current level of technology integration revolves around operating common technology devices including computer keyboard, mouse, monitor, printer, video camera, digital camera, VCR, scanner, or projection system (MS = 3.264); facilitating equitable access to technology resources for all students (MS = 3.215); and managing student learning activities in a technology-enhanced learning environment (MS = 3.199) as the first three top items on Table 3.
67
Table 2 Teachers’ Perceptions of Technology Integration Questionnaire statement
Mean
Rank
Std. deviation
I feel confident that I can motivate my students to participate in technologybased projects.
3.775
1
0.935
I feel confident I can regularly incorporate technology into my lessons, for student learning.
3.729
2
1.031
I feel confident about selecting appropriate technology for instruction based on curriculum standards.
3.720
3
1.013
I feel confident I can consistently use educational technology in effective ways.
3.718
4
1.014
I feel confident I can mentor students in appropriate uses of technology.
3.695
5
1.025
I feel confident I can provide individual feedback to students during technology use.
3.666
6
0.993
I feel confident that I can successfully teach relevant subject content with appropriate use of technology.
3.615
7
1.070
I feel confident that I can help students when they have difficulty with the computer.
3.606
8
1.071
I feel confident about assigning and grading technology-based projects.
3.590
9
1.032
I feel confident that I understand computer capabilities well enough to maximize them in my classroom.
3.580
10
1.112
I feel confident about using technology resources such as spreadsheets or electronic portfolios to collect and analyze data from student tests and projects to improve instructional practices.
3.561
11
1.113
I feel confident that I have skills necessary to use the computer for instruction.
3.552
12
1.143
I feel confident that I can use correct computer terminology when directing students computer use.
3.539
13
1.066
I feel confident I can effectively monitor students computer use for project development in my classroom.
3.501
14
1.044
I feel confident in my ability to evaluate software for teaching and learning.
3.488
15
1.111
68
Table 3 Teachers’ Current Level of Technology Integration in the Classroom Questionnaire statement
Mean
Rank
Std. deviation
Operate common technology devices including computer keyboard, mouse, monitor, printer, video camera, digital camera, VCR, scanner, or projection system
3.264
1
1.209
Facilitate equitable access to technology resources for all students
3.215
2
1.289
Manage student learning activities in a technology-enhanced learning environment
3.199
3
1.246
Evaluate and select informational and educational resources based on the appropriateness to learning objectives and hardware/software requirements
3.174
4
1.240
Use technology to locate, evaluate, and collect educational research/best practices information from a variety of sources
3.149
5
1.265
Demonstrate strategies to assess the validity and reliability of data gathered with technology
3.146
6
1.256
Apply multiple methods of evaluation and assessment to determine learners use of technology for learning, communication, and productivity
3.144
7
1.287
Use technology to communicate and collaborate with peers, parents, and the larger community to nurture student learning
3.136
8
1.271
3.123
9
1.254
Use multiple technology contexts and a variety of productivity tools to provide classroom instruction
3.090
10
1.272
Use software productivity tools to prepare publications, analyze and interprets data, perform classroom management task, report results to students, parents, or other audiences, and produce other creative works
3.084
11
1.284
Practice and model responsible use of technology systems, information, and software
3.065
12
1.222
Implement technology-based learning experiences that utilize a variety of grouping strategies to address the diverse learning needs of students (e.g. cooperative, project-based, collaborative, individualized, teams)
3.057
13
1.222
Use technology resources and productivity tools to collect, analyze, interprets, and communicate learner performance data and other information to improve instructional planning, management, and implementation of instruction/learning strategies
(continued)
69
Table 3 (continued) Questionnaire statement
Mean
Rank
Std. deviation
Use technology resources to provide learning context requiring the use of problem solving, critical thinking, informed decision-making, knowledge construction, and creativity by learners
3.046
14
1.262
3.038
15
1.233
Engage learners in the development of electronic portfolios that document their technology-based educational experiences
2.943
16
1.269
Employ technology in classroom learning activities in which students use technology resources to solve authentic problems in various content areas
2.943
16
1.199
Apply trouble-shooting strategies for solving routine hardware and software problems that occur in the classroom
2.891
18
1.269
Perform basic file management tasks on a computer and local area network
Table 4 shows differences in teachers’ perceptions of technology based on their gender. When tested statistically using an independent sample t test, there was a significant relationship found between teachers’ gender and their perceptions of technology.
70
Table 4 Differences Between Teachers’ Gender and Their Perceptions of Technology Male
Female
Mean
Rank
Mean
Rank
t
df
Sig (2tailed)
3.749
1
3.712
5
0.340
371
0.734
3.731
2
3.813
2
-0.842
371
0.400
I feel confident I can consistently use educational technology in effective ways.
3.626
3
3.798
3
-1.632
370
0.104
I feel confident I can provide individual feedback to students during technology use.
3.626
3
3.701
6
-0.717
369
0.474
I feel confident about selecting appropriate technology for instruction based on curriculum standards.
3.600
5
3.827
1
-2.171
370
0.310
I feel confident that I can successfully teach relevant subject content with appropriate use of technology.
3.595
6
3.631
10
-0.322
369
0.747
I feel confident I can mentor students in appropriate uses of technology.
3.580
7
3.797
4
-2.039
369
0.420
I feel confident that I understand computer capabilities well enough to maximize them in my classroom.
3.571
8
3.588
13
-0.143
372
0.886
I feel confident about using technology resources such as spreadsheets or electronic portfolios to collect and analyze data from student tests and projects to improve instructional practices.
3.537
9
3.583
14
-0.396
372
0.692
I feel confident about assigning and grading technology-based projects.
3.532
10
3.641
8
-1.021
369
0.308
I feel confident that I can help students when they have difficulty with the computer.
3.520
11
3.682
7
-1.458
371
0.146
I feel confident that I can use correct computer terminology when directing students’ computer use.
3.471
12
3.598
12
-1.146
371
0.253
I feel confident that I have the skills necessary to use the computer for instruction.
3.463
13
3.631
10
-1.422
371
0.156
Questionnaire statement I feel confident I can regularly incorporate technology into my lessons, for student learning. I feel confident that I can motivate my students to participate in technology-based projects.
71
(continued)
Table 4 (continued) Male
Female
Mean
Rank
Mean
Rank
t
df
Sig (2tailed
I feel confident in my ability to evaluate software for teaching and learning.
3.402
14
3.563
15
-1.396
369
0.164
I feel confident I can effectively monitor students’ computer use for project development in my classroom.
3.343
15
3.641
8
-2.782
371
0.060
Questionnaire statement
Total
3.557
3.681
72
Table 5 shows that there is a moderate strong positive linear relationship between teachers’ gender and their perception of technology. This is also evidenced in the scatter plot (Figure 1). The correlation coefficient of 0.668 is significant at 0.01, indicating that the relationship is not by chance. Table 5 Relationship Between Teachers’ Gender and Their Perception of Technology Male Spearman’s rho
Male
Correlation coefficient
1.000
Sig. (2-tailed) N Female
.668** .007
15
15
Correlation coefficient
.668**
1.000
Sig. (2-tailed)
.007
N Note. **Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
15
Figure 1. Relationship between teachers’ gender and their perception of technology.
73
Female
15
Table 6 Differences Between Teachers’ Gender and Their Technology Integration Male
Female
Mean
Rank
Mean
Rank
t
df
Sig (2tailed)
Internet research or searches in the classroom
3.237
1
3.061
1
1.225
369
0.221
Email in course delivery (e.g., to/from students to complete assignments)
3.058
2
2.934
5
0.823
367
0.411
Database software
3.052
3
2.854
11
1.390
368
0.166
Spreadsheet software
3.040
4
2.869
9
1.250
370
0.212
Draw/paint/graphics software
3.035
5
3.005
3
0.207
368
0.836
Digital camera, scanner
3.034
6
3.030
2
0.027
368
0.836
Word processing software
3.023
7
2.980
4
0.313
369
0.754
Presentation software (e.g. Power Point, smart board)
3.023
8
2.924
6
0.701
369
0.484
Student web page and/or multimedia authoring (e.g Hyperstudio or FrontPage)
2.988
9
2.722
14
1.876
368
0.061
Internet and/or video conferencing for teaching online courses
2.954
10
2.777
13
1.233
369
0.218
Web-based programs, on-line discussion boards, on-line chat programs, online bulletin boards to support collaboration among students
2.920
11
2.685
15
1.631
369
0.104
Specialized, discipline specific software (e.g., Mathematica, MS Producer, Toolbook)
2.891
12
2.848
12
0.296
369
0.767
Technology integration
74
(continued)
Table 6 (continued) Male Technology integration
Female
75
Mean
Rank
Mean
Rank
t
df
Sig (2tailed)
Blog, weblog, podcast, Wikipedia, or other special software to encourage collaboration among students
2.891
13
2.893
8
-0.008
368
0.994
Concept mapping (e.g., Inspiration)
2.884
14
2.904
7
-0.131
368
0.896
Computer-based digital presentation technology (Destination system, SmartBoards, video projectors (wired/wireless)
2.864
15
2.670
16
1.367
364
0.172
Electronic portfolios
2.851
16
2.619
17
1.714
369
0.087
Course management software (WebCT, Web Course in a Box, Black Board)
2.753
17
2.863
10
-0.748
369
0.172
Total 2.970
2.861
From Table 7, it is evident that there is a weak positive linear relationship consequent upon teachers’ gender and their perception of technology integration. This is in consonance with the scatter plot shown in Figure 2. The correlation coefficient of 0.492 is significant at 0.05 level. Therefore, the relationship is not just by a mere chance. Table 7 Relationship Between Teachers’ Gender and Their Technology Integration Male Female Spearman’s rho
Male
Correlation coefficient
1.000
Sig. (2-tailed) N Female
Correlation coefficient Sig. (2-tailed) N
Note. *Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
76
.492* .038
18
18
.492*
1.000
.038 18
18
Figure 2. Relationship between teachers’ gender and their technology integration.
Table 8 shows the existence of a weak positive linear relationship in the perception of technology of teachers between the age groups of 30 or under and 31–49. The relationship between these teachers’ age groups is not significant. The corresponding scatter plot is shown in Figure 3. There is a moderate positive linear relationship of 0.577 in the perception of teachers between the age groups of 30 or under and 50 and above. The relationship is not by chance as it is significant at 0.05 level. Figure 3 shows the scatter plot for these categories of teachers.
77
Table 8 also shows that moderate positive linear relationship exists between the teachers within the age groups of 31–49 and 50 and above based on their perception of technology. This is also shown in the scatter plot (Figure 3). The relationship is significant at 0.01 level, having correlation coefficient of 0.665. Table 8 Relationship Between Teachers’ Age and Their Perceptions of Technology
Spearman’s rho
30 or under 1.000
30 or under
Correlation coefficient Sig. (2-tailed) N 31–49 Correlation coefficient Sig. (2-tailed) N 50 and Correlation coefficient above Sig. (2-tailed) N Note. *Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
78
31–49 .495 .061 15 1.000
50 and above .577* .024 15 .665** .007 15 1.000
15 .495 .061 15 15 * .577 .665** .024 .007 15 15 **Correlation is significant
15
Figure 3. Relationship between teachers’ age and their perception of technology.
79
Table 9 shows that there exists a weak positive linear relationship in teachers’ technology integration between the age groups of 30 or under and 31–49. The relationship between these teachers’ age groups is significant at 0.05 level with a correlation coefficient of 0.495. The corresponding scatter plot is shown Figure 4. There is also a weak positive linear relationship of 0.291 between the age groups of 30 or under and 50 and above. The relationship is not significant (see Figure 4 for the scatter plot of the relationship). Table 9 also shows that moderate positive linear relationship exists between the teachers within the age groups of 31–49 and 50 and above based on their technology integration. This is also shown in the scatter plot (Figure 4). The relationship is significant at 0.01 level, having a correlation coefficient of 0.755. Table 9 Relationship Between Teachers’ Age and Their Technology Integration 30 or under Spearman’s rho
30 or under
Correlation coefficient
31 – 49
Correlation coefficient Sig. (2-tailed) N
50 and above
.495*
.291
.037
.241
18
18
18
.495*
1.000
.755**
1.000
Sig. (2-tailed) N
31–49
50 and above
.037
.000
18
18
18
Correlation coefficient
.291
.755**
1.000
Sig. (2-tailed)
.241
.000
18
18
N
18
Note. *Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). **Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
80
Figure 4. Relationship between teachers’ age and their technology integration. Table 10 shows the existence of a moderate positive relationship between years of teaching experience of 10 or under and 11–25 in relation to teachers’ perception of technology. The relationship between these teachers’ years of experience is significant at 0.01. The corresponding scatter plot is shown in Figure 5. There is also a moderate positive linear relationship of 0.672 in the perception of teachers between the years of experience of 10 or under and 26 and above. The relationship is not by chance as it is significant at 0.05 level. Figure 5 shows the scatter plot for these teachers.
81
Table 10 also shows that moderate positive linear relationship exists between the years of teaching experience of 11–25 and 26 and above. This is also shown in the scatter plot (Figure 5). The relationship is significant at 0.05 level, having a correlation coefficient of 0.639. Table 10 Relationship Between Years of Teaching Experience and Teachers’ Perceptions of Technology 10 or under Spearman’s rho
10 or under
Correlation coefficient
.760**
.627*
.001
.012
15
15
15
.760**
1.000
.639*
1.000
Sig. (2-tailed) N 11–25
Correlation coefficient Sig. (2-tailed) N
26 and above
Correlation coefficient Sig. (2-tailed) N
26 and above
11–25
.001
.010
15
15
15
*
*
1.000
.627
.639
.012
.010
15
15
Note. **Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
82
15
Figure 5. Relationship between years of teaching experience and teachers’ perceptions of technology. Table 11 shows the existence of a moderate positive relationship between years of teaching experience of 10 or under and 11–25 in relation to teachers’ technology integration. The relationship between these teachers’ years of experience is significant at 0.05. The corresponding scatter plot is shown in Figure 6. There is a weak positive linear relationship of 0.497 in the technology integration of teachers’ between the years of experience of 10 or under and 26 and above. The relationship is not by chance as it is significant at 0.05 level. Figure 6 shows the scatter plot for teachers having these years of teaching experience.
83
Lastly, Table 11 also shows that weak positive linear relationship exists between the teachers’ having their years of teaching experience within 11–25 and 26 and above. This is also shown in the scatter plot (Figure 6). The correlation coefficient of 0.312 is not significant. Table 11 Relationship Between Years of Teaching Experience and Teachers’ Technology Integration 10 or under Spearman’s rho
10 or under
Correlation coefficient
11–25 .501*
.497*
.034
.036
18
18
18
.501*
1.000
.312
1.000
Sig. (2-tailed) N 11–25
Correlation coefficient Sig. (2-tailed) N
26 and above
Correlation coefficient Sig. (2-tailed) N
Note. *Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
84
26 and above
.034
.207
18
18
18
*
.312
1.000
.036
.207
18
18
.497
18
Figure 6. Relationship between years of teaching experience and teachers’ technology integration. Table 12 shows the existence of a moderate positive relationship between business or computer and English or foreign languages in relation to teachers’ perception of technology. The relationship between these subject areas is significant at 0.05 level. The corresponding scatter plot is shown in Figure 7. There is a weak positive linear relationship of 0.247 in the teachers’ perception of technology between business or computer and fine arts. The relationship is not significant. Figure 7 shows the scatter plot for this relationship.
85
The relationship between business or computer as a subject area and each of mathematics or science, social science, and others consequent upon Table 12 show a significant moderate positive linear relationship (0.596*) at 0.05 level, weak positive relationship (0.321) and significant moderate linear relationship (0.520*) respectively. The overlay scatter plots for the relationships are also shown in Figure 7. The correlations between English or foreign language and each of fine arts, mathematics or science, social science, and others, according to Table 12, are weak positive relationship (0.322), significant moderate positive linear relationship (0.633*) at 0.05 level, weak negative relationship (-0.081), and weak positive linear relationship (0.353), respectively. The scatter plots are shown in the overlay chart (Figure 8). The correlations, according to Table 12, between fine arts and each of mathematics, social sciences, and others are weak positive relationship (0.184), weak negative linear relationship (-0.148), and weak positive linear relationship (0.118), respectively. The scatter plots for these relationships are shown in Figure 9. In terms of relationship between mathematics and each of social science, and others, there is a weak positive relationship (0.190), and weak positive linear (0.346), respectively. The scatter plot is shown in Figure 10. Lastly, Table 12 shows that there is significant moderate positive linear relationship between social science and other subjects (0.539*). The scatter plot in Figure 11 shows the relationship.
86
Table 12 Relationship Between Teachers’ Subject Areas and Their Perceptions of Technology English or foreign language 1.000 .563* .029 15 1.000
Business or computers Spearman’s rho
87
Business Correlation coefficient or Sig. (2-tailed) computers N English or Correlation coefficient foreign Sig. (2-tailed) language N Fine arts Correlation coefficient Sig. (2-tailed) N Math or Correlation coefficient science Sig. (2-tailed) N Social Correlation coefficient sciences Sig. (2-tailed) N Others Correlation coefficient Sig. (2-tailed) N Note. *Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
Fine arts .247 .375 15 .322 .242 15 1.000
Math or science .596* .019 15 .633* .011 15 .184 .512 15 1.000
Social sciences .321 .244 15 -.081 .775 15 -.148 .599 15 .190 .497 15 1.000
Others .520* .047 15 .353 .197 15 .118 .676 15 .346 .206 15 .539* .038 15 1.000 15
Figure 7. Relationship between teachers’ subject areas (business or computer, English or foreign language, fine arts, math or science, social science, and others) and their perceptions of technology.
Figure 8. Relationship between teachers’ subject areas (English or foreign language, math or science, social science, and others) and their perceptions of technology.
88
Figure 9. Relationship between teachers’ subject areas (fine arts, math or social science, and others) and their perceptions of technology.
Figure 10. Relationship between teachers’ subject areas (math or science, social sciences, math, and others) and their perceptions of technology.
89
Figure 11. Relationship between teachers’ subject areas (social science and others) their perceptions of technology. Table 13 shows the existence of a moderate positive relationship between business or computer and English or foreign languages in relation to teachers’ technology integration (0.547*). The relationship between these subject areas is significant at 0.05 level. The corresponding scatter plot is shown in Figure 12. There is a weak positive linear relationship of 0.433 in teachers’ technology integration between business or computer and fine arts. The relationship is not significant. Figure 12 shows the scatter plot for this relationship. The relationship between business or computer as a subject area and each of mathematics or science, social science and others consequent upon Table 13 are weak positive linear relationship (0.171), weak positive relationship (0.062), and weak positive linear relationship (0.426*) respectively. The overlay scatter plots for the relationships are also shown in Figure 13.
90
The correlations between English or foreign language and each of fine arts, mathematics or science, social science and others, according to Table 13, are weak positive relationship (0.080), weak positive linear relationship (0.184), significant moderate positive relationship (0.542*), and moderate positive linear relationship (0.522), respectively. The scatter plots are evidenced in the overlay chart Figure 14. The correlations according to Table 13 between fine arts and each of mathematics, social sciences, and others are weak positive relationship (0.041), weak positive linear relationship (0.073), and weak positive linear relationship (0.403), respectively. The scatter plots for these relationships are shown in Figure 15. In terms of relationship between mathematics and each of social science, and others, there is a weak positive relationship (0.126) and weak positive linear relationship (0.260), respectively. The scatter plot is shown in Figure 16. Lastly, Table 13 shows that there is weak positive linear relationship between social science and other subjects (0.383). The scatter plot in Figure 17 reveals the relationship.
91
Table 13 Relationship Between Teachers’ Subject Areas and Their Technology Integration English or foreign language 1.000 .547* .019 18 1.000
Business or computers Spearman’s rho
Business or computers English or foreign language Fine arts
Correlation coefficient Sig. (2-tailed) N Correlation coefficient Sig. (2-tailed) N Correlation coefficient
92
Sig. (2-tailed) N Math or science Correlation coefficient Sig. (2-tailed) N Social science Correlation coefficient Sig. (2-tailed) N Others Correlation coefficient Sig. (2-tailed) N Note. *Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
Math or science
Social sciences
Others
.433 .072 18 .080 .753 18
.171 .498 18 .184 .465 18
.062 .807 18 .542* .020 18
.426 .078 18 .522* .026 18
1.000
.041
.073
.403
.872 18 1.000
.773 18 .126 .618 18 1.000
.097 18 .260 .297 18 .383 .117 18 1.000
Fine arts
18
Figure 12. Relationship between teachers’ subject areas (business or computers, English or foreign language, fine arts, math or science, social science, and other) and their technology integration.
Figure 13. Relationship between teachers’ subject areas (English or foreign language, math or science, social science, and others) and their technology integration.
93
Figure 14. Relationship between teachers’ subject areas (English or foreign, fine arts, math or science, social science, and others) and their technology integration.
Figure 15. Relationship between teachers’ subject areas (fine arts, math or science, and others) and their technology integration.
94
Figure 16. Relationship between teachers’ subject areas (math or science, social science, and others) and their technology integration.
Figure 17. Relationship between teachers’ subject areas (social science and others) and their technology integration.
95
As shown in Table 14, there is a moderate positive linear relationship between classes taught by teachers, taking into consideration their perception of technology. The relationship is depicted in scatter plot in Figure 18. The correlation coefficient of 0.511 in Table 14 is not significant. Table 14 Relationship Between Classes Taught by Teachers and Their Perceptions of Technology JSS 1–3 Spearman’s rho
JSS 1–3
Correlation coefficient
SSS 1–3
1.000
Sig. (2-tailed) N SSS 1–3 Correlation coefficient Sig. (2-tailed) N
.051 15
15
.511
1.000
.051 15
Figure 18. Relationship between classes taught by teachers and their perceptions of technology.
96
.511
15
As depicted in Table 15, there is a moderate positive linear relationship between classes taught by teachers, taking into consideration their technology integration. The relationship is shown in the scatter plot in Figure 19. There is a significant correlation coefficient of 0.614 at 0.01 level. Table 15 Relationship Between Classes Taught by Teachers and Their Technology Integration JSS 1–3 Spearman’s rho
JSS 1–3
Correlation coefficient
SSS 1–3
1.000
Sig. (2-tailed) N SSS 1–3
Correlation coefficient Sig. (2-tailed) N
0.007 18
18
.614**
1.000
0.007 18
Note. **Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Figure 19. Relationship between classes taught by teachers and their technology integration.
97
.614**
18
The correlations between NCE (teachers’ educational qualification) and each of the other degrees (bachelor’s degree, master’s degree and doctorate) based on teachers’ perceptions of technology, as indicated in Table 16, are weak positive relationship (0.411), weak positive linear relationship (0.133), and also weak negative linear relationship (-0.209), respectively. The scatter plots are evidenced in the overlay chart (Figure 20). The correlations as shown in Table 16 between holders of bachelor’s degree and each of master’s degree and doctorate are moderate positive relationship (0.536*) and weak positive linear relationship (0.038), respectively. The scatter plots for these relationships are shown in Figure 21. In terms of relationship between holders of master’s degree and doctoral degree, consequent upon their perceptions of technology, there is a weak positive relationship (0.266). The scatter plot is shown in Figure 22.
98
Table 16 Relationship Between Teachers’ Academic Qualifications and Their Perceptions of Technology NCE Spearman’s rho
NCE
Correlation coefficient Sig. (2-tailed) N
Bachelor’s degree
Correlation coefficient Sig. (2-tailed) N
Master’s degree
Doctoral degree
Correlation coefficient Sig. (2-tailed)
1.000
Bachelor’s degree
Master’s degree
Doctoral degree
.411
.133
-.209
.128
.636
.455
15
15
15
1.000
.536*
.038
.039
.893
15
15
1.000
.266
N Correlation coefficient Sig. (2-tailed) N
.339 15 1.000
15
Note. *Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
Figure 20. Relationship between teachers’ academic qualifications (NCE, bachelor’s degree, master’s degree, and doctoral degree) and their perceptions of technology.
99
Figure 21. Relationship between teachers’ academic qualifications (bachelor’s degree, master’s degree, and doctoral degree) and their perceptions of technology.
Figure 22. Relationship between teachers’ academic qualifications (master’s degree, and doctoral degree) and their perceptions of technology.
100
Table 17 shows the correlations between teachers’ educational qualifications and their technology integration. Between teachers with NCE and each of others (bachelor’s degree, master’s degree and doctoral degree) are weak positive relationship (0.466), weak positive linear relationship (0.245), and also a weak negative linear relationship (-0.086), respectively. The scatter plots are evidenced in the overlay chart Figure 23. The correlations according to Table 17 between holders of bachelor’s degree and each of master’s and doctoral degrees are significant moderate positive relationship (0.776**), and weak negative linear relationship (-0.139), respectively. The scatter plots for these relationships are shown in Figure 24. In consideration of the relationship between holders of master’s and doctoral degrees consequent upon their perceptions of technology, there is a weak negative relationship (-0.075). The scatter plot is shown in Figure 25. Table 17 Relationship Between Teachers’ Academic Qualifications and Their Technology Integration NCE Spearman’s rho
NCE
Correlation coefficient Sig. (2-tailed) N
Bachelor’s degree
Correlation coefficient Sig. (2-tailed) N
Master’s degree
Correlation coefficient Sig. (2-tailed)
Master’s degree
Doctoral degree
.466
.245
-.086
.051
.327
.735
18
18
18
1.000
**
-.139
.000
.581
18
18
1.000
-.075
.776
.768
N Doctoral degree
1.000
Bachelor’s degree
18
Correlation coefficient
1.000
Sig. (2-tailed) N
18
Note. **Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
101
Figure 23. Relationship between teachers’ academic qualifications (NCE, bachelor’s degree, master’s degree, doctorate degree) and their technology integration.
Figure 24. Relationship between teachers’ academic qualifications (bachelor’s degree, master’s degree, doctoral degree) and their technology integration.
102
Figure 25. Relationship between teachers’ academic qualifications (master’s degree, doctoral degree) and their technology integration. From Table 18, the respondents rated in descending order of means the extent of integrating technology support to students learning in the classroom. Out of the 17 technology supports, the first rated is via internet research or searches in the classroom (MS = 3.143). The second and third technology supports are digital camera, scanner, and draw/paint/graphics software with mean scores of 3.032 and 3.019, respectively. The least rated are Web-based programs, online discussion boards, online chat programs, online bulletin boards to support collaboration among students (MS = 2.795), computerbased digital presentation technology (Destination system, Smart Boards, video projectors (wired/wireless; MS = 2.760) and electronic portfolios (MS = 2.728). It is evident that all aforementioned technology support medium are well above the average of 2.5, but at varying order of integration.
103
Table 18 Extent of Integrating Technology Support to Student Learning in the Classroom Technology integration
Mean
Rank
Internet research or searches in the classroom
3.143
1
Digital camera, scanner
3.032
2
Draw/paint/graphics software
3.019
3
Word processing software
3.000
4
Email in course delivery (e.g., to/from students to complete assignments)
2.992
5
Presentation software (e.g., Power Point, smart board)
2.970
6
Spreadsheet software
2.949
7
Database software
2.946
8
Concept mapping (e.g., Inspiration)
2.895
9
Blog, weblog, podcast, Wikipedia, or other special software to encourage collaboration among students
2.892
10
Specialized, discipline specific software (e.g., Mathematica, MS Producer, Toolbook)
2.868
11
Internet and/ or video conferencing for teaching online courses
2.860
12
Student web page &/ or multimedia authoring (e.g., Hyper studio or FrontPage)
2.846
13
Course management software (WebCT, Web Course in a Box, Black Board)
2.811
14
Web-based programs, online discussion boards, online chat programs, online bulletin boards to support collaboration among students
2.795
15
Computer-based digital presentation technology (Destination system, Smart Boards, video projectors (wired/wireless)
2.760
16
Electronic portfolios
2.728
17
Despite the various means through which technology supports are integrated into students’ learning in the classroom, Table 19 shows that certain barriers that impacted integration of instructional technology cannot be overemphasized. Internet connectivity, professional development for teachers with rewards and incentives and software compatibility and availability were some of the high impact barriers (mean scores of 104
3.592, 3.558, and 3.521, respectively). Out of the listed 22 barriers, the least record of impact were found among job security issues (teachers will be replaced by technology) (MS = 3.229), lack of technology resources (hardware, network, and/ or software; MS = 3.226), and no time (to develop, to implement, to communicate with students, etc.; MS = 2. 997). Table 20 reveals that the respondents rated all the technology infrastructures to support integration of technology into the classroom well above average (2.5 on a 5-point Likert scale). The most highly rated infrastructures were student support for technology (mean score = 3.350), support and encouragement by colleagues (mean score = 3.324), and support for using technology by technical coordinator or technology department leaders (mean score = 3.207). The least-rated infrastructures based on the perceptions of the respondents were in the order of network and DDN support, funds to implement new technology from school district, and office and classroom computers and technology hardware and software (mean scores = 2.909; 2.972, and 2.973, respectively).
105
Table 19 Barriers That Impacted Integration of Instructional Technology Barriers to technology integration
Mean
Rank
Internet connectivity
3.592
1
Professional development for teachers with rewards and incentives
3.558
2
Software compatibility and availability
3.521
3
Large class size
3.508
4
Time commitment to learning and implementing new technology
3.472
5
Scheduling when computer labs are available
3.468
6
Little or no knowledge and skills about technology and its use in the classroom
3.461
7
Funds to implement instructional technology
3.435
8
Commitment to technology
3.413
9
Lack of student competency and skills
3.390
10
Teacher reward structure including compensation, incentives, etc.
3.365
11
Not enough time for students to be at computers
3.339
12
Equipment difficulties
3.327
13
Unrealistic expectations by administrators
3.318
14
Funding to keep up with technological changes
3.309
15
Lack of recognition
3.295
16
Projection systems (wired or wireless)
3.287
17
Ability to teach and use technical content at a distance
3.267
18
Inadequate support (training or staff at the school)
3.267
19
Job security issues (teachers will be replaced by technology)
3.229
20
Lack of technology resources (hardware, network, and/ or software)
3.226
21
No time (to develop, to implement, to communicate with students, etc.)
2.997
22
106
Table 20 Infrastructures to Support Integration of Technology Into the Classroom Infrastructures
Mean
Rank
Student support for technology
3.350
1
Support and encouragement by colleagues
3.324
2
Support for using technology by technical coordinator or technology department leaders
3.207
3
Community and parent support for new technology
3.204
4
Support through professional development training
3.191
5
Support for using technology by school administration
3.186
6
Rewards for implementing new technology
3.129
7
Library or multimedia support for technology
3.110
8
Support from higher education administration and faculty
3.105
9
Support from the state education board data centre
3.069
10
Funds to implement new technology from the state
3.003
11
Office and classroom computers and technology hardware and software
2.973
12
Funds to implement new technology from school district
2.972
13
Network and DDN support
2.909
14
Summary Chapter 4 included a detailed description of participants’ demographics, data collection and analysis, results, and summary of the study on the teachers’ perceptions of using and integrating technology in teaching learning process. Data were collected and analyzed using the SPSS package. The results revealed no significance in most of the analyzed data except for a significant correlation in teachers’ age and perception of using technology due to teachers’ years of experience and age. Chapter 5 includes detailed discussion of the results of the study. The chapter contains vivid explanation of the research topic, questions, and results which will help in drawing conclusions as well as suggestions and opportunities for further studies. 107
CHAPTER 5. DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS Teachers have introduced different attitudes, experiences, and skills related to technology integration in the classroom (Dawson, Cavanaugh, & Ritzhaupt, 2008). Professional development can help in building and developing technology skills, and also has the potential of impacting teachers’ attitudes and perceptions toward using and integrating technology. The purpose of this research was to investigate and discover the teachers’ perceptions on technology integration and usage in Nigerian secondary schools, with Oyo state teaching service commission schoolteachers serving as the study participants. Technology use in education is playing a huge role in teaching success and students’ learning (Kelm, 2011). Despite the clamoring for technology use and integration, many teachers in Oyo state are still finding it difficult to use and integrate technology during teaching because of nonavailability of these resources (Abdullahi, 2015; Fakeye, 2009; Moruf, 2015; Taiwo, 2009). The purpose of this correlational study was to determine if there is a relationship between teachers’ perceptions of technology integration, level of technology integration into their teaching, and teachers’ demographics which include age, educational level, gender, grade level taught, years of teaching experience, and content area in selected secondary school in Oyo State Nigeria. In addition, the study also included investigation of the relationship between teachers’ perceptions of uses and integration of technology based on their personal demographics. This chapter is a summary of the findings from the data collected using the TTIS instrument, discussion of the implications for these findings, and recommendations. The findings are presented in order of the research questions presented in Chapter 4. The
108
TTIS instrument consisted of 11 sections, categorized under teachers’ perception of technology, teachers’ current practices of technology integration, to what extent technology is used in supporting learning, barriers impacting technology, and how the use of technology is affected by the variables of gender, age, years of experience, grade level taught, content areas, and teachers’ educational levels. The aforementioned sections were statistically analyzed to produce the results of the study. This chapter includes discussion of the relationship between the quantitative results and the literature. This chapter concludes with the limitations of the study, recommendations for further studies and research, and implications the study may have for the educational sector, community, and educational stakeholders. Summary of Purpose There has been a tremendous change in teaching and learning due to technology integration in most of the advanced countries as compared to many developing and underdeveloped nations (Jayson, 2013). This change has been attributed to the proper integration and use of technology in school to aid teaching and learning. Looking at Nigeria as one of the developing countries, although it has first class information about new technology and its use, especially in corporate sectors, the use of the technology has not rooted in many of the government schools all over the states. The purpose of this correlational study was to determine if there is a relationship between teachers’ perceptions of technology integration, level of technology integration into their teaching, and teachers’ demographics which include age, educational level, gender, grade level taught, years of teaching experience, and content area in selected secondary school in Oyo State Nigeria. In addition, the study included investigation of the relationship
109
between teachers’ perceptions of uses and the integration of technology based on their personal demographics. Research Discussion The theoretical framework for this study was based on self-perception theory proposed by Bem (1972) which suggests that individuals show attitudes to something they like or dislike, often through their facial expressions. However, this could trigger emotion depending on reaction toward the situation, and human beings perceive and embrace things differently. Teachers’ perceptions are based on mental impressions. The understanding of perceived things depends on how such things are presented to them and their thoughts about the presentation are based on their judgment of embracing or refuting it. Technology use and integration calls for inner desire of the teachers and their willingness to use and integrate technology in the classroom. Also, technology integration cannot be possible if willingness and readiness of students are not put into consideration (Menard, 2010). Ramey (2013) mentioned that teachers’ perceptions of technology use and integration varies among the teachers: some regard its usage as time wasting, while some embraced it because it reduces teaching difficulties. Regardless of the situation, teachers’ opinions and operations of mind is caused by sensory information and decision, which makes teachers’ thinking more of an internal and personal issue that is eventually reflected outwardly (Kranzt, 2012). Bem’s (1972) position on the self-perception theory shows that teachers’ attitudes revealed what they like or dislike. In affirmation to Bem’s theory, Cohan (2010) and Theory of Knowledge (2015) described the term perception as dismissive and naïve
110
realism. It could be dismissive because it is not interesting and not of value to one, and can be the imagination and thought of someone. Krishnananda (2015) defined perception as being conscious of certain things. Relating these views and assertions together, it could be deduced that teachers’ perceptions vary and their reactions and results of their performance shows where they stand on technology integration. The theoretical framework for this study has a critical implication of selfwillingness and self-consciousness of doing things by understanding rather than through enforcing teachers to comply with the decision. Synthesizing teachers on why technology integration is necessary and useful in the educational system will go a long way in teachers’ preparedness for such challenges and changes in their teaching endeavor. However, based on the results from Chapter 4, it is evident that teachers are more capable of using technology to advance their teaching–learning process if adequate and necessary technology is provided for the effect. Moreover, the results show that there are significant relationships in teachers’ demographics, gender, subject areas, and classes taught, except in the qualification of doctoral degree holder that did show a significant difference. Although it would have been more interesting to know why this happens, this study was not focused on the cause and effect, but on the relationship between the variables. Technology integration centers on the ability to adapt and incorporate technologies, which should be one of the teacher’s roles in successful technology integration (Machado & Chung, 2015). Blair (2012) explained that technology integration in education should not be limited to classroom modeling, demonstration of
111
invention, and chalkboard use; but should include the use of computer, interactive board, social media, and many other technology applications. This assertion from Chapter 2 literature review was proved right by the results of the findings in Chapter 4, where it shows that teachers are capable of using and integrating technology into teaching and learning. The results show teachers’ confidence in motivating students to participate in a technology based project with the MS = 3.775, also with MS =3.729 for frequently incorporating technology into teaching. Based on a mean score of 5, the least MS in Table 2 was 3.448, which is far above the average MS. However, looking through Tables 3 and 4, it is revealed that the MS obtained was above average and this confirmed that teachers in Oyo state TESCOM have confidence in integrating technology. Based on the literature review on gender and technology integration in Chapter 2, it is evident that regardless of teachers’ gender, age, and subjects taught, the results show a significant relationship; some of the relationships were strong, medium, and weak, but the fact still remains there is relationship. The weak relationship will be due to nonavailability of technology materials, exposure to technology use, and other challenges faced by teachers while discharging their duties. Findings of similar research from Chapter 2 revealed that gender has nothing to do with integration of technology. The issue of competency was the main point that cut across the studies reviewed. The results from Chapter 4 show that despite little or no training given to the teachers, the relationship of positive significance was achieved. However, this indicates that if teachers can have a little push in technology use and integration, better results await the students.
112
It is very important to understand that technology cannot integrate itself into use; the only tool that uses technology is the human being, and in the educational setting, that means teachers (Cifuentes et al., 2011). The gender issues in technology integration have become a thing of the past because the results show that both males and females do desire to implement changes in their teaching method. The issue of gender in technology use and integration is unidirectional (Almekhlafi & Almeqdadi, 2010; Hohlfeld et al., 2013). The reason it is unidirectional is that each gender has same focus and goals in terms of technology integration. However, there is also cross-usage of those technologies depending on the interests that created them. The result presented in Chapter 4 established that although gender does not matter in utilization of technology, each of the genders have their areas of proficiency when it comes to technology uses. The results regarding gender are positive and significant. Teachers’ Demographic Information I used a descriptive method to analyze the demographic characteristics of the teachers, which include gender, age, years of experience educational level, grade level taught, and content area. Table 1 showed that majority of the participants were female with 53.2% and male counterpart accounted for the remaining 46.8%. The increase in percentage of female teachers did not have any major issue regarding the significance of the gender. Almekhlafi and Almeqdadi (2010) postulated that use of technology is unidirectional, and it depends on attitude and perception of the user. However, Hohlfeld et al. (2013) were of the opinion that gender is unidirectional based on the population of gender that dominates the teaching environment and this does not affect the use or integration of technology in classroom setting.
113
Teachers’ age was categorized into three sections in which 56.7% represents ages 31–49 years, 32.9% represents ages of teachers less than 30 years of age, and the last category represents age 50 and above with 10.4%. As for the years of working experience, 47.9% of the total population represents 10 years and less, while 47.9% represents 11–25 years of experience, and 5.9% of the participants have been working for over 26 years. On the average, the respondents had approximately a minimum of 16 years of working experience, which could be considered significant because the retirement age in Oyo state TESCOM is 30 years in service or 60 years of age depending on which comes first. This information on demography of the participating teachers will be considered as adequate and reliable based on age and working experience. As revealed in Table 1, a majority of the teachers who participated in the survey have a bachelor’s degree with 60.4% statistical representation, followed by 23.5% of the participants who hold an NCE, and the least represented was doctoral degree holders at 3.2%. In the category of the level of grade taught, the majority of the participants or 62.6%, were teaching SSS 1–3 and 37.4% teach JSS 1-3. Nigeria has shifted the minimum qualification for teachers from a Grade 11 certificate to NCE, which is a little bit higher than Grade 11. The holders of NCE certificates are more in JSS than SSS, depending on the subject taught. The content areas of the participants in descending order of percentages are mathematics or science (29.7%), English or foreign language (23.0%), social science (19.3%), business or computer science (15.5%). Other content areas are religious studies, civics education/history with 8.8%, and the least content areas was fine art with 3.7%.
114
Research Questions What are the teachers’ perceptions of technology integration? Descriptive analysis was used by adopting mean and ranking order to calculate teachers’ perceptions of technology integration. Based on the ranking, the most highly rated statement reveals MS = 3.775 of teachers were confident that they could motivate their students to participate in technology-based projects. The least in this category also shows the teachers’ confidence with MS = 3.488 in ability to evaluate software for teaching and learning. These means show a level of confidence that is good if considering the average of the mean to be either 2.500 or 3.000, depending on the yardstick used to determine the average. Computer usage has changed the way teachers approach teaching and learning (Mundy et al., 2012) and although not much technology equipment is in use in the Nigerian educational system, the teachers with access to technology are changing the way. The mean scores generated indicate that there is no significant difference in teachers’ perception of technology integration in Oyo state TESCOM. What are the teachers’ current levels of technology integration in the classroom? It is evident from Table 3 that the teachers’ current level of technology integration revolves around operating common technology devices including computer keyboard, mouse, monitor, printer, video camera, digital camera, VCR, scanner, or projection system (MS = 3.264); facilitating equitable access to technology resources for all students (MS = 3.215), and managing student learning activities in a technologyenhanced learning environment (MS = 3.199) are the top three. The least rated in Table 3 included learners engaging in the development of electronic portfolios (MS = 2.943); employ technology in classroom learning activities in which students use technology
115
resources to solve authentic problems in various content areas (MS = 2.943) and apply trouble-shooting strategies for solving routine hardware and software problems that occur in the classroom (MS = 2.891). There is no significant difference in using and operating technology by the teacher, the creativity and ingenuity of teachers, as described by Machado and Chung (2015), indicate that there nothing teachers embark to do that could not be achieved. What is the relationship between teachers’ gender and their perceptions of technology? In Table 4 the perceptions of both male and female teachers, when tested statistically using independent sample t test, were shown to have no significant differences between teachers’ gender and their perceptions of technology. The results show that both genders have tight closeness on their mean score, especially when put side-by-side according to participants’ responses and how the items were ranked. Spearman’s rank order (r) was used in Table 5 to reveal 0.668 (r) was revealed and indicates significance at 0.01 level (2 tailed). The scatter plot that was plotted to confirm the relationship and strength revealed that there is a positive and strong relationship. This shows that regardless of gender, teachers have equal opportunity to use and integrate technology in the learning environment (Almekhlafi & Almeqdadi, 2010). In this case, the null hypothesis will be rejected. What is the relationship between teachers’ gender and their technology integration? Table 6 showed that male teachers integrate technology to support students’ learning in the classroom, so also female teachers. The levels of operating these technologies were different and both get expertise in one area or the other. Male teachers always search for information via the internet research or searches in the classroom
116
followed by emailing course materials and assignments as well as using database software as the top three. Female counterparts integrate technology by way of internet research or searches in the classroom, digital camera or scanner, and by draw/paint/graphic software. It is noteworthy that the first-rated method of technology integration (i.e., internet research or searches in the classroom) tied between both male and female teachers. Aside from this, no other methods listed tied with one another. Statistically, using independent sample t test at 95% confidence limit, there are no significant differences between teachers’ gender and their perceptions of technology integration. Table 7 showed a weak positive linear relationship consequent upon teachers’ gender and their perception of technology integration. This is in consonance with the scatter plot shown in Figure 2. The correlation coefficient of 0.492 is significant at 0.05 level; therefore, there is an occurrence of relationship based on the level of significance, although with the coefficient, it is clear that the relationship is weak, but does exist. What is the relationship between teachers’ age and their perceptions of technology? In Table 8 correlational statistics revealed the existence of a weak positive linear relationship in the perception of technology of teachers between the age groups of 30 or under and 31–49. The relationship between these teachers’ age groups is not significant with the corresponding scatter plot shown in Figure 3. However, there is a moderate positive linear relationship of 0.577 in the perception of teachers’ between the age groups of 30 or under and 50 and above. The relationship is not by mistake, as it is significant at 0.05 level. Figure 3 shows the scatter plot for these categories of teachers. Table 8 also shows that a moderate positive linear relationship also exists between the
117
teachers within the age groups of 31–49 and 50 and above based on their perception of technology (see Figure 3). The relationship is significant at 0.01 level, having a correlation coefficient of 0.665. This occurrence is not by chance, but can be explained: Those of age 30 and below are newer teachers who have enjoyed these technologies throughout their college education and have better understanding of it than those from ages 31–49. Moreover, it can be interpreted that teachers of age 50 and above are veterans and still catching up with new technologies in order to keep their jobs. In the research question there is evidence that a relationship exists, but issues of weakness and strength were not part of this study which was focused on relationships, and not the cause and effect. The null hypothesis that there is no relationship between teachers’ perception of technology integration, level of technology integration, teachers’ age, educational level, grade level taught, years of experience, and content area is therefore rejected. What is the relationship between teachers’ age and their technology integration? This research question was focused on the relationship between teachers’ age and their technology integration. As shown in Table 9 that positive relationship exists between the age groups of 30 and above and 31–49. Therefore, there is a significant difference between both age groups at 0.05 level with a correlation coefficient of 0.495. The strength of this relationship was weak based on the correlation coefficient and the scatter plot in Figure 4. There is also a weak positive linear relationship of 0.291 between the age groups of 30 or under and 50 and above, which is not a significant relationship (see Figure 4). Table 9 also shows that a moderate positive linear relationship exists between the teachers within the age groups of 31–49 and 50 and
118
above, based on their technology integration (see Figure 4). The relationship is significant at 0.01 level, having correlation coefficient of 0.755. What is the relationship between years of teaching experience and teachers’ perceptions of technology? The research question was focused on the relationship between years of teaching experience and teachers’ perception of technology. Table 10 shows that a moderate positive relationship exists between years of teaching experience of 10 or under and 11–25 and teachers’ perception of technology. The relationship between these teachers’ years of experience is significant at 0.01 (see Figure 5). Moreover, a moderate positive linear relationship of 0.672 coefficient was obtained in the perception of teachers between years of experience that range from 10 or under and 26 and above. This revealed association is not by accident, as it is significant at 0.05 level (see Figure 5). The years of experience of 11–25 and 26 and above as shown in Table 10 indicate that moderate positive linear relationship also exist among teachers (see Figure 5). The relationship is significant at 0.05 level, having a correlation coefficient of 0.639. What is the relationship between years of teaching experience and teachers’ technology integration? Table 11 shows that there is existence of a moderate positive relationship between years of teaching experience of 10 or under and 11–25 in relation to teachers’ technology integration. The relationship between these teachers’ years of experience is significant at 0.05. The corresponding scatter plot in Figure 6 also confirmed the relationship. A weak positive linear relationship of 0.497 in the technology integration of teachers’ between the years of experience of 10 or under and 26 and above was revealed. The relationship is not by any chance as it is significant at 0.05 level (see Figure 6). Lastly Table 11 indicates a weak positive association exists between
119
the teachers having their years of teaching experience within 11–25 and 26 and above. This is also shown in Figure 6 with a coefficient of 0.312, which is not significant. What is the relationship between teachers’ subject area and their perceptions of technology? Table 12 shows that there is an existence of a moderate positive relationship between business or computer and English or foreign languages in relation to teachers’ perception of technology at a coefficient of 0.563. The relationship between these subject areas is significant at 0.05 level. The corresponding scatter plot shown in Figure 7 revealed that although the two different subjects have moderate relationship due to perceptions of teachers teaching them. Likewise, there is a weak positive linear relationship of 0.247 in the perception of teachers’ technology between business or computer and fine arts. The relationship is not significant. Figure 7 shows the scatter plot for this relationship. It will be assumed that teachers’ perceptions on these two subjects are very weak despite having positive relationship and it is considered significant. Considering the relationship between business or computer as a subject area with each of mathematics or science, social science, and others consequent upon Table 12 are significant moderate positive linear relationship (0.596*) at 0.05 level, weak positive relationship (0.321), and significant moderate linear relationship (0.520*) respectively. Overall, they all have relationship one way or the other, but the strength of their relationship is the issue because while business or computer and mathematics have moderate strength in relationship, so also does business or computer and social science. Instead, association of business or computer with social science has weak strength and the overlay scatter plots showed the relationships and strengths in Figure 7.
120
The correlations between English or foreign language and each of fine arts, mathematics or science, social science and others, according to Table 12, are weak positive relationship (0.322), significant moderate positive linear relationship (0.633*) at 0.05 level, weak negative relationship (-0.081), and weak positive linear relationship (0.353) respectively. The scatter plots confirmed this in the overlay diagram in Figure 8. The correlations acco0rding to Table 12 between fine arts and each of mathematics, social sciences and oth0ers are weak positive relationship (0.184), weak negative linear relationship (-0.148), and weak positive linear relationship (0.118), respectively(see Figure 9). In terms of relationship between mathematics and each of social science, and others, there is a weak positive relationship at 0.190 coefficient and weak positive relationship at 0.346, respectively (see Figure 10). Lastly Table 12 shows that there is significant moderate positive linear relationship between social science and other subjects (0.539*). The scatter plot in Figure 11 reveals the relationship. What is the relationship between teachers’ subject area and their technology integration? This research question was answered in Table 13 that shows the existence of a moderate positive relationship between business or computer and English or foreign languages in relation to teachers’ technology integration (0.547*). The relationship between these subject areas is significant at 0.05 level. The corresponding scatter plot is shown in Figure 12. There is a weak positive linear relationship of 0.433 in teachers’ technology integration between business or computer and fine arts. The relationship is not significant (see Figure 12). The relationship between business or computer as a subject area and each of mathematics or science, social science and others consequent upon Table 13 are weak
121
positive linear relationship (0.171), weak positive relationship (0.062), and weak positive linear relationship, respectively. The overlay scatter plots for the relationships are also shown in Figure 12. The correlations between English or foreign language and each of fine arts, mathematics or science, social science and others, according to Table 13, are weak positive relationship (0.080), weak positive linear relationship (0.184), significant moderate positive relationship (0.542*), and also moderate positive linear relationship (0.522), respectively. The scatter plots are shown in the overlay chart in Figure 13. The correlations according to Table 16 between fine arts and each of mathematics, social sciences and others are weak positive relationship (0.041), weak positive linear relationship (0.073), and weak positive linear relationship (0.403), respectively. The scatter plots for these relationships are shown in Figure 14. In terms of relationship between mathematics and each of social science, and others, there is a weak positive relationship (0.126) and weak positive linear relationship (0.260), respectively (see Figure 15). Lastly Table 13 shows that there is weak positive linear relationship between social science and other subjects (0.383). The scatter plot in Figure 16 reveals the relationship. What is the relationship between classes taught by teachers and their perceptions of technology? In Table 14 it is evident that correlation shows association between teachers’ perceptions and classes taught with coefficient 0.511. This indicates a moderate relationship when plotted on scattered plot (Figure 18). In a nutshell, the correlation of SSS and JSS indicates the presence of association. It shows that it does not
122
matter what level of classes teachers taught; their perceptions on technology integration are still the same. What is the relationship between classes taught by teachers and their technology integration? Table 15 shows the answer to this research question. The correlation of classes taught by teachers and their technology integration revealed 0.614 coefficients with significance at 0.01 level. It shows that regardless of classes taught by teachers, they all have technology integration assignment. Figure 19 also showed that the relationship is moderate and positive because it goes in a linear direction. What is the relationship between teachers’ academic qualifications and their perceptions of technology? It is necessary to understand the perception of teachers on technology integration based on their academic qualification. Table 16 shows the correlations between NCE and each of the others (bachelor’s degree, master’s degree, and doctorate) based on their perceptions of technology are weak positive relationship (0.411), weak positive linear relationship (0.133), and also weak negative linear relationship (-0.209), respectively. The scatter plots are shown in the overlay chart in Figure 20. The weak positive and weak negative relationship that occurred may be due to minimal educational training of this cadre of teachers since they are the least in educational level of teachers in the country. The correlations according to Table 16 between holders of bachelor’s degree and each of master’s and doctoral degrees are moderate positive relationship (0.536*); this shows that there is a relationship between bachelor’s and master’s degree holders. The indicator shows a weak positive linear relationship of 0.038 coefficient between bachelor’s degree holders and doctorate holders, which means that the relationship
123
between them is very minimal. The scatter plots for these relationships are shown in Figure 21. In terms of relationship between holders of master’s degrees and doctorates consequent upon their perceptions of technology, there is a weak positive relationship of 0.266 coefficient (see Figure 22). What is the relationship between teachers’ academic qualifications and their technology integration? Table 17 shows the correlations between teachers’ educational qualifications and their technology integration. Between teachers with NCE and each of the others (bachelor’s degree, masters’ degree, and doctoral degree) are weak positive relationship (0.466), weak positive linear relationship (0.245), and also a weak negative linear relationship (-0.086), respectively. The scatter plots are shown in the overlay chart in Figure 23. This result shows that a relationship exists at a very minimal level apart from those with doctorates that their trend of relationship regarding technology integration moves negatively. Despite negative movement, the relationships that exist also show as weak similar to others. The correlations according to Table 17 between holders of bachelor’s degrees and each of master’s and doctoral degrees are significant moderate positive relationship (0.776**), and weak negative linear relationship (-0.139), respectively. There is a trend with doctoral degree holders showing negative relationship in the correlations. The scatter plots for these relationships are shown in Figure 24. This simply indicates the level of technology integration by the other teachers compared to doctoral degree holders moved differently on the same continuum. Taking cognizance of the relationship between holders of master’s degrees and doctorates consequent upon their perceptions of
124
technology, there is a weak negative relationship (-0.075). The scatter plot is shown in Figure 25. Supplemental Questions What are the extents of technology integration to support student learning in the classroom? Table 18 shows that the respondents rated in descending order of means the extent of integrating technology support to students learning in the classroom. Out of the 17 technology supports, the first rated is via internet research or searches in the classroom (MS = 3.143). The second and third technology supports are digital camera, scanner and draw/paint/graphics software with mean scores of 3.032 and 3.019, respectively. The least rated are Web-based programs, online discussion boards, online chat programs, and online bulletin boards to support collaboration among students (MS = 2.795); computer-based digital presentation technology such as Destination system, Smart Boards, and video projectors (wired/wireless; MS = 2.760); and electronic portfolios (MS = 2.728). It is evident that all the aforementioned technology support mediums are well above the average of 2.5, but at a varying order of integration. In describing this aspect, it is obvious that technology integration is not that new among the teachers in Nigeria: They have various technologies that can be used based on their understanding and availability. Looking at the mean scores of how teachers are integrating technology to support learning, electronics portfolios has the lowest score which can be considered significant because it is above the average mean of 2.5. What are the barriers that impacted integration of instructional technology? Table 19 shows that despite the various means through which technology supports are integrated into students’ learning in the classroom, some barriers are still affecting the
125
integration of instructional technology. Some of these impediments are the Internet connectivity, professional development for teachers with rewards and incentives, and software compatibility and availability; they have mean scores of 3.592, 3.558, and 3.521, respectively. Out of the 22 listed barriers, the least record of impact was found among job security issues (teachers will be replaced by technology; MS = 3.229), lack of technology resources (hardware, network, and/ or software; MS = 3.226), and no time (to develop, to implement, to communicate with students, etc.; MS = 2. 997). How do teachers rate infrastructures to support integration into the classroom? Table 20 reveals that the respondents rated all the technology infrastructures to support integration of technology into the classroom well above average (2.5 out of the 5-point Likert scale). The most highly rated infrastructures were student support for technology (MS = 3.350), support and encouragement by colleagues (MS = 3.324), and support for using technology by technical coordinator or technology department leaders (MS = 3.207). The least-rated infrastructures based on the perceptions of the respondents were in the order of network and DDN support, funds to implement new technology from school district, and office and classroom computers and technology hardware and software (MS = 2.909, 2.972, and 2.973, respectively). This indicates that technology integration is doable. The only aspect that needed more emphasis and training for development would be the least understanding infrastructures that support the teaching and learning in the classroom. Implications of the Study This research was not only conducted to study the teachers’ perception of technology integration, but also to emphasize the role and importance of technology in
126
education. As a result of this study, the facts and figures obtained during the process have brought out some useful information that will contribute to the knowledge and bring understanding to the people generally. This research study may also have implications for government of different levels, especially federal, state, and local educational ministries and boards. The perceptions of teachers on technology integration in various aspects of education has revealed different results in which government and stakeholders in education can improve on to make the educational sector better that what it is currently. Additionally, the results from this study may influence some decisions of the government and stakeholders regarding types of training, technological equipment, and improvements that teachers from different levels may need for performance growth. Although it has been the opinion of many that technology can take the roles of teachers, this study has shown that human cooperation is required before technology can work perfectly. The veteran teachers will gain the understanding that their input is required in technology integration; and the more they are ready, the more success they will have in the teaching–learning process. Too often, government and other educational agencies embark on educational policy and its implementation without considering what they have on ground regarding teachers’ readiness and acceptability. This research will expand the thinking of the stakeholders regarding technology integration and policy implementation in education arena. Recommendations for Further Study The following recommendations for further research can be made based on the findings from the study. First, the survey used was previously used in the United States
127
and seems relevant to present situation in Nigeria. At the same time, for future or further study it would be recommended that a new survey be designed purposely for the study. This will give idea of if already used survey have effect or not on the results of the study. Second, the survey administration was based on urban areas and two zonal offices were selected for the research purpose. There is a possibility of not generalizing the teaching population of the research area. Further study will be required in which all six zonal offices will be covered regardless of their proximity to social amenities. Third, only the teachers’ input was considered in the survey and in the study. It would be better if students’ and parents’ perceptions of technology integration were examined. This new study will reveal the view of parents and their students regarding technology use in schools, and this will be a great idea because parental approval is required on some decisions regarding their students’ learning. Fourth, there are situations in this study in which teachers’ academic levels and technology integration had a negative and weak correlation. This is another opportunity to research what could have caused this weak and negative correlation if there is no significance in teachers’ perception of technology integration. Fifth, this researcher assumed that job security has made the teachers within the age group of 50 and above to have positive and moderate association with 30 and under, but a weak association with the 31–49 age group. This is another area in which future researchers can explore why there is a difference in the strength of association between age groups of teachers. Sixth, since this study was concentrated on state government schools, further study will be required on perceptions of federal as well as private schoolteachers on technology integration to understand the views of teachers in these
128
three types of schools owned by federal, state, and private entities. Finally, a parallel study should be done on perceptions of those policymakers in government agencies who are in charge of education on technology integration and their own understanding of technology use in schools. Conclusion In our fast-paced world, technology use is constantly rising, especially in the field of education, and has tremendously changed the teaching and learning process in almost every part of the world. Initially, uses of technology that looked like sacred tools meant only for specific groups of people are now popular and available to all. The Nigerian government is investing in education and especially in technology that will make teaching and learning more meaningful. Therefore, the central focus of this study was to investigate if there is a relationship between teachers’ perceptions of technology integration, level of technology integration, and teachers’ age, educational level, grade level taught, years of experience, and content areas taught. The null hypothesis and alternate hypotheses tested showed that only a few aspects of the research questions had no significant difference in the results. The research indicated that the age group of 31–49 had a weak relationship with those in the 30 and less age group. In teachers’ level of education, the results revealed that those who have a doctoral degree and other qualifications had a negative weak correlation that indeed has no impact on the teachers’ perceptions because the total population of doctoral degree holders compared to those with NCE, bachelor’s, and master’s degrees are very low. Therefore, results of this research question were not found to be significant,
129
although the result direction on scatter plots showed a weak positive but negative correlation. A relationship was found between teachers’ perceptions of technology integration based on level of technology integration, teachers’ educational level, grade level taught, years of experience, and content area taught. The null hypothesis that there is no relationship between teachers’ perceptions of technology integration, level of technology integration, and teachers’ age, educational level, grade level taught, years of experience, and content area taught was rejected because it is evident in the results that there is relationship and it may be weak or strong. This study focused on the relationships that exist between the variables, and not on the existence of the relationship. The alternate hypothesis that there is a significant relationship between teachers’ perceptions of technology integration, level of technology integration, and teachers’ age, educational level, grade level taught, years of experience, and content area taught was accepted.
130
REFERENCES Abdullahi, H. (2014).The role of ICT in teaching science education in schools. International Letters of Social and Humanistic Sciences, 19, 217–223. Abe, P., & Jordan, N. A. (2013). Integrating social media into the classroom curriculum. About Campus, 18(1), 16–20. Aebersold, M., Tschannen, D., & Bathish, M. (2012). Innovative stimulation strategies in education. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2012/765212 Allen, P. J., Dorozenko, K. P., & Roberts, L. D. (2016). Difficult decisions: A qualitative exploration of the statistical decision making process from the perspective of psychology students and academics. Frontiers in Psychology, 7(188), 1–14. Almekhlafi, A. G., & Almeqdadi, F. A. (2010). Teacher’ perceptions of technology integration in the United Arab Emirate classrooms. Educational Technology & Society, 13(1), 165–175. Almekhlafi, A. G., & Almeqdadi, F. A. (2010). Teachers’ perceptions of technology integration in the United Arab Emirate classroom. Educational Technology & Society, 13(1), 165–175. Anderman, E. (2009). Overview of research methods in education. Retrieved from http://www.education.com/reference/article/research-methods-an-overview/ Andrew, G. (2014). Reading is now “cool”: A study of English teachers’ perspectives on e-reading devices as a challenge and an opportunity. Educational Review, 66(3), 263–275. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2013.768960 Ann, J. (2011). Digital divides and social network sites: Which students participate in social media? Journal of Educational Computing Research, 45(2), 147–163. Annum, G. (2015). Research instrument for data collection. Retrieved from http://campus.educadium.com/newmediart/file.php/1/giilmadstore/UgradResearch /ThesisWrit4all/files/notes/resInstr.pdf Armstrong, A. (2014). Technology in the classroom: It’s not a matter of “if,” but “when” and “how.” Education Digest, 79(5), 39–46. Aslan, S., & Reigeluth, C. M. (2013). Educational technologist: Leading change for a new paradigm of education. TechTrends: Linking Research & Practice to Improve Learning, 57(5), 18–24. Baruah, T. D. (2012). Effectiveness of social media as a tool of communication and its potential for technology enabled connections: A micro-level study. International Journal of Scientifics and Research Publications, 2(5), 1–10. Retrieved from http://www.ijsrp.org/research_paper_may2012/ijsrp-may-2012-24.pdf 131
Bem, D. J. (1972). Self-perception theory. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 6, pp. 2–62). New York, NY: Academic Press. Retrieved from http://www.dbem.ws/SP%20Theory.pdf Berk, R. (2009). Teaching strategies for the next generation. Transformative Dialogues: Teaching & Learning Journal, 3(2), 1–24. Retrieved from http://www.pptdoctor.net/files/articles/2009_strategies.pdf Bhargava, A., Kirova-Petrova, A., & McNair, S. (1999). Computer gender bias and young children. Information Technology in Childhood Education Annual, 1, 263– 274. Blair, N. (2012). Technology integration for the new 21st century learner. Retrieved from http://www.naesp.org/principal-januaryfebruary-2012-technology/technologyintegration-new-21st-century-learner Boari, G., & Ruscone, M. N. (2015). A procedure simulating Likert scale item responses. Electronic Journal of Applied Statistical Analysis, 8(3), 288–297. doi:10.1285/i20705948v8n3p288 Bradley, T. (2016). 5 ways smartphones are better than laptop or tablet. Retrieved from http://www.pcworld.com/article/247388/5_ways_smartphones_are_better_than _laptops_or_tablets.html British Educational Research Association. (2011). Ethical guidance for educational research. Retrieved from https://www.bera.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/ 2014/02/BERA-Ethical-Guidelines-2011.pdf?noredirect=1 Britland, M. (2013). How has technology transformed the role of a teacher? Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/teacher-network/teacherblog/2013/jun/18/technology-transform-teaching-students-schools Bruder, P. (2014). Gadgets go to school: The benefits and risks of BYOD (bring your own devices). Education Digest, 80(3), 15–18. Burns, J. (2014). Teachers fear for the future of design and technology. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.com/news/education-30484428 Cantrell, S., & Visser, L. (2011). Factors influencing the integration of technology to facilitate transfer of learning processes in South African, Western Cape Province School. Retrieved from http://www.readperiodicals.com/201112/ 2665022891.html Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2009). Analyzing quantitative data for evaluation. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/HealthyYouth/ evaluation/pdf/brief20.pdf
132
Chang, I. (2012). The effect of principals’ technological leadership on teachers’ technological literacy and teaching effectiveness in Taiwanese elementary schools. Educational Technology & Society, 15(2), 328–340. Cifuentes, L., Maxwell, G., & Bulu, S. (2011). Technology integration through professional learning community. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 44(1), 59–82. Clegg, T., Yip, J. C., Ahn, J., Bonsignore, E., & Gubbels, M. (2013). When face-to-face fails: Opportunities for social media to foster collaborative learning. Retrieved from http://www.cs.umd.edu/hcil/life-relevant-learning/documents/learningtechnologies/CSCL2013%20-%20SINQ-camera-ready.pdf Cohan, J. (2010). Perceptions and computation. Retrieved from http://aardvark.ucsd.edu/perception/situated.pdf Colorado State University, (2013). Correlation. Retrieved from http://www.qualityresearchinternational.com/socialresearch/correlation.htm Creswell, J. W. (2012a). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education. Creswell, J. W. (2012b). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approach (4th ed.). Thousands Oak, CA: Sage. Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Daniels, J. S., Jacobsen, M., Varnhagen, S., & Friesen, S. (2013). Barriers to systemic, effective, and sustainable technology use in high school classrooms. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 39(4), 1–14. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1029315.pdf Dawson, K., Cavanaugh, C., & Ritzhaupt, A. (2008). Florida’s EETT leveraging laptops initiative and its impact on teaching practices. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41(2), 143–159. Deasy, D. (2014, August). Why are social media experiments considered an invasion of privacy? Retrieved from http://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/ 232169/why-are-social-media-experiments-considered-an-inv.html DePountis, V. M., Pogrund, R. L., Griffin-Shirley, N., & Lan, W. Y. (2015). Technology use in the study of advance mathematics by students who are visually impaired in classroom: Teacher’s perspective. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 109(4), 265–278. Drost, E. A. (2011). Validity and reliability in social science research. Educational Research and Perspectives, 38(1), 105–123. 133
Du Plessis, A. (2010). The introduction of cyberhunts as a teaching and learning strategy to guide teachers towards the integration of computer technology in schools (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University: Port Elizabeth, South Africa. Eda, A., & Mahmut, B. (2014). The relationship between MBO system strength and goalclimate quality and strength. Human Resources Management, 53(4), 505–525. Ede, E. O., & Ariyo, S. O. (2015). Competency improvement needs of metalwork teachers in the use of computer numerically control machine tools in technical colleges in Oyo State Nigeria. Journal of Educational Policy and Entrepreneurial Research, 2(7), 19–27. Educational World (2016). Encouraging technology teacher use. Retrieved from http://www.educationworld.com/a_tech/tech159.shtml Edutopia. (2007). What is successful technology integration? Retrieved from http://www.edutopia.org/technology-integration-guide-description Efe, H. A. (2015). The relation between science student teachers’ educational use of web 2.0 technologies and their computer self-efficacy. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 14(1), 142–154. Erb, R. (2015, April 12). Social-media abuse rampant in middle, high school. USA Today. Retrieved from http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2015/04/12/cyberbullyingstudy/25652655/ Erin, R. (2009). Mission: Educational engagement. Retrieved from http://archive.jsonline.com/news/education/77926592.html Esomonu, N. P. M., Nwankwo, C. A., & Adirika, B. N. (2015). Validity of instruments, appropriateness of design and statistics in articles in Nigeria educational journals. Journal of Research & Method in Education, 5(3), 1–4. Retrieved from http://iosrjournals.org/iosr-jrme/papers/Vol-5%20Issue-3/Version2/A05320104.pdf Fakeye, D. (2010). Assessment of English language teachers’ knowledge and use of information communication technology (ICT) in Ibadan southwest local government of Oyo State. American-Eurasian Journal of Scientific Research, 5(4), 270–276. Federal Republic of Nigeria. (2013). National policy on education (6th ed.). Yaba, Lagos-Nigeria: NERDC Press. Fedorowicz, J., Vilvovsky, S. G., & Golibersuch, A. J. (2010). Gender differences in teenagers’ elective use of computer technology. Communication of the Association for Information Systems, 27(1), 27–44.
134
Fisher, J., & Clayton, M. (2012). Who gives a tweet: Assessing patients’ interest in the use of social media for health care. Worldviews Evidence-Based Nursing, 9(2), 100–108. doi:10.1111/j.1741-6787.2012.00243.x Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H, H, (2012). How to design and evaluate research in education (8th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Galvis, H. A. (2012). Understanding beliefs, teachers’ beliefs and their impact on the use of computer technology. Retrieved from https://www.academia.edu/2218018/ Understanding_Beliefs_Teachers_Beliefs_and_Their_Impact_on_the_Use_of_Co mputer_Technology Garner, A., M., & Bonds-Raacke, J. M. (2013). Influence of university level direct instruction on educator’s use of technology in the classroom. Reading Improvement, 50(4), 145–157. Gorder, L. M. (2008). A study of teacher perceptions of instructional technology integration in the classroom. Retrieved from http://mollymckee.wiki.westga.edu/ file/view/A%20Study%20of%20Teacher%20Perceptions%20of%20Instructional %20Technology%20Integration%20in%20the%20Classroom.pdf/346803186/A% 20Study%20of%20Teacher%20Perceptions%20of%20Instructional%20Technolo gy%20Integration%20in%20the%20Classroom.pdf Grunwald Associates. (2010). Educators, technology and 21st century skills: Dispelling five myths. A report to the Richard W. Riley College of Education and Leadership, Walden University. Retrieved from http://grunwald.com/ pdfs/Educators_Technology_21stCentury-Skills_GRUNWALDWALDEN_Report.pdf Guevara, F. (2014). Vehicle of change: The PS 2013 campaign. Voice of Urban Education, 39, 16–25. Guymon, D. (2014). The five steps of effective technology integration. Retrieved from http://gettingsmart.com/2014/02/5-steps-effective-technology-integration/ Haegele, J. A., & Hodge, S. R. (2015). Quantitative methodology: A guide for emerging physical education and adapted physical education researchers. Physical Education, 72, 59–75. Haegele, J. A., & Porrette, D. L. (2015). Validation of a talking pedometer for adolescents with visual impairments in free living conditions. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 109(3), 219–223. Hagan, T. L. (2014). Measurement in quantitative research: How to select and report research instruments. Oncology Nursing Forum, 41(4), 431–433. Hammersley, M., & Traianou, A. (2007). Ethics and educational research. Retrieved from http://www.tlrp.org/capacity/rm/wt/traianou/ 135
Hargittai, E. (2010). Digital na(t)ives? Variation in internet skills and uses among members of the “Net Generation.” Sociological Inquiry, 80(1), 92–113. Hodgkinson-Williams, C. (2006, March). Revisiting the concept of ICTs as “tools”: Exploring the epistemological and ontological underpinnings of a conceptual framework. ITFORUM. Retrieved from http://itforum.coe.uga.edu/ AECT_ITF_PDFS/paper88.pdf Hohfeld, T., Ritzhaupt, A., & Barron, A. (2013). Are gender differences in perceived and demonstrated technology literacy significant? It depends on the model. Educational Technology Research Development, 61, 639–663. doi:101007s/11423-013-9304-7 Holland, D.D., & Piper, R. T. (2014). A technology integration education (TIE) model: Millennial preservice teachers’ motivations about technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge (TPACK) competencies. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 51(3), 257–294. Hong, K., & Koh, C. (2002). Computer anxiety and attitudes toward computers among rural secondary school teachers: A Malaysian perspective. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 35(1), 27–46. Hsu, S. (2010). The relationship between teachers’ technology integration ability and usage. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 43(3), 309–325. Hu, H., Al-Gahtani, S. S., & Hu, P. J-H. (2013). Examining the moderating role of gender in Arabian workers’ acceptance of computer technology. Communications of the Association for Information System, 3, 47–66. Huck, S. W. (2012). Reading statistics and research. Boston, MA: Pearson. Huneycut, T. (2013). Technology in the classroom: The benefits of blended learning. Retrieved from http://www.nms.org/Blog/Tabld/58/Pstld/188/technology-in-theclassroom-the-benefits-of-b Jackson, S. L. (2011). Research methods and statistics: A critical approach (4th ed.). Belmont, CA: Cengage Learning. Jayson, A. (2013). Role of technology in advancement of education. Retrieved from http://edtechreview.in/trends-insights/insights/668-role-of-technology-inadvancement-of-education Jekayinfa, A. A. (n.d.). Development of teacher education in Nigeria. Retrieved from http://www.unilorin.edu.ng/publications/jekayinoluwa/18develpment.pdf Johnson, B. (2011). Making the most out of teacher collaboration. Retrieved from http://www.edutopia.org/blog/teacher-collaboration-strategies-ben-johnson
136
Jostens Learning Corporation. (1997). Survey analysis by global strategy group. San Diego, CA: Jostens. Kalejaye, O. L., Fabunmi, A. F., & Adeoye, J. A. (2011). Role of school media centers in technology integration in Nigerian schools: An exploration. Annals of Library and Imformation Studies, 58, 211–218. Kelm, O. R. (2011). Social media: It’s what students do. Business Communication Quarterly, 74(4), 505–520. Kiger, D., & Herro, D. (2015). Bring your own devices: Parental guidance (PG) suggested. TechTrends: Linking Research & Practice to Improve Learning, 59(5), 51–61. Kilmon, C., Brown, L. D., Ghosh, S., & Mikituk, A. (2010). Immersive virtual reality simulations in nursing education. Nursing Education Perspectives, 31(5), 314– 317. Kim, C-M., Kim, M-K., Lee, C., Spector, M. J.., & DeMeester, K. (2013). Teacher beliefs and technology integration. Teaching and Teacher Education, 29, 76–85. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2012.08.005 King, D. L. (2015). Why use social media? Library Technology Reports, 51(1), 6–9. Kiper, A., & Tercan, S. S., (2012). The usage of information technologies in classroom environment among primary school teachers and their perception on in-service training programs on IT (Sample of Sakarya). The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 11(3), 386–392. Kopcha, T. J. (2012). Teachers’ perceptions of the barriers to technology integration and practices with technology under situated professional development. Computer & Education, 59, 1109–1121. Kothari, C. R. (2004). Research methodology: Methods and techniques (2nd ed.). Retrieved from http://www.slideshare.net/annakittystefen/research-methodologymethodsandtechniquesbycrkothari Krantz, J. (2012). Experiencing sensation and perception. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education. Krishnananda, S. (2015). The theory of perfection. Retrieved from http://www.swamikrishnananda.org/phil/phil_05.html Lodico, M. G., Spaulding, D. I., & Voegtle, K. H. (2010). Methods in educational research: From theory to practice. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Son. Machado, L. J., & Chung, C. (2015). Integrating technology: The principal role and effect. International Education Studies, 8(5), 43–53. 137
Malamed, C. (2010). 10 social media tools for learning. Retrieved from http://theelearningcoach.com/elearning2-0/10-social-media-tools-for-learning/ Marge, S. (2011). Transforming education with technology: A conversation with Karen Cator. Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org/publications/educationalleadership/feb11/vol68/num05/Transforming-Education-with-Technology.aspx Marshal, A., & Mathur, B., (2014). Data analysis of students marks with descriptive statistics. International Journal on Recent and Innovation Trends in Computing and Communication, 2(5), 1188–1190. Martinez, M. & McGrath, D. (2014). Technology alone won’t transform teacher to facilitator. Phi Delta Kappan, 91(1), 41–45. Marwan, A. (2008). Teachers’ perceptions of teaching with computer technology: Reasons for use and barriers in usage. Retrieved from http://www.itdl.org/ Journal/jun_08/article04.htm Mascheroni, G., Vincent, J., & Jimenez, E. (2015). Girls are addicted to likes so they post semi-naked selfies: Peer mediation, normative and construction of identity online. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, 9(1), 1–15. doi:10.5817/CP2015-15 Matt, D. (2011). How collaborative learning leads to students’ success. Retrieved from http://www.edutopia.org/stw-collaborative-learning-college-prep McNeely, B. (2016). Using technology as a learning tool, not just the cool new thing. Retrieved from http://www.educause.edu/research-and-publications/books/ educating-net-generation/using-technology-learning-tool-not-just-cool-new-thing Menard, L. B. (2010). Elementary teachers’ perceptions of technology as a catalyst for constructivist practices in the classroom: A case study (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from Scholar Commons Dissertation and Theses. http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4820&context=etd Miima, F., Ondiga, S., & Mavisi, R. (2013). Teachers’ perception about integration of ICT in teaching and learning of Kiswahili language in secondary schools in Kenya. International Journal of Arts and Commerce, 2(3), 27–32. Retrieved from http://www.ijac.org.uk/images/frontImages/gallery/Vol._2_No._3/3.pdf Miller, P. A. (1997). The integration of computers at Pinelands High School: A case study (Master’s thesis, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa). Retrieved from http://repository.up.ac.za/bitstream/handle/2263/27062/ 00front.pdf?sequence=1 Mills, S. C. (2004). Technology integration configuration map: What teachers do in technology-rich classrooms. Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas, Institute for Life Span Studies. 138
Mills, S. C., & Tincher, R. C. (2003). Be the technology: A developmental model for evaluating technology integration. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 35(3), 382–401. Moja, T. (2000). Nigeria education sector analysis: An analytical synthesis of performance and main issues. Retrieved from http://siteresources.worldbank.org/ NIGERIAEXTN/Resources/ed_sec_analysis.pdf Moreno, M. A., Kota, R., Schoohs, S., & Whitehill, J. M. (2013). The Facebook influence model: A concept mapping approach. CyberPsychology, Behavior, & Social Networking, 16(7), 504–511. Moruf, H. A. (2015). Students’ utilization of secondary school libraries in Akinyele local government of Oyo State, Nigeria. Journal of Research & Method in Education, 5(3), 60–66. Moser, C. A., & Kalton, G. (1985). Survey methods in social investigation (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. Mundy, M., Kupczynski, L., & Kee, R. (2012). Teacher’s perceptions of technology use in schools. SAGE Open 2(1), 1–15. doi:10.1177/158244012440813 Nations, D. (2016). What is social media? Explaining the big trend. Retrieved from https://www.lifewire.com/what-is-social-media-explaining-the-big-trend-3486616 Nazzal, N. (2014). Modern vs. traditional teaching method: A look at the teaching methods being adhered to in schools. Retrieved from http://gulfnews.com/news/ uae/education/modern-vs-traditional-teaching-methods-1.1418127 Nikian, S., Nor, F. M, & Aziz, M. A. (2013). Malaysian teachers’ perception of applying technology in the classroom. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Science, 103, 621– 627. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.10.380 Noeth, R. J., & Volkov, B. B. (2004). Evaluating the effectiveness of technology in our schools: ACT Policy Report. Retrieved from ERIC: http://eric.ed.gov/ ?id=ED483855 Oliaku, C. V. (2015). Integrative pre-service elementary teacher training: The role of interdisciplinary collaborative mathematics. Education, 136(2), 113–122. Onyia, C. R., & Onyia, M. (2011). Faculty perception for technology integration in Nigeria university system: Implication for faculty quality curriculum design. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 2(12), 81–92. Oviawe, J. I., & Ojo, K. E. (2010). Importance of information and communication technology in technical and vocational education for workplace skills acquisition. Multidisciplinary Journal of Research Development, 15(4), 1–8.
139
Pan, S. C., & Franklin, T. (2011). In-service teachers’ self-efficacy, professional development, and web 2.0 tools for integration. New Horizons in Education, 59(3), 24–40. Pappano, L. (2014). Creativity becomes an academic discipline. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/09/education/edlife/creativity-becomes-anacademic-discipline.html?_r=0 Peled, Y., Kali, Y., & Dori, Y. (2011). School principals’ influence on science teachers’ technology implementation: A retrospective analysis. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 14(2), 229–245. Pew Research Center. (2016). Questionnaire design. Retrieved from http://www.pewresearch.org/methodology/u-s-survey-research/questionnairedesign/ Plessis, A., & Webb, P. (2012). Teachers’ perfections about their own and their schools’ readiness for computer implementation: A South African case study. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 11(3), 312–325. Polit, D. F., & Beck, C. T. (2010). Generalization in quantitative and qualitative research: Myths and strategies. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 47(11), 1451– 1458. Project Tomorrow. (2013). From chalkboard to tablet: The digital conversion of the K– 12 classroom. Retrieved from http://www.tomorrow.org/speakup/ SU12_EducatorsandParentsTEXT.html Ramey, K. (2013). The use of technology-in education and teaching process. Retrieved from http://www.useoftechnology.com/the-use-of-technology-in-education/ Richtel, M. (2012, November 1). Technology changing how students learn, teachers say. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/01/ education/technology-is-changing-how-students-learn-teachers-say.html?_r=0 Richter, J. P., Muhlestein, D. B., & Wilks, C. E. A. (2014). Social media: How hospitals use it, and opportunities for future use. Journal of Healthcare Management, 59(6), 447–460. Robbins, S. P., & Singer, J. B. (2014). From the editor: The medium is the message: Integrating social media and social work education. Journal of Social Work Education, 50(3), 387–390. Rivkin, S. G., Hanushek, E. A., & Kain, J. F. (2005). Teachers, schools, and academic achievement. Retrieved from http://econ.ucsb.edu/~jon/Econ230C/ HanushekRivkin.pdf
140
Saponano, T. (2014). The benefits of BYOD in the classroom. Retrieved from https://elearningindustry.com/6-benefits-byod-classroom Schaffhauser, D. (2015). 10 tech skills every educator must have in 2015. T H E Journal, 42(1), 14–20. Sense, M. (2013). Zero to eight: Children’s media use in America 2013. Education Digest, 79(6), 59–63. Shih-Hsiung, L., Hsien-Chang, T., & Yu-Ting, H. (2015). Collaborative professional development of mentor teachers and pre-service teachers in relation to technology integration. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 18(3), 161–172. Shuttleworth, M. (2013). Survey research design. Retrieved from https://explorable.com/ survey-research-design Skiera, B., Hinz, O., & Spann, M. (2015). Social media and academic performance: Does the intensity of Facebook activity relate to good grades? Schmalenbach Business Review (SBR), 67, 54–72. Smaldino, S. E., Lowther, D. L., & Russell, J. D. (2008). Instructional technology and media for learning. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall. Smith, D., & Glenn, W. (2008). Abuse of technology can reduce worker’s intelligence: HP calls for more appropriate use of “Always-On” technology to improve productivity (Working Paper). Retrieved from http://www.scribd.com/doc/ 6910385/Abuse-of-technology-can-reduce-UK-workers-intelligence Smythe, R. (2014). Preventing the misuse of education technology: A guide for parent & teachers. Retrieved from http://www.edtechroundup.org/editorials--press/ preventing-the-misuse-of-education-technology-a-guide-for-parents-teachers Soundout. (2015). Defining student engagement: A literature review. Retrieved from https://soundout.org/defining-student-engagement-a-literature-review/ South, J. (2016). Advancing educational technology in teacher preparation: Policy brief. Retrieved from https://tech.ed.gov/files/2016/12/Ed-Tech-in-Teacher-PreparationBrief.pdf Stancy, P. (2013). Government support open educational resources: Policy, funding, and strategies. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 14(2), 67–80. Stanovich, K. (2007). How to think straight about psychology. Boston, MA: Pearson. Sugar, W., & Tryon, P. (2014). Development of a virtual technology coach to support technology integration for K-12 educators. TechTrends, 58(3), 54–62.
141
Tahnk, J. L. (2014). Why we need to embrace technology in the classroom right now. Huffington Post. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeana-leetahnk/technology-in-the-classroom b 5946570.html. Taiwo, S. (2009). Teachers’ perception of the role of media in classroom teaching in secondary schools. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 8(1), 75–83. Theory of Knowledge. (2015). Theories of perfection. Retrieved from http://www.theoryofknowledge.info/theories-of-perception Theory of Knowledge. (2016). Naïve realism. Retrieved from http://www.theoryofknowledge.info/theories-of-perception/naive-realism/ Thibaut, P. (2015). Social network sites with learning purposes: Exploring new spaces for literacy and learning in the primary classroom. Australian Journal of Language & Literacy, 38(2), 83–94. Truel, V. (2014). Teachers’ computer self-efficacy and their use of educational technology. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 15(4), 130–149. U.S. Department of Education. (2010a). A blueprint for reform: The reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/blueprint/blueprint.pdf U.S. Department of Education. (2010b). The vision of education reform in the United States: Secretary Arne Duncan’s remarks to United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), Paris, France. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/news/speeches/vision-education-reform-united-statessecretary-arne-duncans-remarks-united-nations-educational-scientific-andcultural-organization-unesco-paris-france U.S. Department of Education. (2010c). Transforming American education: Learning by the power of technology. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/sites/default/ files/netp2010.pdf U.S. Department of Education. (2016). Future ready learning: Reimagining the role of technology in education. Retrieved from http://tech.ed.gov/files/ 2015/12/NETP16.pdf U.S. Department of Education. (n.d.). Use of technology in teaching and learning. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/oii-news/use-technology-teaching-andlearning. Vanderstope, S. W., & Johnston, D. D. (2009). Research methods for everyday life: Blending qualitative and quantitative approaches. San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass.
142
Vanwyk, K., Mbubzi, C., Kathrin, O., John, W., & Alister, J. (2012). Enhancing teachers’ technological pedagogical knowledge and practices: A professional development model for technology teachers in Malawi. International Journey of Technology & Design Education, 23(3), 597–622. Venkatesh, V., Thong, J. Y. L., Chan, F. K. Y., Hu, P. J., & Brown, S. A. (2011). Extending the two-stage information systems continuance model: Incorporating UTAUT predictors and the role of context. Information Systems Journal, 21(6), 527–555. Wong, S. L., & Hanafi, A. (2007). Gender differences in attitudes towards information technology among Malaysian student teachers: A case study of Universiti Putra Malaysia. Educational Technology & Society, 10(2), 158–169. Wright, C. R. (2014). 5 key barriers to educational technology adoption in the developing world. Retrieved from http://edutechdebate.org/2014-ict4edu-trends/5key-barriers-to-educational-technology-adoption-in-the-developing-world/ Wright, V. H., & Wilson, E. K. (2011). Teachers’ use of technology: Lessons learned from the teacher education program to class. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ959529.pdf Wylie, L. (2014). The social media revolution. British Journal of Midwifery, 22(7), 502– 506. Yan, B., & Zhao, Y. (2006, April). Benefits or problems: What do teachers care about most when integrating technology? Paper presented at the 2006 American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, San Francisco, CA. Yau, H. K., & Cheng, A. L. F. (2012). Gender difference of confidence in using technology for learning. The Journal of Technology Studies, 38(2), 74–79. Young, J. (2012). The current status of social media use among nonprofit human service organizations: An exploratory study (Doctoral dissertation). Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA. Retrieved from https://digarchive.library.vcu.edu/handle/10156/3775 Zheng, R. Z., & Ferris, S. P. (2008). Understanding online instructional modeling. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
143
APPENDIX. TEACHERS TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION SURVEY
Teachers’ Technology Integration Survey The purpose of this survey is to determine how you feel about integrating technology into classroom teaching. For each statement below, indicate the strength of your agreement or disagreement by checking one of the boxes. Below is a definition of technology integration with accompanying examples: Technology integration is using computers to support students as they construct their own knowledge through the completion of authentic, meaningful tasks. Examples: (a) Students working on research projects, obtaining information from the Internet. (b) Students constructing Web pages to show their projects to others. (c) Students using application software to create student products such as composing music, PowerPoint presentations, etc. Using the above as a baseline, please check one response for each of the statements in the table: S Disagree trongly Disagree
1.
2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.
8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13.
14. 15.
I feel confident that I understand computer capabilities well enough to maximize them in my classroom. I feel confident that I have the skills necessary to use the computer for instruction. I feel confident that I can successfully teach relevant subject content with appropriate use of technology. I feel confident in my ability to evaluate software for teaching and learning. I feel confident that I can use correct computer terminology when directing students’ computer use. I feel confident I can help students when they have difficulty with the computer. I feel confident I can effectively monitor students’ computer use for project development in my classroom. I feel confident that I can motivate my students to participate in technology-based projects. I feel confident I can mentor students in appropriate uses of technology. I feel confident I can consistently use educational technology in effective ways. I feel confident I can provide individual feedback to students during technology use. I feel confident I can regularly incorporate technology into my lessons, for student learning. I feel confident about selecting appropriate technology for instruction based on curriculum standards. I feel confident about assigning and grading technology-based projects. I feel confident about using technology resources such as spreadsheets or electronic portfolios to collect and analyze data from student tests and projects to improve instructional practices.
144
Neither Agree or Disagree
Agree
Strongly Agree
For each statement below, check the one that most closely resembles your current practice of integrating technology to support student learning in the classroom: Never
16.
17. 18.
19.
20.
21.
22. 23. 24. 25.
26. 27. 28.
29.
30.
31.
Operate common technology devices including computer keyboard, mouse monitor, printer, video camera, digital camera, VCR, scanner, or projection system Perform basic file management tasks on a computer and local area network. Apply trouble-shooting strategies for solving routine hardware and software problems that occur in the classroom. Use software productivity tools to prepare publications, analyze and interpret data, perform classroom management task, report results to students, parents, or other audiences, and produce other creative works. Use technology to communicate and collaborate with peers, parents, and the larger community to nurture student learning. Use technology to locate, evaluate, and collect educational research/best practices information from a variety of sources. Practice and model responsible use of technology systems, information, and software. Facilitate equitable access to technology resources for all students. Manage student learning activities in a technologyenhanced learning environment. Evaluate and select informational and educational resources based on the appropriateness to learning objectives and hardware/software requirements. Demonstrate strategies to assess the validity and reliability of data gathered with technology. Use multiple technology contexts and a variety of productivity tools to provide classroom instruction. Employ technology in classroom learning activities in which students use technology resources to solve authentic problems in various content areas. Use technology resources to provide learning context requiring the use of problem solving, critical thinking, informed decision-making, knowledge construction, and creativity by learners. Implement technology-based learning experiences that utilize a variety of grouping strategies to address the diverse learning needs of students (e.g. cooperative, project-based, collaborative, individualized, teams) Apply multiple methods of evaluation and assessment to determine learners’ use of technology for learning, communication, and productivity.
145
Seldom
Sometimes
Often
Always
32.
33.
Engage learners in the development of electronic portfolios that document their technology-based educational experiences. Use technology resources and productivity tools to collect, analyze, interpret, and communicate learner performance data and other information to improve instructional planning, management, and implementation of instruction/learning strategies.
Indicate the extent that you integrate the following technology to support student learning in the classroom. Never
34.
Word processing software
35.
Spreadsheet software
36.
Database software
37.
Presentation software (e.g. PowerPoint)
38.
Draw/paint/graphics software
39.
Concept mapping (e.g. Inspiration)
40.
Digital camera, scanner
41.
Email in course delivery (e.g. to/from students to complete assignments) Internet research or searches in the classroom
42. 43. 44.
Student web page &/or multimedia authoring (e.g. HyperStudio or FrontPage) Electronic Portfolios
Seldom
Sometimes
Often
Always
45.
Computer-based digital presentation technology (Destination system, SmartBoards, video projectors (wired/wireless)
46.
Course management software (WebCT, Web Course in a Box, BlackBoard) Internet and/or video conferencing for teaching online courses
Specialized, discipline specific software (e.g. Mathmatica, MS Producer, Toolbook)
47. 48.
146
49.
Web-based programs, on-line discussion boards, on-line chat programs, on-line bulletin boards to support collaboration among students
50.
Blog, weblog, podcast, Wikipedia, or other special software to encourage collaboration among students
What barriers impacted your integration of instructional technologies? Please select your response by indicating the impact of the following on integrating technology into teaching and learning:
51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56.
No Time (to develop, to implement, to communicate with students, etc.) Lack of technology resources (hardware, network, and/or software) Inadequate support (training or staff at the school) Teacher reward structure including compensation, incentives, etc. Funding to keep up with technological changes
58.
Job security issues (teachers will be replaced by technology) Ability to teach and use technical content at a distance Funds to implement instructional technology
59.
Lack of student competency and skills
60.
Lack of recognition
61.
63.
Professional development for teachers with rewards and incentives Time commitment to learning and implementing new technology Unrealistic expectations by administrators
64.
Not enough time for students to be at computers
65.
Equipment difficulties
66.
Scheduling when computer labs are available
67.
Software compatibility and availability
68.
Internet connectivity
69.
Large class size
57.
62.
147
No
Little
Impact
Impact
Neutral
Some
High
Impact
Impact
70.
Commitment to technology
71. 72.
Little or no knowledge and skills about technology and its use in the classroom Projection systems (wired or wireless)
73.
Other – Please Identify
How satisfied are you with the following technology infrastructures to support integration of technology into the classroom? Please select your response by indicating your satisfaction of the following on your integrating technology into teaching and learning. Very Unsatisfied
74. 75. 76. 77.
78. 79. 80 81. 82 83. 84.
Office and classroom computers and technology hardware and software Network and DDN support Support for using technology by school administration Support for using technology by technical coordinator or technology department leaders Library or multimedia support for technology Funds to implement new technology from school district Funds to implement new technology from the state Community and parent support for new technology Support and encouragement by colleagues Student support for technology
87.
Support through professional development training Rewards for implementing new technology Support from higher education administration and faculty Support from the State K-12 Data Center
88.
Other – Please Identify
85. 86.
Unsatisfied
Neutral
Somewhat
Very
Satisfied
Satisfied
Demographics 148
89. Indicate gender:
Female Male
90. Indicate your age range:
30 or under 31-49 50 +
91. Indicate your years in the education field:
10 or under 11-25 26 +
92. Grade level taught:
JSS 1-3 SS 1-3 B .C .
93. If you are a middle school or high school teacher, indicate your content area:
Business or Computers English or Foreign Language Fine Arts Math or Science Social Sciences Other
94. Indicate your educational level:
NCE Bachelor’s Degree Master’s Degree B Specialist or Doctorate .D .
149
