Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Predictors of K-12 Teachers’ Instructional Strategies with ICTs

  • Original research
  • Published:
Technology, Knowledge and Learning Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The goal of this study is to identify the relationship between K-12 teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs, classroom goal structure and use of instructional strategies. The study also aims to determine if there is variance in the relationship between these constructs for primary versus secondary school teachers. Data collection involved completion of a self-report survey by 810 primary and secondary school teachers in Thailand. Results revealed that personal and ICT teaching self-efficacy directly predicted both mastery and performance classroom goal structures for K-12 teachers. Mastery classroom goal structure predicted deep learning. Performance classroom goal structure predicted surface learning. ICT teaching self-efficacy was the strongest predictor of teachers’ instructional strategies with ICTs. Results also revealed that primary teachers’ performance classroom goal structure was positively associated with the use of deep-learning strategies with ICTs and student-centered learning with ICTs. In contrast, for secondary teachers, mastery classroom goal structure was positively associated with student-centered learning with ICTs, whereas both mastery and performance classroom goal structures were positively associated with the use of deep-learning strategies with ICTs. Results of this study suggest that classroom goal structure may be different for ICT classrooms than for regular classrooms. Implications relate to the need to help teachers design ICT activities that reflect both performance and mastery classroom goal structures.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Akyol, Z., & Garrison, D. (2011). Understanding cognitive presence in an online and blended community of inquiry: Assessing outcomes and processes for deep approaches to learning. British Journal of Educational Technology,42(2), 233–250. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.01029.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Al-awidi, H. M., & Alghazo, I. M. (2012). The effect of student teaching experience on preservice elementary teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs for technology integration in the UAE. Educational Technology Research and Development,60(5), 923–941. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-012-9239-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderman, L., Andrzejewski, C., & Allen, J. (2011). How do teachers support students’ motivation and learning in their classrooms? Teachers College Record,113(5), 969–1003.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baeten, M., Kyndt, E., Struyven, K., & Dochy, F. (2010). Using student-centred learning environments to stimulate deep approaches to learning: Factors encouraging or discouraging their effectiveness. Educational Research Review,5(3), 243–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review,84(2), 191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educational Psychology,28(2), 117–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barak, M. (2006). Instructional principles for fostering learning with ICT: Teachers’ perspectives as learners and instructors. Education and Information Technologies,11(2), 121–135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11134-006-7362-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Behling, O., & Law, K. (2000). Translating questionnaires and other research instruments: Problems and solutions. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Biggs, J. (1987). Student approaches to learning and studying. Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2007). Teaching for quality learning at university. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brislin, R. W. (1980). Translation and content analysis of oral and written materials. In H. C. Triandis & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology (pp. 389–444). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Butler, R. (2007). Teachers’ achievement goal orientations and associations with teachers’ help seeking: Examination of a novel approach to teacher motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology,99(2), 241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chan, D. (2009). So why ask me? Are self-report data really that bad? In C. Lance & R. Vandenberg (Eds.), Statistical and methodological myths and urban legends: Doctrine, verity and fable in the organizational and social sciences (pp. 309–336). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, R. (2010). Investigating models for preservice teachers’ use of technology to support student-centered learning. Computers & Education,55(1), 32–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, P., Lambert, A., & Guidry, K. (2010). Engaging online learners: The impact of Web-based learning technology on college student engagement. Computers & Education,54(4), 1222–1232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, W., & Wong, Y. (2015). The relationship between goal orientation and academic achievement in Hong Kong: The role of context. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher,24(1), 169–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ciani, K., Summers, J., & Easter, M. (2008). A “top-down” analysis of high school teacher motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology,33(4), 533–560.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daniels, L. M., Frenzel, A., Stupnisky, R. H., Stewart, T. L., & Perry, R. P. (2013). Personal goals as predictors of intended classroom goals: Comparing elementary and secondary school pre-service teachers. British Journal of Educational Psychology,83, 396–413. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8279.2012.02069.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deemer, S. (2004). Classroom goal orientation in high school classrooms: Revealing links between teacher beliefs and classroom environments. Educational Research,46(1), 73–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deng, F., Chai, C. S., Tsai, C. C., & Lee, M. H. (2014). The relationships among Chinese practicing teachers’ epistemic beliefs, pedagogical beliefs and their beliefs about the use of ICT. Journal of Educational Technology & Society,17(2), 245–256.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dündar, S. (2015). Are prospective elementary school teachers’ social studies teaching efficacy beliefs related to their learning approaches in a social study teaching methods course? Australian Journal of Teacher Education,40(7), 70–85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Entwistle, N. J. (1991). Approaches to learning and perceptions of the learning environment. Higher Education,22, 201–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Entwistle, N. (2000). Promoting deep learning through teaching and assessment: Conceptual frameworks and educational contexts. Paper presented at the first annual conference of the Teaching and Learning Research Programme. Leicester. Retrieved from http://www.etl.tla.ed.ac.uk/publications.html. Accessed 25 May 2016.

  • Entwistle, N., & McCune, V. (2004). The conceptual bases of study strategy inventories. Educational Psychology Review,16(4), 325–345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Entwistle, N., McCune, V., & Hounsell, J. (2002). Approaches to study and perceptions of university teaching–learning environments: Concepts, measures and preliminary findings. Retrieved from www.ed.ac.uk/etl/docs/ETLreport1.pdf. Accessed 25 May 2016.

  • Ertmer, P., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, T. (2010). Teacher technology change: How knowledge, confidence, beliefs, and culture intersect. Journal of Research on Technology in Education,42(3), 255–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finson, K., & Pederson, J. (2011). What are visual data and what utility do they have in science education? Journal of Visual Literacy, 30(1) 65-84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fraillon, J. et al. (2013). International computer and information literacy study: ICILS. Retrieved from http://www.iea.nl/fileadmin/user_upload/Publications/Electronic_versions/ICILS_2013_Technical_Report.pdf. Accessed 11 June 2016.

  • Friedel, J., Cortina, K., Turner, J., & Midgley, C. (2010). Changes in efficacy beliefs in mathematics across the transition to middle school: Examining the effects of perceived teacher and parent goal emphases. Journal of Educational Psychology,102(1), 102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fullan, M., & Langworthy, M. (2013). Towards a new end: New pedagogies for deep learning. Seattle, WA: Collaborative Impact. Retrieved from http://www.newpedagogies.info/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/New_Pedagogies_for_Deep%20Learning_Whitepaper.pdf. Accessed 11 June 2016.

  • Fullan, M., & Langworthy, M. (2014). A rich seam: How new pedagogies find deep learning. Retrieved from http://www.michaelfullan.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/3897.Rich_Seam_web.pdf. Accessed 11 June 2016.

  • Garrison, D. R., & Cleveland-Innes, M. (2005). Facilitating cognitive presence in online learning: Interaction is not enough. The American Journal of Distance Education,19(3), 133–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gebre, E., Saroyan, A., & Aulls, M. (2015). Conceptions of effective teaching and perceived use of computer technologies in active learning classrooms. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education,27(2), 204–220.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerido, L., & Curran, M. C. (2014). Enhancing science instruction through student created PowerPoint presentations. The American Biology Teacher,76(9), 627–631.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, S., & Dembo, M. (1984). Teacher efficacy: A construct validation. Journal of Educational Psychology,76, 569–582.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gil-Flores, J., Rodríguez-Santero, J., & Torres-Gordillo, 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gordon, C., & Debus, R. (2002). Developing deep learning approaches and personal teaching efficacy within a preservice teacher education context. British Journal of Educational Psychology,72(4), 483–511.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hacker, D., & Niederhauser, D. (2000). Promoting deep and durable learning in the online classroom. New Directions for Teaching and Learning,2000(84), 53–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hattie, J. (2003). Teachers make a difference: What is the research evidence? In Annual conference on building teacher quality. Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research.

  • Hoy, A., & Spero, R. (2005). Changes in teacher efficacy during the early years of teaching: A comparison of four measures. Teaching and Teacher Education,21(4), 343–356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hughes, J. N., Wu, W., & West, S. G. (2011). Teacher performance goal practices and elementary students’ behavioral engagement: A developmental perspective. Journal of School Psychology,49, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2010.09.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, M., & McLean, K. (2012). Personalising learning in teacher education through the use of technology. Australian Journal of Teacher Education (Online),37(1), 75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jöreskog, K., & Sörbom, D. (1996). LISREL 8: User’s reference guide. Chicago: Scientific Software.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ke, F. (2008). Computer games application within alternative classroom goal structures: Cognitive, metacognitive, and affective evaluation. Educational Technology Research and Development,56(5–6), 539–556.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kiili, C., Kauppinen, M., Coiro, J., & Utriainen, J. (2016). Measuring and supporting pre-service teachers’ self-efficacy towards computers, teaching, and technology integration. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education,24(4), 443–469.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kline, R. (1998). Software programs for structural equation modeling: Amos, EQS, and LISREL. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment,16, 343–364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koul, R., & Rubba, P. (1999). An analysis of the reliability and validity of personal Internet teaching efficacy beliefs scale. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 4(1), 1–5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kwon, S., & Cifuentes, L. (2009). The comparative effect of individually-constructed vs. collaboratively-constructed computer-based concept maps. Computers & Education,52(2), 365–375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laohajaratsang, T. (2010). E-education in Thailand: Equity, quality and sensitivity for learners and teachers. Global Learn Asia Pacific,1, 694–700.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lau, S., & Nie, Y. (2008). Interplay between personal goals and classroom goal structures in predicting student outcomes: A multilevel analysis of person-context interactions. Journal of Educational Psychology,100(1), 15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lau, W., & Yuen, A. (2014). Developing and validating of a perceived ICT literacy scale for junior secondary school students: Pedagogical and educational contributions. Computers & Education,78, 1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, E., & Hannafin, M. (2016). A design framework for enhancing engagement in student-centered learning: own it, learn it, and share it. Educational Technology Research and Development,64(4), 707–734.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, Y., & Lee, J. (2014). Enhancing pre-service teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs for technology integration through lesson planning practice. Computers & Education,73, 121–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, Y. (2016). Transforming conventional teaching classroom to learner-centred teaching classroom using multimedia-mediated learning module. International Journal of Information and Education Technology,6(2), 105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin, Y., Liang, J., & Tsai, C. (2010). Pre-school teachers Internet self-efficacy and preferences toward the constructivist Internet-based learning environments in Taiwan. In AACE-Global Learn Asia Pacific 2010-Global Conference on Learning and Technology, Penang, Malaysia.

  • Lin, J., Wang, P., & Lin, I. (2012). Pedagogy, technology: A two-dimensional model for teachers’ ICT integration. British Journal of Educational Technology,43(1), 97–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lublin, J. (2003). Deep, surface and strategic approaches to learning: Good practice in teaching and learning. University College Dublin. Retrieved from: http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/services/ldc/development/pga/introtandl/resources/2a_deep_surfacestrategic_approaches_to_learning.pdf. Accessed 30 Jan 2016.

  • Luo, W., Paris, S., Hogan, D., & Luo, Z. (2011). Do performance goals promote learning? A pattern analysis of Singapore students’ achievement goals. Contemporary Educational Psychology,36(2), 165–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Magnifico, A., Olmanson, J., & Cope, B. (2013). New pedagogies of motivation: Reconstructing and repositioning motivational constructs in new media-supported learning. e-Learning and Digital Media,10, 484–512. https://doi.org/10.2304/elea.2013.10.4.483.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDonald, R., & Ho, M. (2002). Principles and practice in reporting structural equation analyses. Psychological Methods,7(1), 64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Midgley, C., Anderman, E., & Hicks, L. (1995). Differences between elementary and middle school teachers and students: A goal theory approach. The Journal of Early Adolescence,15(1), 90–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Midgley, C., Kaplan, A., & Middleton, M. (2001). Performance-approach goals: Good for what, for whom, under what circumstances, and at what cost? Journal of Educational Psychology,93(1), 77–86. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-0663.93.1.77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Midgley, C., Maehr, M., Hruda, L., Anderman, E., Anderman, L., Freeman, K., et al. (2000). Manual for the patterns of adaptive learning scales. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, R., Greene, B., Montalvo, G., Ravindran, B., & Nichols, J. (1996). Engagement in academic work: The role of learning goals, future consequences, pleasing others, and perceived ability. Contemporary Educational Psychology,21(4), 388–422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ministry of Education. (2011). Towards a learning society in Thailand. Retrieved from http://www.bic.moe.go.th/newth/images/stories/book/ed-eng-series/intro-ed08.pdf. Accessed 3 March 2016.

  • Ministry of Information and Communication Technology. (2011). Executive summary Thailand Information and communication technology policy framework (2011–2020) ICT2020. Retrieved from http://www.mict.go.th/view/10/All%20News/e-Publication/25. Accessed 3 March 2016.

  • Moos, D., & Azevedo, R. (2006). The role of goal structure in undergraduates’ use of self-regulatory processes in two hypermedia learning tasks. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia,15(1), 49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mueller, J., Wood, E., Willoughby, T., Ross, C., & Specht, J. (2008). Identifying discriminating variables between teachers who fully integrate computers and teachers with limited integration. Computers & Education,51(4), 1523–1537.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Institute of Educational Testing Service. (2015). Ordinary national education test: ONET. Retrieved from http://www.niets.or.th/th/catalog/view/280. Accessed 3 March 2016.

  • Ng, C. C. (2018). High school students’ motivation to learn mathematics: The role of multiple goals. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education,16(2), 357–375. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-016-9780-416(2).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2016). PISA 2015 result in focus. OECD Publications. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisa-2015-results-in-focus.pdf. Accessed 14 Jan 2017.

  • Paraskeva, F., Bouta, H., & Papagianni, A. (2008). Individual characteristics and computer selfefficacy in secondary education teachers to integrate technology in educational practice. Computers & Education, 50, 1084–1091.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parpala, A., Lindblom-Ylänne, S., Komulainen, E., & Entwistle, N. (2013). Assessing students’ experiences of teaching–learning environments and approaches to learning: Validation of a questionnaire in different countries and varying contexts. Learning Environments Research,16(2), 201–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peeraer, J., & Van Petegem, P. (2012). Measuring integration of information and communication technology in education: An item response modeling approach. Computers & Education,58(4), 1247–1259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perry, D., & Steck, A. (2015). Increasing student engagement, self-efficacy, and meta-cognitive self-regulation in the high school geometry classroom: Do iPads help? Computers in the Schools,32(2), 122–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pintrich, P. R. (2000). Multiple goals, multiple pathways: The role of goal orientation in learning and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology,92, 544–555. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-0663.92.3.544.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prestridge, S. (2012). The beliefs behind the teacher that influences their ICT practices. Computers & Education,58(1), 449–458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prestridge, S. (2017). Examining the shaping of teachers’ pedagogical orientation for the use of technology. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 24, 1–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Razzak, N. (2016). Strategies for effective faculty involvement in online activities aimed at promoting critical thinking and deep learning. Education and Information Technologies,21(4), 881–896.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Retelsdorf, J., Butler, R., Streblow, L., & Schiefele, U. (2010). Teachers’ goal orientations for teaching: Associations with instructional practices, interest in teaching, and burnout. Learning and Instruction,20, 34–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.01.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosa, E., & Bernardo, A. (2013). Are two achievement goals better than one? Filipino students’ achievement goals, deep learning strategies and affect. Learning and Individual Differences,27, 97–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ross, J., Cousins, J., & Gadalla, T. (1996). Within-teacher predictors of teacher efficacy. Teaching and Teacher Education,12(4), 385–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ross, J., Hogaboam-Gray, A., & Hannay, L. (2001). Effects of teacher efficacy on computer skills and computer cognitions of Canadian students in grades K-3. The Elementary School Journal,102(2), 141–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruggiero, D., & Mong, C. (2015). The teacher technology integration experience: Practice and reflection in the classroom. Journal of Information Technology Education Research,14, 161–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Russell, M., Bebell, D., O’Dwyer, L., & O’Connor, K. (2003). Examining teacher technology use: Implications for preservice and inservice teacher preparation. Journal of Teacher Education,54(4), 297–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • SaÇiCi, S. (2013). The interrelation between pre-service science teachers’ conceptions of teaching and learning, learning approaches and self-efficacy beliefs. (Doctoral dissertation). Middle East Technical University. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.633.7161&rep=rep1&type=pdf. Accessed 16 Feb 2017.

  • Salili, F., & Lai, M. (2003). Learning and motivation of Chinese students in Hong Kong: A longitudinal study of contextual influences on students’ achievement orientation and performance. Psychology in the Schools,40(1), 51–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sang, G., Valcke, M., van Braak, J., & Tondeur, J. (2010). Student teachers’ thinking processes and ICT integration: Predictors of prospective teaching behaviors with educational technology. Computers & Education,54(1), 103–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scherer, R., & Siddiq, F. (2015). Revisiting teachers’ computer self-efficacy: A differentiated view on gender differences. Computers in Human Behavior,53, 48–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schiefele, U., & Schaffner, E. (2015). Teacher interests, mastery goals, and self-efficacy as predictors of instructional practices and student motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology,42, 159–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shapka, J. D., & Ferrari, M. (2003). Computer-related attitudes and actions of teacher candidates. Computers in Human Behavior,19(3), 319–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shim, S., Cho, Y., & Cassady, J. (2013). Goal structures: The role of teachers’ achievement goals and theories of intelligence. The Journal of Experimental Education,81(1), 84–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skaalvik, E., & Federici, R. (2016). Relations between classroom goal structures and students’ goal orientations in mathematics classes: When is a mastery goal structure adaptive? Social Psychology of Education,19(1), 135–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Struyven, K., Dochy, F., Janssens, S., & Gielen, S. (2006). On the dynamics of students’ approaches to learning: The effects of the teaching/learning environment. Learning and Instruction,16(4), 279–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tan, K. C. D., Hedberg, J. G., Koh, T. S., & Seah, W. C. (2006). Data logging in Singapore schools: Supporting effective implementations. Research in Science & Technological Education,24(1), 111–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tenório, T., Bittencourt, I. I., Isotani, S., Pedro, A., & Ospina, P. (2016). A gamified peer assessment model for on-line learning environments in a competitive context. Computers in Human Behavior,64, 247–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tondeur, J., van Braak, J., Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. (2016). Understanding the relationship between teachers’ pedagogical beliefs and technology use in education: A systematic review of qualitative evidence. Educational Technology Research and Development, 65, 1–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trigwell, K., & Prosser, M. (1991). Improving the quality of student learning: The influence of learning context and student approaches to learning on learning outcomes. Higher Education,22(3), 251–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trigwell, K., & Prosser, M. (2004). Development and use of the approaches to teaching inventory. Educational Psychology Review,16(4), 409–424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trigwell K., Ashwin P., & Millan, E. (2013). Evoked prior learning experience and approach to learning as predictors of academic achievement. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 363–378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Uluyol, Ç., & Şahin, S. (2014). Elementary school teachers’ ICT use in the classroom and their motivators for using ICT. British Journal of Educational Technology. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • UNESCO. (2011). The UNESCO ICT competency framework for teachers. Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0021/002134/213475e.pdf. Accessed 30 April 2016.

  • UNESCO. (2014). Information and communication technology (ICT) in education in Asia: A comparative analysis of ICT integration and e-readiness in schools across Asia. Retrieved from http://www.uis.unesco.org/Communication/Documents/ICT-asia-en.pdf. Accessed 30 April 2016.

  • Urdan, T. C. (2004). Using multiple methods to assess students’ perceptions of classroom goal structures. European Psychologist,9, 222–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vos, N., Van Der Meijden, H., & Denessen, E. (2011). Effects of constructing versus playing an educational game on student motivation and deep learning strategy use. Computers & Education,56(1), 127–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, L., Ertmer, P., & Newby, T. (2004). Increasing preservice teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs for technology integration. Journal of Research on Technology in Education,36(3), 231–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, M.-T., & Holcombe, R. (2010). Adolescents’ perceptions of school environment, engagement, and academic achievement in middle school. American Educational Research Journal,47(3), 633–662.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, S., Hsu, H., Reeves, T., & Coster, D. (2014). Professional development to enhance teachers’ practices in using information and communication technologies (ICTs) as cognitive tools: Lessons learned from a design-based research study. Computers & Education,79, 101–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • West, M. (2014). The limitations of self-report measures of non-cognitive skills. Retrieved from https://www.brookings.edu/research/the-limitations-of-self-report-measures-of-non-cognitive-skills/. Accessed 16 Feb 2017.

  • Wolters, C., & Daugherty, S. (2007). Goal structures and teachers’ sense of efficacy: Their relation and association to teaching experience and academic level. Journal of Educational Psychology,99(1), 181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yeşilyurt, E., Ulaş, A., & Akan, D. (2016). Teacher self-efficacy, academic self-efficacy, and computer self-efficacy as predictors of attitude toward applying computer-supported education. Computers in Human Behavior,64, 591–601.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yeung, A. S., Tay, E., Hui, C., Lin, J. H., & Low, E. (2014). Pre-service teachers’ motivation in using digital technology. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 39(3), 135–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zlatović, M., Balaban, I., & Kermek, D. (2015). Using online assessments to stimulate learning strategies and achievement of learning goals. Computers & Education, 91, 32–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zogheib, S. (2015). Preservice teachers’ computer use in single computer training courses: Relationships and predictions. International Journal of Information and Communication Technology Education,11(3), 77–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the Institute for the Promotion of Teaching Science and Technology under the Thailand Ministry of Education. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not reflect the views of the Institute or the Thailand Ministry of Education.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Learning Innovation and Technology Program, Faculty of Industrial Education and Technology, King Mongkut’s University of Technology Thonburi, 126 Pracha Uthit Rd, Khwaeng Bang Mot, Khet Thung Khru, Bangkok, 10140, Thailand

    Cheeraporn Sangkawetai & Jariya Neanchaleay

  2. Curriculum and Instruction, The Pennsylvania State University, City State, Pennsylvania, USA

    Ravinder Koul

  3. Faculty of Education, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John’s, NL, Canada

    Elizabeth Murphy

Authors
  1. Cheeraporn Sangkawetai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jariya Neanchaleay
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ravinder Koul
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Elizabeth Murphy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Cheeraporn Sangkawetai.

Appendix

Appendix

Survey items

Personal Teaching Self-efficacy

  1. 1.

    If a student gets a better grade, I think it is because I have the better teaching method.

  2. 2.

    If a student gets a better grade, I think it is because I have found more efficient teaching method.

  3. 3.

    If a student gets a better grade, I think it is because I exerted more effort.

  4. 4.

    If a student understands a new concept quickly, it most probably is because I taught that concept well.

ICT Teaching Self-efficacy

  1. 1.

    I know how to teach effectively with ICTs.

  2. 2.

    I think I can teach effectively with ICTs.

  3. 3.

    I understand how to use the technology well and enough for effectively teaching with ICTs.

  4. 4.

    I am confident that I have enough necessary skill to teach with ICTs.

Mastery Classroom Goal Structure

  1. 1.

    I make a special effort to recognize students’ individual progress, even if they are below grade level.

  2. 2.

    During class, I often provide several different activities so that students can choose among them.

  3. 3.

    I consider how much students have improved when I give them report card grades.

  4. 4.

    I give a wide range of assignments, matched to students’ needs and skill level.

Performance Classroom Goal Structure

  1. 1.

    I give special privileges to students who do the best work.

  2. 2.

    I display the work of the highest achieving students as an example.

  3. 3.

    I help students understand how their performance compares to others.

  4. 4.

    I point out those students who do well as a model for the other students.

Surface Learning

  1. 1.

    I suggest that students to try to memorize everything that might be asked on the exam.

  2. 2.

    I let students memorize list of important terms and concepts.

Deep Learning

  1. 1.

    I try to relate concepts and ideas from this course to those in my other courses whenever possible to students.

  2. 2.

    I advise students when they work on a problem, to analyze it to see if there is more than one way to get the right answer.

Deep Learning with ICTs

  1. 1.

    I advise students to interpret and represent information by using ICTs to synthesize, summarize, compare and contrast information from multiple sources.

  2. 2.

    I advise students to use ICTs to design or create new information from information already acquired.

Student- Centered Learning with ICTs

  1. 1.

    I let students work with the computer to orientate themselves to a new subject.

  2. 2.

    I let students gather information from digital resource.

  3. 3.

    I let students use the technology to collected data.

  4. 4.

    I let students work with a computer program in which a problem is given that they have to solve, supported by the computer.

  5. 5.

    I let students integrate different media to create appropriate products.

  6. 6.

    I let students use the computer to communicate with others (locally and/or globally).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sangkawetai, C., Neanchaleay, J., Koul, R. et al. Predictors of K-12 Teachers’ Instructional Strategies with ICTs. Tech Know Learn 25, 149–177 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-018-9373-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-018-9373-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation