Perceptions of Teachers Regarding Technology Integration in Classrooms: A Comparative Analysis of Elite and Mediocre Schools

Rida Zehra, Anam Bilwani

Abstract


The primary purpose and objective of this study was to examine and compare the perceptions of teachers in elite and mediocre schools in Karachi. The secondary objectives included comparing the use of technology in classrooms by teachers and the challenges and barriers that they face in the integration of technology. This study was designed as a small-scale exploratory pilot study using the qualitative approach to address the research questions. To achieve the objectives, eight teachers from eight different schools of Karachi were surveyed through email. Four of these schools fell in the category of elite schools, while the other four fell in the category of mediocre schools. The research instrument was a self-developed open-ended questionnaire, which that was emailed to the research participants. The results of the study revealed key insights into the use of technology, perceptions of teachers towards the use of technology, and various barriers that they face in technology integration in the classrooms. The study found that the perceptions and attitudes of teachers of both elite and mediocre schools were favourable towards technology integration; however, due to lack of resources, especially in mediocre schools, implementation of technology in classrooms was a challenge.

Keywords


documentary analysis, ICT, secondary level schools, technology integration

Full Text:

PDF

References


Al-Bataineh, A., & Brooks, L. (2003).Challenges, advantages, and disadvantages of instructional technology in the community college classroom. Community College Journal of Research & Practice, 27(6), 473-484.

Alharbi, A. M. (2013). Teacher’s attitudes towards integrating technology: Case studies in Saudi Arabia and the United States (Master’s Thesis). Grand Valley State University, Michigan.

Al-Ruz, J. A., & Khasawneh, S. (2011). Jordanian pre-service teachers’ and technology integration: A human resource development approach. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 14(4), 77-87.

Baba, P. A. (2014). Technology in the classroom: A tool or a drag. Journal of Education and Practice, 5(27), 75-78.

Battaglia, M. P. (2008). Non-probability sampling: Encyclopedia of survey research methods. NY: Sage Publications.

Becking, S. K. (2011). Instructor technology use: A mixed methods investigation (Doctoral Dissertation). Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1061&context=cehsedaddiss

Bingimlas, K. A. (2009). Barriers to the successful integration of ICT in teaching and learning environments: A review of the literature. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 5(3), 235-245.

Blackstone, A. (2012). Principles of sociological inquiry: Qualitative and quantitative methods. NY: Flat World Knowledge.

Buabeng-Andoh, C. (2012). Factors influencing teachers’ adoption and integration of information and communication technology into teaching: A review of the literature. International Journal of Education and Development using Information and Communication Technology, 8(1), 136-155.

Cater J. K. (2011). Skype a cost-effective method for qualitative research. Rehabilitation Counselors & Educators Journal, 4(2).10-17.

Celik, L., & Keskin, M. (2009). The effects of the primary class teachers’ information technology literacy skills level on students’ achievement: The case of Afyonkarahisar. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1(1), 1167-1171.

Chen, C. H. (2008). Why do teachers not practice what they believe regarding technology integration? The Journal of Educational Research, 102(1), 65-75.

Cope, C., & Ward, P. (2002). Integrating learning technology into classrooms: The importance of teachers’ perceptions. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 5(1), 67-74.

Creswell, J. W & Plano-Clark, V. L. (2010). Designing and conducting mixed methods research, 2nd edition. NY: Sage Publications.

Deakin, H., & Wakefield, K. (2014). Skype interviewing: reflections of two PhD researchers. Qualitative Research, 14(5), 603-616.

Dexter, S., & Anderson, R. E. (2002, September). USA: A model of implementation effectiveness. In annual meeting of the European Conference on Educational Research, Lisbon, Portugal.

Ertmer, P. A., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T., Sadik, O., Sendurur, E., & Sendurur, P. (2012). Teacher beliefs and technology integration practices: A critical relationship. Computers & Education, 59(2), 423-435.

Fu, J. S. (2013). A critical literature review and its implications. International Journal of Education and Development using Information and Communication Technology, 9(1), 112-125.

Georgina, D. A., & Hosford, C. C. (2009). Higher education faculty perceptions on technology integration and training. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(5), 690-696.

Gray, L., Thomas, N., & Lewis, L. (2010). Teachers’ use of educational technology in US public schools: 2009. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

Gu, X., Zhu, Y. & Guo, X (2013). Meeting the ‘digital natives’: Understanding the acceptance of technology in classrooms. Educational Technology & Society, 16 (1), 392–402.

Guest, G., Namey, E. E. & Mitchell, M. L. (2013). Collecting qualitative data: A field manual for applied research. NY: Sage Publications.

Harvard University. (2008). Thematic Analysis. Retrieved from http://isites.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=qualitative&pageid=icb.page340897

Harwell, M. R. (2011). Research design in qualitative/quantitative/mixed methods: The sage handbook for research in education (2nd ed). CA: Sage Publications.

Higgins, S., Xiao, Z., & Katsipataki, M. (2012).The impact of digital technology on learning: A summary for the education endowment foundation. Durham: Education Endowment Foundation.

Holloway, I. (2002). Qualitative research in nursing. NewYork: John Wiley & Sons.

Hooley T, Wellens J, Marriott J. (2012). What is online research? Using the Internet for social science research. New York: Bloomsbury Academic.

Inan, F. A., & Lowther, D. L. (2010). Laptops in the K-12 classrooms: Exploring factors impacting instructional use. Computers & Education, 55(3), 937–944.

Jansen, H. (2010). The logic of qualitative survey research and its position in the field of social research methods. Paper presented at the Forum Qualitative Sozial forschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 11(2).

Kazu, I. (2011). An investigation of factors affecting the use of educational technology in Turkish primary schools. Education, 131(3), 510-524.

Kim, C., Kim, M. K., Lee, C., Spector, J. M., & DeMeester, K. (2013). Teacher beliefs and technology integration. Teaching and Teacher Education, 29, 76-85.

Klopfer, E., Osterweil, S., Groff, J., & Haas, J. (2009). Using the technology of today, in the classroom today: The instructional power of digital games, social networking, simulations and how teachers can leverage them. Massachusetts: The Education Arcade, MIT.

Kopcha, T. J. (2012). Teachers’ perceptions of the barriers to technology integration and practices with technology under situated professional development. Computers & Education, 59(4), 1109-1121.

Lei, J. (2010). Quantity versus quality: A new approach to examine the relationship between technology use and student outcomes. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(3), 455-472.

Lowther, D. L., Inan, F. A., Daniel Strahl, J., & Ross, S. M. (2008). Does technology integration “work” when key barriers are removed? Educational Media International, 45(3), 195-213.

Morgan, P., & Ritter, S. (2002). An experimental study of the effects of cognitive tutor algebra I on student knowledge and attitude. Pittsburgh: Carnegie Learning, Inc.

Negi, P. S., Negi, V., &Pandey, A. C. (2011). Impact of information technology on learning, teaching and human resource management in educational sector. International Journal of Computer Science and Telecommunications, 2(4), 66-72.

Noeth, R. J., &Volkov, B. B. (2004). Evaluating the effectiveness of technology in our schools (ACT Policy Report). Washington DC: American College Testing ACT Inc.

Norton, S., McRobbie, C. J., & Cooper, T. J. (2000). Exploring secondary mathematics teachers’ reasons for not using computers in their teaching: Five case studies. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 33(1), 87-109.

O’Mahony, C. (2003). Getting the information and communi cations technology formula right: access þ ability ¼ confident use. Technology, Pedagogy, and Education, 12(2), 295–311

OECD (2015) Students, computers and learning: Making the connection. Pisa: OECD Publishing.

Saba, A. (2009). Benefits of technology integration in education. (Synthesis Paper). Idaho: Boise State University.

Schrum, L., & Levin, B. (2013). Lessons learned from exemplary schools. Techtrends: Linking Research & Practice to Improve Learning, 57(1), 38-42.

Semerci, Ç. & Batdi, V. (2015). A meta-analysis of constructivist learning approach on learners’ academic achievements, retention and attitudes. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 3(2), 171-180.

Somekh, B. (2008). Factors affecting teachers’ pedagogical adoption of ICT. In J. Voogt, & G. Knezek (Eds.) International Handbook of Information Technology in Primary and Secondary Education, 449-460. NewYork: Springer.

Su, B., & Bay, C. M. (2009). Effective technology integration: Old topic, new thoughts. International Journal of Education and Development using ICT, 5(2), 161-171.

Tuttle, H. V. (2012). The lived experiences of faculty who use instructional technology: A phenomenological study. PhD Dissertation, Nebraska, University of Nebraska.

Underwood, J. D. (2009). The impact of digital technology: A review of the evidence of the impact of digital technologies on formal education. Coventry: Becta.

Wardlow, L. (2014). New tools to get the most from your educational technology. NY: Pearson Research and Innovation Network.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.22555/joeed.v3i1.709

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License