Advertisement

Educational Technology Research and Development

, Volume 67, Issue 6, pp 1593–1611 | Cite as

How to promote Chinese primary and secondary school teachers to use ICT to develop high-quality teaching activities

  • Min Chen
  • Chi Zhou
  • Caiyun Meng
  • Di WuEmail author
Cultural and Regional Perspectives

Abstract

In China, teachers’ ability to adopt information and communication technology (ICT) when teaching is far from satisfying. Previous studies on teachers’ ability to integrate ICT and teaching in China ignored the factors in the process of teachers’ ICT application and lacked the systematic analysis of the factors. ICT application is affected by complex factors and thus needs to be systematically explored. This study surveyed 3730 Chinese primary and secondary school teachers, and adopted the environment-based design, exploratory factor analysis, confirmatory factor analysis, and structural equation modeling to analyze the factors influencing teachers’ usage of ICT to develop teaching activities and proposed a model of the influencing factors of ICT usage. This model indicated that application willingness, application frequency, ICT-based teaching competence, helpfulness degree and application context are the five major factors that influence teachers’ usage of ICT to develop high-quality teaching activities. According to the status of teachers’ ICT application in China, this study suggested strengthening teachers’ willingness and enriching application contexts of ICT. Implications of this study will be discussed.

Keywords

Influencing factors ICT application Teacher development Teaching activities Environment-based design 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This study is funded by the Humanities and Social Science’ Foundation of the Ministry of Education of China (Project name: Research on a context-integrated polymorphic ubiquitous learning resource aggregation model, Project No.: 18YJC880005). We would also like to thank all the teachers who participated in this investigation.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants are in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. Agyei, D. D., & Voogt, J. M. (2011). Exploring the potential of the will, skill, tool model in Ghana: predicting prospective and practicing teachers’ use of technology. Computers & Education,56(1), 91–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Akçayır, G. (2017). Why do faculty members use or not use social networking sites for education? Computers in Human Behavior,71, 378–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aydın, A., & Zhu, C. (2017). Investigating variables predicting Turkish pre-service teachers’ integration of ICT into teaching practices. British Journal of Educational Technology,48(2), 552–570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Boulton, H. (2017). Exploring the effectiveness of new technologies: Improving literacy and engaging learners at risk of social exclusion in the UK. Teaching and Teacher Education,63, 73–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Browne, M. W. (2001). An overview of analytic rotation in exploratory factor analysis. Multivariate Behavioral Research,36(1), 111–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bryderup, I. M., & Kowalski, K. (2002). The role of local authorities in the integration of ICT in learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning,18, 470–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chen, M. B., Chen, Z. Y., Kong, L., & Zeng, Y. (2005). Analysis of medical devices design requirements. Journal of Integrated Design & Process Science,9(4), 61–70.Google Scholar
  8. Chen, X. M., & Wang, Z. M. (2013). A study on the training of teachers for the compulsory education. Open Education Research,19(4), 11–19.Google Scholar
  9. Demirli, C. (2013). ICT usage of pre-service teachers: Cultural comparison for Turkey and Bosnia and Herzegovina. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice,13(2), 1095–1105.Google Scholar
  10. Demmans Epp, C. (2012). Developing a scale for assessing instructor attitudes towards open learner models. In E. Herder, K. Yacef, L. Chen, & S. Weibelzhal (Eds.), Workshop and poster proceedings of the 20th conference on user modeling, adaptation, and personalization (UMAP) 2012 (Vol. 872, pp. 1–4). Montreal, Canada: CEUR Workshop Proceedings. Retrieved from http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-872/.
  11. Demmans Epp, C., Phirangee, K., Despres-Bedwward, A., & Wang, L. (2017). Resourceful Instructors and Students: Overcoming Barriers to Integrating Mobile Tools. In: R. Power, M. Ally, D. Cristol, & Palalas, Agnieszka (Eds.), IAmLearning: Mobilizing and supporting educator practice. IAmLearn. Retrieved from https://iamlearning.pressbooks.com/part/ch-3-resourceful-instructors-and-students-overcoming-barriers-to-integrating-mobile-tools/.
  12. Drent, M., & Meelissen, M. (2007). Which factors obstruct or stimulate teacher educators to use ICT innovatively? Computers & Education,51(1), 187–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Earle, R. S. (2002). The integration of instructional technology into public education: Promises and challenges. Educational Technology,42(1), 5–13.Google Scholar
  14. Fish, M. C., & Dane, E. (1999). The classroom systems observation scale: Development of an instrument to assess classrooms using a systems perspective. Learning Environments Research,3(1), 67–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gil-Flores, J., Rodríguez-Santero, J., & Torres-Gordillo, J. J. (2017). Factors that explain the use of ICT in secondary-education classrooms: The role of teacher characteristics and school infrastructure. Computers in Human Behavior,68, 441–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Goktas, Y., Gedik, N., & Baydas, O. (2013). Enablers and barriers to the use of ICT in primary schools in Turkey: A comparative study of 2005–2011. Computers & Education,68(4), 211–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gülbahar, Y. (2007). Technology planning: A roadmap to successful technology integration in schools. Computers & Education,49(4), 943–956.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hockly, N. (2013). Designer learning: The teacher as designer of mobile-based classroom learning experiences. Monterey, CA, USA: The International Research Foundation for English Language Education (TIRF). Retrieved from http://www.tirfonline.org/english-in-the-workforce/mobile-assisted-language-learning/designer-learning-the-teacher-as-designer-of-mobile-based-classroom-learning-experiences/.
  19. Hsu, S. (2017). Developing and validating a scale for measuring changes in teachers’ ICT integration proficiency over time. Computers & Education,111, 18–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling,6(1), 1–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hu, Z., & Mcgrath, I. (2012). Integrating ICT into college English: An implementation study of a national reform. Education and Information Technologies,17(2), 147–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Julio, C. A., & Barbara, F. R. (2018). Emerging digital technologies come into the University: AR and VR. RIED- Revista Iberoamericana de Educacion a Distancia.,21(2), 119–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kaddachi, B. (2017). ICT in Tunisian higher education: Integration still in its infancy. International Journal of Technologies in Higher Education,14(1), 57–68.Google Scholar
  24. Kang, S. A. (2017). A study of teaching plan for the physical activity using ICT. In: K. Kuinam J, & J. Nikolai (Eds.), Proceedings of the international conference on information science and applications (pp. 770–776). Singapore: Springer.Google Scholar
  25. Kukulska-Hulme, A., Norris, L., & Donohue, J. (2015). Mobile pedagogy for English language teaching: A guide for teachers (ELT Research Papers No. 14.07). London, UK: British Council. Retrieved from http://englishagenda.britishcouncil.org/research-papers/mobile-pedagogy-english-language-teaching-guide-teachers.
  26. Lai, C. L., Hwang, G. J., Liang, J. C., & Tsai, C. C. (2016). Differences between mobile learning environmental preferences of high school teachers and students in Taiwan: A structural equation model analysis. Educational Technology Research and Development,64(3), 533–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Li, Y. S. (2014). The demand and trend of the development of deep integration of ICT and education. The Chinese Journal of ICT in Education,12, 3–8.Google Scholar
  28. Li, S., Li, H. T., Shi, X. X., Hu, M., & Geng, X. N. (2015). Discussion on the dilemma and outlet of deep integration of ICT and education. China Information Technology Education,21, 68–71.Google Scholar
  29. Liang, Z., Wang, Y., Zhang, H., & He, L. (2017). Relationships of TPACK and Beliefs of Primary and Secondary Teachers in China. In: J. Liu, S. Nishimura, H. Zhang, Q. Jin (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2017 international conference of educational innovation through technology (pp. 32–35). Los Angeles, CA, USA: IEEE Computer Society.Google Scholar
  30. Lim, C. P. (2007). Effective integration of ICT in Singapore schools: pedagogical and policy implications. Educational Technology Research and Development,55(1), 83–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lin, X. Q., & Huang, R. H. (2009). Investigation on attitude and behavior of ICT application of primary and secondary school teachers. China Educational Technology,9, 17–22.Google Scholar
  32. Liu, G., & Qu, Y. (2016). How to improve foreign language teachers’ application abilities of information technology in Big Data Era. In: T. Hu, & X. M. Lee (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2016 international conference on economics, social science, arts, education and management engineering (pp. 598–601). Huhhot, China: Atlantis Press.Google Scholar
  33. Liu, X., Xu, Y., & Pange, J. (2016). Teachers’ use of PowerPoint in kindergarten: An empirical investigation in china. Education and Information Technologies,21(2), 425–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Martin, N. K., & Sass, D. A. (2010). Construct validation of the behavior and instructional management scale. Teaching & Teacher Education,26(5), 1124–1135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Ming, K. C. M., & Liu, S. H. X. (2015). Middle school English teachers’ attitude and motivation towards ICT-enabled teaching in China. In D. G. Sampson, R. Huang, G. Hwang, T. Liu, N. Chen, Kinshuk, C. Tsai (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE 15th international conference on advanced learning technologies (pp. 328–329). Los Angeles, CA: IEEE Computer Society.Google Scholar
  36. Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China. (2012). ICT in education Ten Year Development Plan. Retrieved from http://www.moe.gov.cn/srcsite/A16/s3342/201203/t20120313_133322.html
  37. Nguyen, T. A., & Zeng, Y. (2012). A theoretical model of design creativity: Nonlinear design dynamics and mental stress-creativity relation. Journal of Integrated Design & Process Science,16(3), 65–88.Google Scholar
  38. Orlando, J. (2013). ICT-mediated practice and constructivist practices: is this still the best plan for teachers’ uses of ICT? Technology Pedagogy & Education,22(2), 231–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Phirangee, K. (2013). Beyond the elementary classroom walls: Exploring the ways participation within Web 2.0 spaces are reshaping pedagogy. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia,22(3), 299–316.Google Scholar
  40. Rockoff, J. E. (2004). The impact of individual teachers on student achievement: Evidence from panel data. The American Economic Review,94(2), 247–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Samuelsson, J. (2006). ICT as a change agent of mathematics teaching in Swedish Secondary School. Kluwer Academic Publishers,11(1), 71–81.Google Scholar
  42. Sang, G., Valcke, M., Braak, J. V., & Tondeur, J. (2010). Student teachers’ thinking processes and ICT integration: Predictors of prospective teaching behaviors with educational technology. Computers & Education,54(1), 103–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sang, G., Valcke, M., Braak, J. V., Tondeur, J., & Zhu, C. (2011). Predicting ICT integration into classroom teaching in Chinese primary schools: Exploring the complex interplay of teacher-related variables. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning,27(2), 160–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sedgwick, P. (2015). Treatment allocation in trials: Stratified randomisation. BMJ,350, h978.  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.h978.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Semiz, K., & Ince, M. L. (2012). Pre-service physical education teachers’ technological pedagogical content knowledge, technology integration self-efficacy and instructional technology outcome expectations. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology,28(7), 1248–1265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Shan, L. (2015). Primary and secondary school teachers’ information technology training practice curriculum design and new construction of teaching material research. China Educational Technology,2, 129–133.Google Scholar
  47. Smeets, E. (2005). Does ICT contribute to powerful learning environments in primary education? Computers & Education,44(3), 343–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Tearle, P. (2004). A theoretical and instrumental framework for implementing change in ICT in education. Cambridge journal of education,34(3), 331–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Timperley, H., & Alton-Lee, A. (2008). Reframing teacher professional learning: An alternative policy approach to strengthening valued outcomes for diverse learners. Review of Research in Education,32(1), 328–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Tondeur, J., van Braak, J., Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. (2017). Understanding the relationship between teachers’ pedagogical beliefs and technology use in education: A systematic review of qualitative evidence. Educational Technology Research and Development,65, 555–575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Vanderlinde, R., Aesaert, K., & Braak, J. V. (2014). Institutionalised ICT use in primary education: A multilevel analysis. Computers & Education,72(1), 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science,46(2), 186–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Wang, M., & Zeng, Y. (2009). Asking the right questions to elicit product requirements. International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing,22(4), 283–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Wasson, B., & Hansen, C. (2016). Data literacy and use for teaching. In P. Reimann, S. Bull, M. Kickmeier-Rust, R. Vatrapu, & B. Wasson (Eds.), Measuring and visualizing learning in the information-rich classroom (pp. 56–73). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  55. Wu, M. L. (2010). Structural equation modeling: operation and application of AMOS. Chongqing: Chongqing University Press.Google Scholar
  56. Xin, A. T. (2013). Reflections on the integration of information technology and primary math under the new curriculum standard. Journal of Hunan First Normal College,13(4), 29–31.Google Scholar
  57. Yang, Z. (2015). The investigation and research on the status of in-depth integration of ICT and teaching for primary and secondary school teachers. Journal of Teaching and Management: Theory,10, 26–29.Google Scholar
  58. Yang, H., Zheng, X. D., & Zhu, S. (2015). Several thoughts on the integration of ICT and school education from the perspective of technology diffusion. China Educational Technology,4, 1–6.Google Scholar
  59. Yi, H., Deng, X., & Zeng, Y. (2014). Curriculum design using EBD methodology: Preliminary study of English education in Mid-west University of China. In: Y. Zeng, Y. Chen, S. Achiche, W. Shen, A. Awasthi, C. H. Chu, C. Rizzi, & C. Wang (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2014 international conference on innovative design and manufacturing (pp. 282–287). Montréal, Québec: IEEE.Google Scholar
  60. Zeng, Y. (2008). Recursive object model (ROM): Modelling of linguistic information in engineering design. Computers in Industry,59(6), 612–625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Zeng, Y. (2015). Environment-based design (EBD): A methodology for transdisciplinary design+. Journal of Integrated Design & Process Science,19(1), 5–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Zeng, Y., & Cheng, G. D. (1991). On the logic of design. Design Studies,12(3), 137–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Zhang, Y., Liu, M., Zhou, P., & Ma, J. (2014). The status’ assessment of primary and secondary teachers in ICT competency-based on the analysis of “ICT competency standards for primary and secondary teachers (trial)”. China Educational Technology,8, 2–7.Google Scholar
  64. Zhao, Y., Xu, J., & Chen, M. (2017). Analysis of urban-rural discrepancies in primary and secondary school teachers’ ICT application ability in teaching and research in China. In: F. L. Wang, O. Au, K. K. Ng, J. Shang, & R. Kwan(Eds.), Proceedings of the 2017 international symposium on educational technology (pp. 131–134). Los Angeles, CA, USA: IEEE Computer Society.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Educational Communications and Technology 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National Engineering Research Center for E-learningCentral China Normal UniversityWuhanChina

Personalised recommendations