investigating teachers perspectives toward ict …investigating teachers’ perspectives toward ict...
TRANSCRIPT
INVESTIGATING TEACHERS’ PERSPECTIVES TOWARD ICT INTEGRATION IN
CLASSROOMS IN DELHI, INDIA
By
SHILPA SAHAY
A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
2018
© 2018 Shilpa Sahay
To my husband, Nishant
4
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I read somewhere, ‘When a project is completed, it’s easy to forget what a long
shot it was at the outset’, and it stuck to me as so true in my journey of earning a
doctorate. Now, when I am on the verge of completion of this journey, I would like to
look back and thank each and every one who has helped me to come so far. It would
definitely not have been possible without the support and encouragements which I’ve
received.
First, and foremost, I would like to thank my adviser, Dr. Kara Dawson for guiding
me at every step in my dissertation. I would always remember her words of wisdom and
am thankful to have gotten a chance of learning about planning, process and
professionalism with her. I am grateful to my committee members, Dr. Carole Beal, Dr.
Nancy Dana and Dr. Ana Puig to share their insight on my research and helping me to
carve my dissertation path. My special thanks to Dr. Pasha Antonenko for advising me
in my first year of PhD when I was learning to survive in the thick and thin of demanding
responsibilities of teaching and learning. I am equally thankful to Dr. Albert Ritzhaupt
and Dr. Swapna Kumar who were always available to guide and assist in my
dissertation writing.
I’ve been amazed and pleasantly surprised to see how my elder son, Ved, who
was 1 and ½ years old at the beginning of my PhD had adjusted to my schedules which
required me to stay in my University town away from my home for a couple of times per
week. I am grateful that my doctorate journey has taught him to value both the demands
of work and pleasures of togetherness. Being blessed with another baby while trying to
finish my dissertation writing has been an experience of its kind. I am indebted to my
nine months old younger son, Yug, who couldn’t have been more supportive in helping
5
me to finish my dissertation. I am thankful to my husband, Nishant who instilled his hope
and belief in me all this while. I couldn’t have come to this point without his continuous
support. I would like to genuinely thank my Maa and Papa who always took keen
interest in my professional development and were constantly thinking of me even being
thousands of miles away in India. I am grateful to my elder siblings, Shivangi and
Saurav who have inspired me with their zeal for learning and fighting all odds to achieve
success in life. My special mention of gratitude to my in-laws and the larger family who
have been there for me. Not to forget, I would like to thank all my friends who stood by
my side by patiently listening to my tales of excitement, fulfilment, frustration, anxiety,
etc. during this journey.
This research couldn’t have been possible without the support of American India
Foundation and the government schools of Delhi which whole-heartedly assisted me in
conducting this study. I would like to thank all the staffs of AIF with a special mention to
Mr. Sundarkrishnan, Sona Grover, Ritu Maurya, Mamta, Sunil Goswami, Ishit Kumar
and Varun kumar for being extremely cooperative and helpful in this research. A huge
thanks to all the AIF field coordinators who got the surveys filled from the government
school teachers.
Last but not the least, I would also like to thank all those including the survey
printing shop in Delhi, to the child and home care support I’ve had, to all the places and
people who have helped me directly or indirectly to fulfill my research goals.
6
TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .................................................................................................. 4
LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................................... 10
LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................ 12
DEFINITION OF TERMS .............................................................................................. 13
ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................... 14
CHAPTER
1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 16
Definition of ICT ...................................................................................................... 17 ICT in Schools in India ............................................................................................ 18
The Study ............................................................................................................... 20 Imagery of India as IT Superpower ......................................................................... 21
The School System in India .................................................................................... 23 Context ................................................................................................................... 26
American India Foundation (AIF) - Digital Equalizer (DE) Program ........................ 28 The Problem ........................................................................................................... 30
Problem Statement ................................................................................................. 31 Purpose of the Study .............................................................................................. 31
Conceptual Framework ........................................................................................... 33 Research Questions ............................................................................................... 36
Significance of the Study ........................................................................................ 36
2 LITERATURE REVIEW .......................................................................................... 39
Development of ICT in Indian Schools .................................................................... 39 A Snapshot ............................................................................................................. 39
1813-1947: India under the British Rule.................................................................. 42 1947- 1980: Growth of ICT Post-Independence ..................................................... 42
1980s – 2000: Spread of National Media Packages in Schools and Developing Focus on Teacher Training .................................................................................. 44
2000s – Present: Interplay of Public-Private Partnership in Computerization of Schools ................................................................................................................ 47
Teachers’ Perspectives on ICT ............................................................................... 58 A Snapshot ............................................................................................................. 58
ICT availability ........................................................................................................ 63 Teachers’ Knowledge of ICT ................................................................................... 65
Teachers’ Attitudes on Use of ICT .......................................................................... 68 Teachers’ Decision and Use of ICT ........................................................................ 72
7
Summary of the Literature Review .......................................................................... 76
3 METHODOLOGY.................................................................................................... 78
Instrument Development ......................................................................................... 80 Draft 1: Initial Survey Items ..................................................................................... 80
Draft 2: The Expert Review ..................................................................................... 84 Draft 3: Teacher Review ......................................................................................... 89
Discussion with AIF Director ................................................................................... 95 Final Survey ............................................................................................................ 99
Participants ........................................................................................................... 101 Data Collection ..................................................................................................... 102
Data Analysis ........................................................................................................ 104 Validity and Reliability ........................................................................................... 110
Limitations and Delimitations ................................................................................ 112
4 RESULTS ............................................................................................................. 116
A. Participants ..................................................................................................... 117 Teacher Background Information .......................................................................... 117
Teaching Qualification .......................................................................................... 117 Gender and Age ................................................................................................... 118
Teaching Experience, Teaching with Technology, and 1st Technology Training .. 119 Language and Subject .......................................................................................... 120
Class Size ............................................................................................................. 121 Computer-Related Technologies Available for Teacher Use ................................ 122
Summary of the Participants ................................................................................. 125 B. Answering Research Questions ..................................................................... 126
RQ1 -Teachers’ Skills and Knowledge on Computer-Related Technologies ........ 127 Summary of RQ1 .................................................................................................. 129
RQ2 - Teachers’ Attitudes about Computer-Related Practices ............................. 130 Summary of RQ2 .................................................................................................. 133
RQ3 - Teachers’ Decision to Use Computers for Teaching .................................. 134 Summary of RQ3 .................................................................................................. 136
RQ4 - Teachers’ Use of Computer-Related Technologies and their Schools’ Expectation toward their Use of Computers in Teaching (Practice- Implementation and Confirmation) ..................................................................... 136
Summary of RQ4 .................................................................................................. 141
Inspiration and Barriers for Teachers in Using Technologies ................................ 143 Inspiration for Teachers to Use Computer-Related Technologies in Teaching ..... 143
Barriers for Teachers to Use Technology in Teaching .......................................... 144 C. Cross-Tabulations and Correlations ................................................................ 146
Teachers’ Knowledge and ICT Usage .................................................................. 146 Teachers’ Attitude and ICT Usage ........................................................................ 147
Teachers’ Decision and ICT Usage ...................................................................... 148 Correlation Analysis .............................................................................................. 149
Summary of Cross-Tabulations and Correlations ................................................. 149
8
5 CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................... 151
Summary of the Study .......................................................................................... 151
Discussion ............................................................................................................ 152 RQ1 – How Do Teachers Perceive their Skills and Knowledge on Computer-
Related Technologies? ...................................................................................... 152 RQ2 – What are Teachers’ Attitudes about Computer-Related Practices?........... 153
RQ3 – What Decisions do Teachers Make to Use Computers for Teaching? ...... 153 RQ4 – How are Teachers Practicing Integration of ICT in Teaching? .................. 154
Key Take Away and Recommendations ............................................................... 157 Summary of Recommendations ............................................................................ 160
Conclusions .......................................................................................................... 161 APPENDIX
A 1ST DRAFT OF THE SURVEY INSTRUMENT SHARED WITH EXPERT REVIEWERS ........................................................................................................ 164
B DRAFT 2 OF THE SURVEY BASED ON EXPERT REVIEW ............................... 173
C COGNITIVE INTERVIEW WITH TEACHER A ...................................................... 179
D COGNITIVE INTERVIEW WITH TEACHER B ...................................................... 181
E COGNITIVE INTERVIEW WITH TEACHER C ..................................................... 183
F COGNITIVE INTERVIEW WITH TEACHER D ..................................................... 185
G COGNITIVE INTERVIEW WITH TEACHER E ...................................................... 186
H COGNITIVE INTERVIEW WITH TEACHER F ...................................................... 188
I FINAL DRAFT (DRAFT 3) OF THE SURVEY BASED ON TEACHER REVIEW AND DISCUSSION WITH AIF DIRECTOR ........................................................... 190
J GOOGLE TRANSLATION OF THE SURVEY (DRAFT 3) IN HINDI ..................... 199
K INSTRUCTION FOR FIELD COORDINATORS ON SURVEY COLLECTION ...... 207
L CODING SCHEME ON THE SURVEY ITEMS ..................................................... 209
M THE SURVEY CODEBOOK ................................................................................. 211
N CORRELATION MATRICES ................................................................................ 223
O SPEARMAN’S CORRELATION COEFFICIENT ................................................... 229
LIST OF REFERENCES ............................................................................................. 230
9
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .......................................................................................... 254
10
LIST OF TABLES
Table page 1-1 Different school boards in India .......................................................................... 26
3-1 Aligning Survey Categories with IDP stages and subscales adapted from existing surveys .................................................................................................. 82
3-2 Changes in the survey instrument made after the expert review round .............. 86
3-3 Changes made in the survey draft after the cognitive interviews with teachers .. 92
3-4 AIF Director’s feedback on the survey instrument .............................................. 97
3-5 Organization of the final survey questionnaire: Sections, stages in the IDP and the corresponding items .............................................................................. 99
3-6 Technological skills ........................................................................................... 105
3-7 Teachers’ attitude through their experiential and conceptual views .................. 107
3-8 Decision to use computer-based technologies ................................................. 108
3-9 Teachers’ use of computer-based technologies ............................................... 108
3-10 Items to determine confirmation of use of technology ...................................... 109
4-1 Average operational skills ................................................................................. 127
4-2 Percentage of teachers in the different operational skills categories ................ 127
4-3 Average editing skills ........................................................................................ 128
4-4 Percentage of teachers in the different editing skills categories ....................... 128
4-5 Average online skills ......................................................................................... 129
4-6 Percentage of teachers in the different online skills category ........................... 129
4-7 Average experiential view ................................................................................. 130
4-8 Percentage of teachers in the different experiential view categories ................ 131
4-9 Average conceptual view .................................................................................. 132
4-10 Percentage of teachers in the different conceptual view categories ................. 133
4-11 Average decision to use computer-based technologies ................................... 135
11
4-12 Percentage of teachers in the different decision categories ............................. 135
4-13 Average teachers’ use of computer-based technologies .................................. 137
4-14 Percentage of teachers in the different use categories ..................................... 138
4-15 Average school’s expectation toward teachers’ use of technology ................... 140
4-16 Percentage of teachers in the different school expectation categories ............. 140
4-17 Teachers’ knowledge and their use (Knowledge*Use) of computer-related technologies ..................................................................................................... 146
4-18 Attitude and use (Attitude * Use) of computer-related technologies ................. 147
4-19 Teachers’ decision and ICT usage (Decision * Use) ........................................ 148
4-20 Spearman's Rho Correlations of knowledge, attitude and decision with usage ................................................................................................................ 149
12
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure page 1-1 Literacy rate map of India, 2011 ......................................................................... 24
1-2 IDP Model adapted from Rogers, E.M. (1995). Diffusion of Innovations. ........... 36
3-1 Survey design steps ........................................................................................... 80
4-1 Teaching qualification ....................................................................................... 118
4-2 Gender ............................................................................................................. 118
4-3 Age ................................................................................................................... 118
4-4 Teaching experience ........................................................................................ 119
4-5 Number of years of teaching with technology ................................................... 120
4-6 Year of receiving 1st time technology training .................................................. 120
4-7 Primary teaching language ............................................................................... 120
4-8 Primary subject ................................................................................................. 121
4-9 Class size ......................................................................................................... 121
4-10 Technology at home ......................................................................................... 122
13
DEFINITION OF TERMS
AIF
CAL
CIET
American India Foundation
Computer Aided Learning
Centre of Educational Technology
DE Digital Equalizer
ET
ICT
IT
Education Technology
Information and Communications Technologies
Information Technology
IDP
LMS
NCERT
NCF
NEP
Innovation Diffusion Process
Learning Management System
National Council of Educational Research and Training
National Curriculum Framework
New Education Policy
NPE
MHRD
PPP
RTE
SSA
TPACK
UT
National Policy on Education
Ministry of Human Resource and Development
Public Private Partnership
Right to Education
Sarva Siksha Abhiyan
Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge
Union Territory
14
Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy
INVESTIGATING TEACHERS’ PERSPECTIVES TOWARD ICT INTEGRATION IN
CLASSROOMS IN DELHI, INDIA
By
Shilpa Sahay
December 2018
Chair: Kara Dawson Major: Curriculum and Instruction
The world is witnessing a remarkable development in computer, Internet and
digital communication technologies in the field of teaching and learning. Contemporary
India is at a stage where such organized efforts to achieve success in bringing ICT in
schools were hitherto unseen. Currently, technology is being adopted rapidly in India,
but only a relatively small proportion of the school population have access to computers.
The country’s vast population coupled with the problems of poverty and digital illiteracy
have been critical factors impeding the adoption of ICT in India.
A comparison of growth along with ground realties needs to be watched carefully
as the future may change in response to several public and private initiatives which are
working toward increased integration of technology in schools in India. This survey
research explores teachers’ perspectives measured in terms of their knowledge,
attitudes, decisions and practice of ICT in teaching. These variables were based on
Rogers’ Innovation-Decision Process (IDP) model. The participants of this research
were the teachers of the 72 Delhi government schools who were implementing
American India Foundation’s Digital Equalizer (DE) program for the academic year
15
2016-17. The findings suggest a little over half of the teachers to have medium level of
technological skills and three-fourth of them to have positive attitude, deciding to use
technology, and practicing computer-based technologies on a weekly basis. The study
recommends for focused teacher technological training programs to ensure that
teachers’ knowledge and attitude advance exponentially which could lead to stronger
integration of ICT in classrooms.
16
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
The world is witnessing a remarkable development in computer, Internet and
digital communication technologies in almost all aspects of human activities. The
universal flow and access to information at any point in time has ushered in the
‘information age’ which is characterized by gradual transformation of the world into a
global village (Garba, Yusuf, & Busthami, 2015). The present stage of rapid diffusion of
Information and Communications Technology (ICT) has not been witnessed in human
history. It’s not just the affluent countries, but elsewhere in the world too that people
have started using free Internet access at public places, using social media to stay
connected with their family and friends, and utilizing mobile phone to make transactions.
The ubiquitous presence of technology is seen as means to promote development. The
mainstream ICT initiatives taking place around the world can be slotted into different
sectorial silos of development, including the domains of economics, governance,
education and health (Kleine, 2013).
The present age of technology plays a key role in our daily lives and is making a
strong position in the global education system (Kumar, 2008). The twenty-first century is
characterized with the emergence of knowledge based society wherein ICT plays a
pivotal role. Many best practices related to use of ICT in teaching and learning are
emerging in different countries. At the national levels, integrating emerging ICT tools
into school systems remain the focus for governments at the decision-making level and
for schools at the implementation level (Zhang, Yang, Chang & Chang; 2016). It can be
said that several national policies, cutting edge research, and worldwide practices aim
at leveraging digital technologies to promote ICT into the field of education. In the last
17
few decades, education and ICT have developed a growing symbiotic relationship
(Angelaina & Jimoyiannis, 2012). The newfound benefits of technology in education
have caught interest of not only researchers but also of governments and funding
agencies worldwide.
Definition of ICT
Information and Communications Technology is a diverse set of technological
tools and resources used to communicate, create, disseminate, store and manage
information. ICT tools include almost every electronic device including radios,
televisions, desktops, laptops, tablets, cellular phones, network hardware and software,
satellite systems, Internet, along with peripherals like CDs, DVDs, smart cards and
other digital storage and computing devices (Bandyopadhyay, 2013). The use of the
term ICT has been synonymous with IT. The Oxford English Dictionary defined
Information Technology (IT) as “the branch of technology concerned with the
dissemination, processing, and storage of information, especially by means of
computers.” “Communications technologies” broadens the meaning to include
networking and communications devices. The arrival of the Internet in the late 1990s as
a global phenomenon sparked the convergence of digital computing and
telecommunications. Computers were largely focused on the processing of information.
ICTs undertake both processing and communication of information (Heeks & Nicholson,
2002). Broadly, ICTs are both tools and processes that allow for the transmission of
data and information through electronic means and can be powerful in shrinking
distances and enabling development (Duncombe & Heeks, 2002; Gerster &
Zimmermann, 2003). It is a term often used to describe a system of unified or
connected communication systems.
18
ICT in Schools in India
In India, since the turn of the twenty-first century, ICT has begun to mark its
presence in the education domain. There has been continuous growth and proliferation
in the use of ICT in Indian schools. The educational policies, government, private
schools, corporate firms and non-profit organizations are all working toward increasing
access of computers and other ICT tools at schools. Technological applications are
becoming an indispensable part of the present culture which is finding space in schools
through both traditional and vocational education (Devi, Rizwaan, & Chander, 2012).
Contemporary India is witnessing a stage where such organized efforts to
achieve success in the direction of bringing ICT in schools were hitherto unseen
(Gandhi, 2013; Jan, 2014; Kirwadkar, 2008; Shamsu, 2012). Huge investments are
being incurred by the Indian government and private firms in creating ICT infrastructure
at schools but these will not have the desired results if teachers do not use the
technology. School institutions have begun to implement e-learning into the curriculum
but the integration of computers and Internet for classroom teaching and learning is still
in its nascent state (Reel & Burse, 2008). There are many obstacles to achieve a
desirable standard in school education in India. The country faces unique challenges in
K-12 education, in terms of its sheer size, diversity and the need to ensure educational
access. The quality of education has always been a major setback to the school
education system of the country. The poor quality of education in schools is attributed
to, among other reasons, the lack of proper infrastructure, learning materials,
accountability and adequate quantity and quality of teachers. To improve the standard
of education, ICT is being considered as a significant contributor (Halder & Chaudhuri,
19
2010; Vijaykumar, 2011; Shamsu, 2012). Addressing the quality of teachers has been
one of the major areas of concern. To this end, teacher training programs have
increased manifold and integration of technological tools in classrooms is being
encouraged as solutions to improve teaching and learning (Kharade & Peese, 2014).
Currently, technology is being adopted rapidly in India, but only a relatively small
proportion of the school population i.e., 26.42 % of schools in the country have access
to computers. Internet penetration in the schools is just about 15%, with average
connection speed described as slow (U-DISE, 2015). Despite having the world’s second
largest mobile phone user base and the third largest Internet user base, only 13% of
India's population has access to a smartphone, and only 19% has access to the Internet
(CSF Report, 2015). Only 11.9% of households have personal computers in India
(Dutta, Geiger, & Lanvin, 2015). In the recent past, there has been a quick rise in low-
cost and low-power computing devices like tablets and other mobile technologies in
both households and schools. The country’s vast population coupled with the problems
of poverty and digital illiteracy have been critical factors impeding the adoption of ICT in
India (Ericsson Consumer Lab, 2013). To address these obstacles, government and
commercial initiatives are tackling current infrastructure issues and are making
educational content and software available offline through local wireless networks,
shared hardware and bundled tablet solutions. These are promising initiatives, and
initial trends indicate a high potential for even the lowest-resourced schools to adopt
technological innovations. Both government and private schools in India are
increasingly adopting ICT in teaching and learning but there is a need to explore how
teachers perceive this recent phenomenon of technology integration in schools.
20
The Study
This research explored teachers’ perspectives toward ICT integration in teaching
at government schools of Delhi, India. Delhi was taken as the site of study as it is the
capital state of the country and had presence of immense variation in the different
government schools spread throughout the place. There were some excellent
government schools alongside some dysfunctional ones. Also, the state department of
education of Delhi was much in news for its efforts and initiatives on technology
integration in government schools in recent times (delhi.gov.in). It provided as a good
site for research on exploring teachers’ perspectives toward ICT integration in teaching.
Teachers’ perspectives were measured in terms of their knowledge, attitudes, decisions
and practice of ICT in teaching and learning. These variables were based on Rogers’
Innovation-Decision Process (IDP) model as this process consists of individual’s actions
over time that can be evaluated to analyze whether one is going to incorporate the
innovation into ongoing practices or not (Rogers, 2003). ICT in teaching is considered
as the innovation in this study. As Indian teachers, especially in the government schools
have just recently started to use ICT in teaching, the IDP model and its five stages were
found apt to explore the perspectives of teachers toward using technology in their
teaching purposes. American India Foundation (AIF), a non-profit organization has been
running its ongoing Digital Equalizer (DE) program in the government schools of Delhi
since 2015. The DE program aimed towards bridging the digital divide in India’s public
schools through training, supporting and empowering teachers to integrate technology
for enhanced teaching and learning. The participants of this research were the teachers
of the Delhi schools who were implementing the DE program for the academic year
21
2016-17. ICT has been referred to as computers and computer-related technologies in
the survey design of this research. In order to understand the contemporary Indian
context in which the study is situated, the sections below present the background and
the context information.
Imagery of India as IT Superpower
Despite the fact that India’s education system is a concern, the country aspires to
be an ICT leader in the world. In the literature, India is often cited as a success story
with regard to its IT development (Bhatnagar, 2000). Technological growth is especially
being witnessed worldwide in the form of Indian manpower, as the country’s youth are
marking their presence globally in the field of information technology. In his September
2010 “back to school” speech, President Obama urged students in the United States to
work harder to keep pace with students in Bangalore, India, in order to be successful in
the twenty-first century (“Working Harder,” 2010, Byker, 2012). This is a paradoxical
situation, as a majority of the Indian population has little information about educational
technology and only a small section of the society receives skills and knowledge in ICT,
eventually taking up IT jobs abroad or in India. Such a paradox is due to the many
divides that mark the nature of the country, such as the urban-rural divide, public-private
divide, English-vernacular divide, mainstream-alternative divide and digital divide. Such
dichotomies are so high in the country that it can be said that in the Indian context, it
seems as if two countries are rolled into one and this has been aptly paraphrased by
Arvind Adiga in “White Tiger” as ‘India of light and India of darkness’ (Adiga, 2008,
Cerisier & Popuri, 2011; Jan, 2014).
22
The aspiration of the country to become an ICT leader had been reflected
strongly, as India announced 2010-2020 as the decade of innovation and, in 2015,
launched ‘Digital India’ as the government of India’s flagship program with a vision to
transform India into a digitally empowered society and knowledge-based economy. An
important feature of the program is the expansion of e-education nation-wide. Lofty
goals have been laid out, one of which envisages connecting the entire country through
broadband within four years. In contemporary times, when the world is being referred to
as a ‘global village’, the possibilities afforded by ICT to build bridges between the
diverse populations seem endless (In Lloyd, 2014). India continues to push for the
interconnectedness technology affords. The current Prime Minister, Mr. Narendra Modi,
is seen to promote ‘Digital India’ in the western world in a fashion never witnessed
before (Sawant, 2015; Sharma, Lama and Goyal, 2016). There has been sizable growth
in the establishment of technological firms and start-ups in India. However, the existing
vastness of the country, wide disparity, socio-economic diversity, high rate of illiteracy
and unemployment are the major deterrents to the widespread integration of
technology. At present, the imagery of the country as IT superpower and ground reality
of integration of ICT in education do not match. But the comparison needs to be
watched carefully as the future may change in response to several public and private
initiatives which are working toward increased and effective integration of technology in
school education in the entire country. This study highlighted the present situation of
ICT integration in the government schools of the capital state of the country.
23
The School System in India
India, with a population of over 1.2 billion residents has the second largest
education system in the world after China. The present school system in India
comprises of pre-primary level (pre-K), primary level (K-5), middle level (6-8), secondary
(9th and 10th), and, senior secondary level (11th and 12th standard). A uniform pattern
of school education, the 10+2 system has been adopted by all the 29 States and the 7
Union Territories (UTs) spreading across over 680 districts in India. However, school
education in India is vast and diverse covering nearly one and half million schools of
diverse sizes, categories, managements, sources of funding, levels and grades taught,
mediums of instruction, etc. This study is conducted with the teachers of the higher
elementary/ middle section (6-8th standards) of the Delhi government schools.
An interesting fact is that there are 1.51 million schools in India with 85 percent
schools in rural areas and 15 percent schools in urban areas (U-DISE, 2015). The
government schools of Delhi fall in the urban area but some of them are no better that
rural schools due to the vastness of the capital state that encompasses huge variation
in the types of government schools in different parts of the state. There are around 8.56
million teachers but more than 1.2 million additional teachers would be needed to
completely meet the needs of the school population in the country (NEUPA, 2015).
There are over 40,000 teachers in the government schools of New Delhi. There are
about 254 million students in the schools making the Indian education system one of the
largest in the world. In New Delhi, there are around 1024 government schools with
about 1.1 million students. Unfortunately, the overall quality of education is poor, with
less than 40% children aged 6 to 14 in rural India being able to read at the second-
24
grade level (Banerji, Bhattacharjea, & Wadhwa, 2013). In the recent ‘Every child can
read’ campaign held by the Delhi government, the statistics suggested that 74 percent
of state’s government school elementary classes students couldn’t read (Acharyya,
2016). Figure 1-1 presents the varied literacy level in the different parts of the country
as per 2011 census of India.
Figure 1-1. Literacy rate map of India, 2011
There are three types of Indian schools: government schools, government-aided
schools or private schools. This study is focused only on the government schools of
Delhi. The quality of government schools ranges from top-notch to abysmal. It can be
25
said that broadly, government schools in India which are in the rural parts of the country
face a lot more challenges than urban government schools. Some of the pressing
challenges in the rural government schools include lack of monitoring and evaluation
leading to dysfunctional schools having issues of absenteeism of teachers and
students; or bad quality of education being imparted; or high rate of drop outs. The fact
remains that maximum students in the country attend the government schools. Private
schools are better but many of them charge high fees making them accessible only to
middle and higher class families and admissions can be highly competitive.
Interestingly, a recent phenomenon has been the growth of low-cost private schools in
both rural and urban India and these are changing the dynamics of Indian schooling to a
large extent (Muralidharan & Sundararaman, 2015, Tooley, 2007).
There are various curriculum bodies governing the school education system and
these are popularly referred to as school boards in India. These school boards prescribe
curriculum and syllabus for teaching and learning for schools coming under their
jurisdiction. There are mainly four school boards which have their own curriculum of
teaching and learning- state board, central board, CBSE board and CISCE board. In
recent times, the International Baccalaureate (IB) board is gaining prevalence in high-
end new private schools in India. Delhi state board government schools were part of this
study. Table 1-1 shows the different school boards and classifies which types of schools
fall under each of the categories.
26
Table 1-1. Different school boards in India
School Boards
State board of education-Both government and private schools
Central board of education- Only government schools
CBSE board of education (Central Board of Secondary Education)- government-aided and private schools
CISCE board of education (Council for Indian Schools Certificate Examinations)- government-aided and private schools
There have been intensive efforts to expand and improve the quality of school
education in the recent past. Education comes under the concurrent list in the Indian
constitution which makes both the central and the state government accountable
though, the major responsibility of development of school education has been, more or
less, entrusted to the states. National and state educational bodies have been set up
since the independence of the country in 1947. The National Policy on Education (NPE)
was formulated in 1986 and revised in 1992 which continues to be a strong guideline
along with the National Curriculum Framework (NCF), 2005 for the school system of the
country. The Right to Education (RTE) came into effect in 2010 which ensured free and
compulsory elementary education to all the children of the age group 6-14 years.
Recommendations have been made to make secondary education in India free and
compulsory by 2020 but there exist bureaucratic challenges in making an initiative an
act and when will it be enforced remains a tough question (Miles & Singal, 2010).
Context
ICT has marked its presence in school education in India. Both rural and urban,
elite and public and affordable private schools have some degree of presence of
computers in contemporary India. It is believed that a major paradigm shift,
characterized by imparting instructions, collaborative learning, multi-disciplinary
27
problem-solving and promoting critical thinking skills, is imperative in education going
forward. The shift is necessary because this is the age of information and technology
that requires that teachers not merely teach such information but facilitate the gathering
of it as well. Usually ICT in India is associated with the use of computer and Internet.
Schools are responsible to acquire computers, Internet connection, LCD projectors and
other technological tools and then send their teachers for crash courses that supposedly
teaches them to use such technology. The problem with this approach is that it is void of
focus. Until teachers are made to realize the need of ICT, it is rightly said that no
amount of computerization in schools can help. Teachers’ knowledge and attitudes
toward use of ICT in classrooms hold utmost significance for proper integration of
educational technology in schools in India. While there are a lot of studies about how
ICT is being used in developed countries, there is not much information on how ICT is
being integrated in the schools of developing countries (Beukes-Amiss & Chiware,
2006; Moens, Broerse, Gast, & Bunders, 2010).
It is crucial to understand that access to computers and computer-related
technologies is still limited to a very small percentage of the schools in India. Delhi
government schools can be expected to have higher ICT access as compared to the
rest of the government schools in the country for being in the capital state. Numerous
efforts in the integration of technology in schools by both public and private entities have
been started. There can be no denial that a broad awareness about the importance of
ICT has been established across schools in India, especially in Delhi over the past
years. But sadly, technology comes with its own obstacles. Unfortunately, there exists a
huge gap between accessing these ICT tools and, in turn, making them functional. At
28
the ground level, there might be computers in several government schools but most of
them are inaccessible because of power outages or lack of an instructor (e.g., Garba,
Yusuf, & Busthami, 2015; Kingdon, 2007). Other common problems are that computers
are dysfunctional at several places or if computers are functional, not many schools
have access to Internet for educational uses (Manzar, 2015).
In order to overcome barriers like geographical, socio-economic and cultural
constraints related with the use of ICT in classrooms, technological teacher training is
seen as a viable solution (Chatterjee & Nath, 2015). In fact, until teachers are provided
with sustainable training in ICT- enabled teaching pedagogies and methodologies, true
change may not be possible. Electronic-learning can change the paradigm of teaching
and learning. India has to work hard towards helping the Internet take root in the nation
at large. With the increasing accessibility of smart phones and mobile technologies
throughout the country, there has been a revolution of technological access to the
masses at a level which had never been witnessed before. Broadband and Internet
facilities have to spread out massively in order to be explored and exploited for
educational purposes. Also, the new technology and services which schools adopt need
to be evaluated at short intervals.
American India Foundation (AIF) - Digital Equalizer (DE) Program
The current practices in the Indian school systems indicate that ICT is not alien in
the landscape of schools in India. Looking at the Indian government initiatives, there
have been favorable educational policies in the country to integrate ICT in schools. In
2001, President Bill Clinton and Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee signed together for
a philanthropic platform dedicated to catalyzing social and economic change in India
29
along with strengthening the ties between the two nations. AIF was born then, hence
forth impacting the lives of over 3 million of India’s less fortunate. In 2009, the DE
program was launched in Delhi. AIF’s DE is an initiative to bridge the educational and
digital divide by integrating technology in teaching and learning at under-resourced
government schools across India. The DE program has its outreach in 10 States of the
country. The program reaches out to both pre-service and in-service teachers. AIF-DE
program had signed an MoU with four District Institute for Education and Training
(DIETs) (to work with pre-service teachers) and 72 schools (to work with in-service
teachers) in Delhi. This study is focused on the in-service teachers in the 72 DE Delhi
government schools as the research aimed to explore the perspectives of teachers who
had been integrating technology in their classroom teaching. The DE program aimed to
facilitate teachers’ capacity building and provide infrastructural support in the forms of 3
to 4 computers with high speed Internet at all those schools where the purpose was of
providing IT literacy. But in general, every school was provided with 1 desktop, a
speaker, a projector and a UPS. AIF field coordinators visited the schools weekly and
extended on-site support to teachers in integrating technology with their classroom
teaching. Each academic year, 4 teachers from the higher elementary/ middle school
classes (6th to 8th standard) from each of the 72 DE schools were selected to be
trained and supported to implement the DE Techno-Pedagogy program in classroom
teaching. The 288 teachers associated for the academic year 2016-2017 (April till
March) from the 72 DE schools were the participants of this study.
30
The Problem
Despite increasing availability of ICT infrastructure along with initiatives by
government and private firms, there appears to be some resistance to adoption at the
classroom level. Few teachers intend to integrate ICT into their teaching activities in
India (Gupta & Singh, 2014). Several factors, such as computer infrastructure, teachers'
perception, self-efficacy, behavioral intention, attitude, computer knowledge and the
time and the willingness to prepare and present learning activities have been found to
influence the effective use of computers in classrooms (Padmavathi, 2015). The
pedagogic culture of teachers (e.g., resistance to using a computer in the classroom)
also results in their alienation from the use of technology (Rastogi & Malhotra, 2013).
Vyasulu Reddi & Sinha (2003) argue that “It needs to be understood that any new
technology comes not merely with hardware and software, but with a learning and
teaching style and grammar of its own, and that management practices need to be
adapted in order to use the technologies effectively (p. 252).” Over the past few
decades, ICT has been projected as an enabler in improving the quality of education. It
has been promoted to be transformative in nature. But it’s important to realize if the
same is believed by the Indian teachers in their local context.
In India, studies on the knowledge, attitudes and the use of computers among
teachers in Indian classrooms are still quite limited (Padmavathi, 2015). Furthermore,
there is no comprehensive survey instrument in the Indian context to measure the
different stages involved in adoption/rejection of ICT through exploring the knowledge,
attitudes, decisions and practice of teachers to integrate ICT in classrooms. Successful
technological integration will be possible only when ICT tools are both available in
31
classrooms and when teachers wholeheartedly accept and perceive the use of
technology favorably.
Problem Statement
While there is a rapid increase in the access of ICT in Indian government
schools, the actual use of technology in schools has been limited and there is a strong
need to explore the factors which lead to teachers’ adoption or rejection of technology in
their classroom practices.
Purpose of the Study
This research was focused on assessing the knowledge, attitudes, decisions and
practice of teachers toward integrating ICT in classrooms of Delhi government schools.
Based on Everett Rogers (2003) ‘Innovation-Decision Process’ (IDP) model, this
research explored the process through which teachers pass from gaining initial
knowledge of ICT as the innovation in classrooms, to forming an attitude (favorable or
unfavorable) toward ICT, to making a decision to adopt or reject it, to implementation of
the new idea of ICT, and to confirmation of the decision. The IDP model has five stages
namely-- knowledge, persuasion, decision, implementation and confirmation. This
research utilized these stages to highlight the factors of teachers’ knowledge, attitudes,
decisions and practice toward ICT integration in teaching.
Public policies, corporate initiatives, and non-profit efforts are directed toward
smooth integration of ICT (computers and computer-related technologies in the case of
this study) in Indian classrooms to achieve improved teaching and learning outcomes.
Contemporary India is witnessing a stage where such organized efforts to achieve
success in this direction were hitherto unseen. Huge investments are being incurred by
32
the Indian government and private firms in creating ICT infrastructure at schools but
these will not have the desired results if teachers do not use the technology. However,
the history of the use of ICT in schools suggest that teachers abandon technology if that
does not fit the social organization of schooling (Cuban, 2009; Lim, 2007, Zhao, &
Frank, 2003). It is of utmost importance to understand the readiness and perspective
(knowledge, attitudes, decisions and practice) of teachers toward the implementation of
technological education interventions.
To understand why teachers accept or reject technology has been one of the
most significant and challenging issues in information system research (Huang & Liaw,
2005). Taylor and Littleton (2006) claim that as teachers gain an understanding of how
an innovation functions, they continually reconstruct their attitudes towards the tasks of
teaching. Teachers’ knowledge and attitudes relating to computers can strongly
influence the success of the adoption and practice of instructional technology for
classroom use (Grable, Osborne, & Corbell, 2006). Rogers defines attitude as “a
relatively enduring organization of an individual’s beliefs about an object that
predisposes his or her actions.” Because of their critical role in the innovation
implementation process, the attitudes of teachers toward ICT can be stressed as the
focus of studies at the early stages of technology implementation (Woodrow, 1987). In
India, as ICT integration in classroom practices is still at the beginning level, attitudes of
teachers would play a crucial role in identifying technology adoption/rejection and its
usage by the school teachers. There have been only a few empirical studies conducted
which are related to teacher knowledge, attitudes and use of technology in Indian
classrooms (Bhalla, 2013; Bose, 2010; Lal, 2014; Rastogi & Malhotra, 2013; Upreti &
33
Surya, 2011). There is a lack of a systematic study of the whole process of teachers’
integration of ICT in Indian classroom teaching. The present study, therefore, was
aligned to the role of teachers in the government schools of the capital state of Delhi,
addressing their perspective that contribute or detract toward integrating ICT in the
classrooms.
Conceptual Framework
Innovation causes change, and resistance to change is a natural reaction to the
uncertainty that any transformation creates (Rogers, 2003). One of the best known and
well-respected attempts to describe the adoption of new ideas (or technology) through
cultures is the theory of Diffusion of Innovation put forth by Everett Rogers in 1995. This
theory has been extensively used in the field of behavior science research by scholars
from multi-disciplines in nations across the world. Since Rogers uses the term
innovation and technology interchangeably, the diffusion of innovation is seen as an apt
framework for this research on integration of ICT by teachers in Delhi government
classrooms. Because of the comprehensiveness of Rogers’ theory, researchers often
test or investigate some aspects of this unified theory of diffusion. For this study, I only
used the Innovation-Decision Process model of the theory of diffusion to investigate
teachers’ perspectives toward ICT integration in classroom teaching.
The 5 stages of the IDP model has been defined as follows:
1. Knowledge occurs when there is exposure and understanding about an innovation and how it functions.
2. Persuasion occurs when one develops a favorable or an unfavorable attitude towards the innovation.
3. Decision engages in activities that lead to a choice of adoption or rejection of the innovation.
34
4. Implementation occurs when the new idea is put to use. And,
5. Confirmation takes place when one seeks reinforcement of an innovation-decision already made, but one may reverse this decision if exposed to conflicting messages about the innovation
Rogers (1995) detailed out the five stages of the IDP model. In the ‘knowledge
stage’, one analyzes what is an individual’s awareness-knowledge about the
innovation? It becomes relevant to find out whether there was a need for the innovation
or was it created? In this study, AIF-DE program was the change agent bringing in the
innovation in the form of ICT integration in teaching by the teachers of the Delhi
government schools. Teachers’ knowledge and awareness about the ICT program was
analyzed in the study. Rogers mentioned that in the innovation-decision process, it
becomes significant for an individual to obtain sufficient knowledge about the innovation
to become adequately informed, so that one can be persuaded to accept the innovation
and practice it. Once an individual gains adequate knowledge, one moves to the
‘persuasion stage’, where one develops a favorable or unfavorable attitude toward the
innovation. In this stage, the individual might develop positive or negative attitude and it
is not necessary that one be persuaded in the direction intended by the change agent.
Each individual thinks about applying the new idea to his or her present or anticipated
future situation before deciding to accept or reject the innovation. In this study, the
teachers were of under-resourced government schools where there existed numerous
challenges to providing quality education at a daily level. In these scenarios, though ICT
was believed to be a helpful resource for teaching, the study explored whether the
teachers had a favorable attitude toward ICT integration or not. Rogers studied that in
many cases attitudes and actions may be disparate. Individuals usually take a cue-to-
action to crystallize a favorable attitude into overt behavioral change of deciding to
35
adopt the innovation. The next IDP stage is the ‘decision stage’ where activities of the
individuals showcase whether one has adopted or rejected an innovation. Rogers
defined adoption as ‘a decision to make full use of an innovation as the best course of
action available’ and rejection is ‘a decision not to adopt an innovation’. There can be
‘active rejection’ and ‘passive rejection’ of the use of the innovation. This study analyzed
whether teachers accepted or rejected the integration of ICT in their teaching practices
which were being promoted by AIF-DE program. The ‘implementation stage’ is the next
in the innovation-decision process for an individual where one puts the innovation to
use. Rogers mentioned that after a point of use of the innovation, the new idea
becomes institutionalized as a regularized part of an adopter’s ongoing work. This study
analyzed how the teachers of the AIF-DE program had implemented the use of ICT in
teaching and whether it had become a part of their daily routine or not. The last stage of
the IDP model is the ‘confirmation stage’ where an individual seeks reinforcement for
the use of the innovative idea, but, there also exists a possibility that one may reverse
the decision to adopt the innovation if exposed to conflicting information regarding the
innovation. This study tried to analyze whether the teachers continued and confirmed
their use of ICT in teaching or not. As the AIF-DE program was an ongoing program in
the participating schools, the implementation and confirmation stages were merged
under ‘practices’ for the analysis purposes. Figure 1-2 showcases Roger’s IDP model
which has been adapted for this study.
36
Figure 1-2. IDP Model adapted from Rogers, E.M. (1995). Diffusion of Innovations (Page 20, Figure 5-1). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
Research Questions
RQ1. What are the knowledge, attitudes, decisions and practice of teachers toward
ICT integration in the Indian classroom?
1. How do teachers perceive their own knowledge of ICT use in classrooms? (Research variable: knowledge - stage 1 of IDP (Knowledge))
2. What are teachers’ attitudes about the ICT available in their schools? (Research variable: attitudes - stage 2 of IDP (Persuasion))
3. What decisions do teachers make regarding using ICT available in their school? (Research variable: decisions – stage 3 of IDP (Decision))
4. How are teachers practicing integration of ICT in classrooms? (Research variable: practice – stages 4 and 5 of IDP (Implementation and Confirmation))
Significance of the Study
In the Indian context, teachers have been found to use computers for restricted
time duration and for performing limited number of tasks, not having sufficiently
integrated computers across the curriculum (Bhalla, 2013). There exist several reasons
that pose as challenges for technological integration in classrooms but recent studies
(i.e., Lal 2014; Rastogi & Malhotra, 2013) have brought out that the vast majority of
school teachers have positive attitude towards ICT in relation to their school teaching
subjects. Changing beliefs from traditional to constructivist approach is neither quickly
nor easily accomplished (Cuban, 1986; Ertmer & Hruskocy, 1999). For purposes of this
Knowledge Attitude (Persuation)
DecisionPractice
(Implementation + Confirmation)
37
research, the study looked into what was the overall understanding of techno-
pedagogical beliefs and practices of teachers of the Delhi government schools.
The present study grew out of the need to significantly broaden the knowledge
base about teachers’ perception toward technological integration in Indian classrooms.
Although these teachers under study had been using technology in teaching, it would be
interesting to discover what were their beliefs and perceptions of technology and how
did they integrate technology in their classrooms. The result of a study by Ertmer,
Gopalakrishnan & Ross (2001) suggested that technology use, as perceived and
practiced by teachers rather illustrates what happens when visions meet reality in
today’s K-12 classrooms. This study was designed to explore teachers' beliefs and
perceptions of a number of intrinsic and extrinsic factors that were believed to play key
roles in their success or failure as technology users.
As part of this research, a well-validated survey instrument has been created.
The survey instrument is applicable to school teachers using ICT in teaching in India
and could be applied in other developing countries with needed adaptation. The study
explored how teachers perceived integration of technology in their teaching activity. An
exploratory study was conducted to understand the role of knowledge, attitudes,
decisions and practice of teachers toward successful implementation of technology in
classrooms. This was few of the early studies conducted in the Indian context where
ICT was explored as an innovation and its integration by teachers was investigated on
the five stages of Rogers’ IDP model. This study brought forward the position of the
most significant player in the implementation process -- the teachers. The findings
about the use of technology by the Delhi government school teachers in the present
38
times would be a contribution to the field of ICT in education. This research adds to the
literature on perceptions of teachers integrating technology in teaching. The
recommendations based out of the key take away from this research aim to be helpful
resources for the teachers, school administrators and private educational organizations
working toward integration of computer-related technologies in classroom practices.
39
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW
The literature review focused on two major areas of understanding. First, the
development of ICT in Indian schools was studied. This section presents the picture of
how ICT gained focus in the Indian education policies and how it has developed in the
school education scenario over time. Second, studies on teachers’ perspectives on ICT
were reviewed. Teachers’ knowledge, attitude, decision and practice on ICT use were
studied. It included reviewing the literature of computer knowledge/skills,
attitudes/beliefs and technology use intention and integration survey studies used to
investigate the perspectives of school teachers as conducted in India and different parts
of the world.
Development of ICT in Indian Schools
A Snapshot
The Indian government realized the potential of ICT in early 1970s. Such
potential may be the reason why, despite being afflicted by poverty, illiteracy and
malnutrition, India has had a tremendously successful software export industry (Heeks
& Nicholson, 2002). Additionally, there has been increasing systematic endeavors
toward integrating ICT in schools and significant milestones have been achieved as a
result. Over the last few decades, a constant focus has been put toward improvement
of the education system through exploring the potential of ICT in schools in India
(Bhalla, 2013; Devi, Rizwaan & Chander, 2012; Gupta & Fisher, 2012).
Several school schemes and programs were launched by the Indian government.
The scheme of Educational Technology (ET) in schools, for example, was started in
1972 in India and all the States/UTs education boards were assisted to procure devices
40
such as radio cum cassette players, color TVs, etc. Subsequently, the Computer
Literacy and Studies in Schools (CLASS) project was introduced in 1985 under National
Policy on Education (NPE) as part of the focus on ICT in education. The program
continued to improve during 1993. In 1998, the national task force on Information
Technology and software development (IT Task Force) was initiated which made
specific recommendations on introduction of IT in the education sector of the country.
This taskforce was mandated to formulate the draft of a national informatics policy. By
2004, both ET and CLASS projects were merged into a more comprehensive centrally
sponsored scheme called ICT@Schools (MHRD website). This foremost government
education technology program installed infrastructure in approximately 86,000 schools
from 2004. The ICT@Schools scheme has four major focus areas 1) building of ICT
infrastructure for secondary and senior secondary schools, 2) establishment of smart
schools, 3) teacher capacity building and engagement, and 4) development of e-
content. In reality, implementation has largely focused on setting up infrastructure with a
limited focus on teacher training and e-content (CSF Report, 2015). The National
Curriculum Framework (NCF), 2005, reinforced the need for ICT in schools and
encouraged expansion of the dedicated satellite, EduSat, with an aim to expand e-
learning and self-education. In 2007, the Indian government in collaboration with Global
eSchools and Communities Initiatives (GeSCI), a UN task-force, and the non-profit
organization, Center for Science, Development and Media Studies (CSDMS), drafted a
national policy toward ICT in schools in India (Arora, 2007, Nayark & Barker, 2014).
Finally, a National Mission in Education (NME) through ICT (NME-ICT) was set up in
2012.
41
India’s National Policy on Education (NPE), framed in 1986 and revised in 1992,
has yielded many educational initiatives and recommendations since its inception
(Maheshwari & Raina, 1998). Since then, several changes in the education system of
the country have demanded yet another revision of the policy. In 2015, the Government
of India embarked on the creation of the New Education Policy (NEP) in order to bring in
the desired and contemporary modifications, in order to focus on quality education,
innovation and research. A time-bound consultative process is being followed to come
up with a policy that entails the democratic voices of the varied education
representatives of the country. ICT in Indian schools is also one of the major
deliberation points. Deriving its foundation from the seminal NPE, NEP continues to
stress the need to employ ICT as a means to improve the quality of Indian education. In
the past, there was emergent motivation toward improvement of the education systems
through exploring the potentials of ICT in schools in India. To a large extent, initiatives
begun to take place but there exist insurmountable challenges in the systems of
education and society in India which need meticulous attention in order to achieve the
desired education goals both in the present and moving toward the future (Jan, 2014;
Cheney, Ruzzi, & Muralidharan, 2005; Padmavathi, 2016).
Looking into the different eras of the Indian educational history will help to map
the efforts that have been made which led to the presence of ICT in schools in India.
Below is a review on development of ICT in school education in India by using a
chronological approach of analysis and discussion. Four phases have been discussed
below starting from period 1813-1947, 1947-1980, 1980-2000 and to the latest period
2000s- present.
42
1813-1947: India under the British Rule
During the British period, the interplay of imperial and domestic education in the
country had mostly led to disengagement amongst the masses. It was not until early
1900 that focus towards vocational education at the school level was observed. At the
grass-roots level, non-formal school systems and science movements began to emerge.
National freedom fighters like Gokhale and Gandhi envisioned that universalization of
education in India could be the panacea for the widespread ignorance and illiteracy in
the country (Varghese, 1986). In this context, radio programming could be viewed as
the first ICT initiative to spread out on mass level. As radio was the main mode of
entertainment for the period, it follows that the medium gave birth to educational radio in
India. Radio was first used informally for education in Bombay in 1929, followed by
Madras in 1930 (Shamsu, 2014). In the 1930s, the British Broadcasting Corporation
(BBC) aired cultural and educational programs in the country. In 1937, All India Radio
(AIR) broadcasted educational programs for school children in different languages
(Agarwal, 2005; Bharati, 2014).
1947- 1980: Growth of ICT Post-Independence
At the time of independence from the British rule in 1947, the rate of literacy in
India was 12%. In order to improve the education scenario in the country, several
government bodies were set up after the independence of the country. The National
Institute of Audio-Visual Education was established in 1948. It was merged into the
National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) in 1961. The Centre of
Educational Technology was created in 1974. Since the mid-1970s, the government of
India and international educational organizations like UNESCO and its initiative like
43
Asian Centre of Educational Innovation for Development (ACEID) introduced ICTs like
educational satellite, audio-visual aids and multi-media kits into the Indian education
system (Bhola, 1975; Sagasti & Araoz, 1979). The international educational
organizations were working for the development of Asia, and India was one of the
participants in receiving training on the use of ICT tools and resources. These
educational bodies disseminated multi-media teaching materials mainly through training
programs. There were training workshops on the ways teachers can use ICT but its
outreach and impact were not explicitly documented (UNESCO Report, 1985, 1986).
The reports suggested that the national representatives from each country would attend
the workshop and were expected to train the educators in their countries. The media of
instruction used by Indian teachers had always been chalk and talk, aided by textbooks.
Visual aids in teaching through models, charts, and pictures were introduced. New
inventions like recording of sound and projection implemented in the teaching process
initiated the presence of modern ICT equipment, methods, and techniques in a few
classrooms. A multi-media kit was produced by NCERT designed to solve specific
problems in teaching encountered in one-teacher schools, in minority groups or
multicultural and large classes. The kit was culturally specific and was prepared by
keeping in mind local challenges. The kit included re-usable materials, easy to handle
media for teachers, and most of the hardware of media did not require electricity, which
was a local challenge in rural India. Some of the media materials in the kit for teachers
included transparencies for the training of teachers, flannel graph board, multipurpose
plastic slates, audio tapes, slide viewers, picture cards, worksheets, simple science
equipment, etc. (UNESCO, 1986). This was a foundation that laid the groundwork
44
toward preparing school education for ICT, but the number of teachers involved in such
efforts were limited, making the effort unreached in all the schools of the country
(Malhotra, 1979; Prakash & Varghese, 1983).
This period also witnessed exploration of educational potential of television. In a
developing country like India, media including radio, press, television, and cinema have
played a crucial role in disseminating information to the masses. The first experimental
educational television project started in 1961 as ‘secondary school television project’ in
the state of Delhi (Vyas, Sharma & Kumar, 2002). Ownership of media was not
common in those day. The concept of community television arose in the 1970s in India
as a strategy to reach out to the general population. It referred to TV sets owned by the
village and placed at a public place where all castes and classes of people had access
to the facility (Shingi & Mody, 1976). Mass illiteracy was a major problem and programs
like these were conducted with the vision to inform and educate the general population,
including school-going children. Satellite Instructional Television Experiment (SITE),
which was undertaken by India in 1975-76 utilized the first satellite capable of
transmitting television programs directly to community receivers (Shamsu, 2012).
Educational potentials and limitations of radio and television were explored for teacher
training. A series of educational broadcasting titles for in-service training of primary
school teachers on how to teach children science and language using a multi-media
package was produced and used successfully (UNESCO, 1986).
1980s – 2000: Spread of National Media Packages in Schools and Developing Focus on Teacher Training
The Centre of Educational Technology was converted into the Central Institute of
Educational Technology (CIET) in 1984 with a widened scope of use of ICT. Film
45
library, television and radio studios, mobile television vans, and departments for
developing non-projected and projected media materials were part of the institute.
National educational programs were telecasted by satellite to selected rural schools in
six states in the beginning. CIET partnered with their counterparts in the state to create
ICT activities in their respective regional languages. Instructional television programs
and teacher training radio programs continued to be broadcasted. Computers were
introduced in selected schools. Despite these efforts, integration of ICT into the
education system was a weak point. In their source book on ‘Teachers and their use of
educational technology’, UNESCO (1986) found that the main issues for India’s struggle
with ICT integration in education systems were due to: production being short of
expectations; distribution getting weakened due to difference in local languages and
geographical expanse; and, utilization of media not being assured due to poor facilities,
lack of teacher training, and inadequate educational supervision.
The decade of 1980s focused on developing materials and national methods to
train administrators and teachers for effective teaching-learning process. Some of the
teaching-learning media types utilized during this period included: video tapes, slides
and tapes, transparencies, low-cost models, charts, cards for playing educational
games, instructional modules, and video tapes on microcomputers. Technological use
in education was expected to improve communication. ICT and system design were
taken as strategies and tools for the production of educational material for school
education programs (Chaudhri, 1980).
In the 1990s, the use of ICT in schools was increasing rapidly, aided by the
introduction of instructional media packages designed for K-12 classroom use designed
46
by national educational research institutes like NCERT and CIET. Suggestions were
made on the ways teachers can use these packages which consisted of computer
games, educational video cassettes and instructional films (Berard, 1994). In order to
reach out to the vast population of the schools in India, some publications suggested
developing reliable locally produced low-cost equipment i.e. science tools, etc., along
with providing teachers with workshops and media kits in order to prepare students for
the modern economy. By the mid-1990s, Internet access was introduced in India and
gradually its access and use increased in the Indian education sector (Reel & Burse,
2008). The 1990s also saw beginning of research on reactions of school teachers to
technology-led teacher training programs and presence of teaching aids (Dash, 1997;
Maheshwari & Raina, 1996; World Bank, 1997). A study by Maheshwari and Raina
(1996) on in-service training of primary teachers through interactive video technology
indicated that the responses from teachers and their trainers were favorable and
showcased considerable potential for the use of new technology in classrooms which
could be achieved through training a large number of teachers. Some studies
specifically centered on primary school teachers and discussed government initiatives
to improve education, such as Operation Blackboard’s Special Orientation Program for
Primary School Teachers (SOPT) launched in 1993-94 (e.g., Dave & Gupta, 1988). The
program was launched on a massive scale with an aim of orienting teachers towards
quality improvement of elementary education in the country (Chin, 2004; Pallai, 2013).
Although previously the focus and funding was directed toward on higher education in
India, during this period the focus increased toward work on K-12 schools. In a study on
‘Education in India’, Kaur (1985) brought out that the government initiatives needed to
47
focus on primary education as it had the maximum number of students, many of who
eventually dropped out due to reasons like taking care of the household work or working
to earn a living for the family.
There was increased focus on exploring how primary school teachers were using
teaching aids. It was reported by the Probe Team (1999) that out of the thousands of
village primary schools in the five states of India in 1996, only 56% had some functional
teaching aids. The ground reality was reported that even in schools where these aids
were available, these were often not used by teachers to avoid blame for loss or
damage.
With gates of liberalization opening in India in 1991, the school sector also found
influx of private schools and presence of international schools in the country. These
developments highlighted the need for teachers’ readiness to explore the use of
computers and other ICT resources in school teaching and learning (Bakir, 2016).
2000s – Present: Interplay of Public-Private Partnership in Computerization of Schools
One can say that with the turn of the millennium, Indian schools started to
experience a shift from traditional to e-learning platform and the period is marked with
launch of experimental ICT projects like smart boards, interactive whiteboards, tablets
and mobile technology in the school domain (Rajasekhar & Anitha, 2005). Some of the
major developments in ICT in the Indian school education since the beginning of the
new century could be discussed as follows.
Computer-Aided Learning (CAL) center at schools. Computers have been
increasingly becoming a common ICT tool in India since the beginning of the new
century. Use of ICT in the form of CAL centers became a part of Sarva Shiksha
48
Abhiyaan (SSA) or Education for All movement of the government which aimed at
universalization of elementary education in the country (Kingdon, 2007; Srivastava,
2005). Department of School Education & Literacy constituted a committee under the
functional head of ‘innovation’ for formulation of guidelines for computer education
under SSA. The foremost focus of the program was on training of teachers, creation of
infrastructure, development and production of state specific e-teaching material in local
languages, along with sensitization of the local bodies like Board of Education and State
Council of Educational Research and Training (SCERT) (SSA website). The
government worked with the private sector firms in not only implementing CAL but also
for mobilizing additional resources. The first CAL workshop for teachers was convened
in Bangalore in 2004 followed by workshops at other places. In 2009, the Department of
School Education & Literacy created workshops for teachers with a goal of aligning CAL
with their pedagogical practices to promote quality education. From its inception until
mid-2009, 67,188 schools developed CAL centers that benefitted over 10 million
children and provided capacity building on use of digital teaching learning material to
around 200,000 teachers ( SSA website). Pal’s (2009) qualitative study on CAL projects
suggested that even though students had to share the ICT equipment, they were still
eager to learn with the aid of the computer. Additional findings ( Banerjee, Banerji,
Berry, Duflo, Kannan, Mukherji,, & Walton, 2015; Byker, 2014; Linden, Banerjee, &
Duflo, 2003; Pal, 2009) suggested that even though there is a lack of ICT hardware and
equipment in schools, parents have a positive view about the presence of any kind of
technology. It was in the year 2009 that American India Foundation started its Digital
49
Equalizer program in Delhi government schools with an aim to bridge the digital divide
existing in the Indian education system.
Scope and limitation of ICT explored. Some studies in this decade explored
the cultural environment, parents’ and teachers’ attitudes about technology, and vision
needed to integrate technology in school curricula (e.g., Pal, Lakshmanan & Toyama,
2009; Thirumurthy & Sundaram, 2003). The barriers toward technology integration
reported by school teachers included poor Internet access by students and lack of
technology teacher training, followed by institutional policy on technology planning and
instructional design for e-learning.
Parallel to organized efforts of technology integration in the classroom, this
decade also saw the development of ‘Hole in the Wall’ experiments to reach children
outside of school. Computer literacy as a new pedagogy for children’s education in
circumstances where formal schooling was either absent or not effective, received
worldwide attention. Experiments conducted in five regions in India showed that children
were able to learn to use computers and access the Internet on their own, irrespective
of their backgrounds (Mitra, 2003). These experiments shed light on the fact that
computers were intuitive for even those children who were never exposed or trained to
use them and children worked in groups helping each other to learn how to operate
computers (Inamdar, 2004; Mitra, 2005; Mitra, Dangwal, Chatterjee, Jha, Bisht & Kapur,
2005). The successful initiative brought attention to the government and private firms
on the need to provide ICT infrastructures in schools as the first step toward successful
integration of these resources in teaching and learning. After only a few years of this
experimentation, in 2008, the XO laptop which was an inexpensive computer created by
50
the One Laptop per Child (OLPC) Foundation was launched in India, prompting
discussions about how an inexpensive laptop might change the way teachers teach in
classrooms (Johnson, 2008). Similar to helping children explore the potential of ICT on
their own, this period also saw trends in increase in number of para-teachers teaching
computers in non-formal schools and vocational training centers as imparting ICT skills
that could help youth find jobs in the market (e.g. Govmda & Josephine, 2005; Newar,
2013).
Laptops and tablets along with whiteboards and smartboards were introduced in
the private and government schools of India. Electronic-learning and interactive
distance education for teachers and learners was given particular attention at this time
(Bose & Sharma, 2010, Chaudhary & Garg, 2010). Also, an indigenously built,
dedicated interactive satellite for education, namely, Educational Satellite (EduSat)
which was launched in 2004 had an idea to revolutionize classroom teaching through IP
based technology. Shamsu (2012) stated that EduSat aims to provide connectivity to
schools, colleges, and higher levels of education, and to support non-formal education
including developmental communications. However, recent reports suggest integration
of this technology into state-wise education systems was very slow and half of the
schools dealt with technological difficulties such as dysfunctional terminals, faulty UPS
batteries, power cuts, batteries being stolen, and related challenges (Dash, 2009;
Edusat, ToI, 2015).
Several low-cost tablets and laptops hit the consumer market in the country
which helped the education system’s technology integration initiatives in classrooms.
Vaughan (2013) brought out a report on basic $20 tablets being rolled out to Indian
51
students. Despite the ups and downs, efforts to integrate educational media in schools
has continued. Indian government launched the ‘Aakash’ tablet in 2011 as the cheapest
tablet in the world for students and the public at large. These inexpensive laptops were
promoted and explored as educational initiatives rather than mere technological
devices. In addition, low-cost tablet computers were procured by the Indian government
to help enhance the quality of education. The vision continued to be to equip all the
students across the country over the next few years with such tablets. But its cheap
hardware and software could not sustain the demands of education and was criticized
for not being able to function appropriately. Remodifications have been made and
Aakash 3 was expected to be launched soon (Singh, 2013).
Learning Management System (LMS), an emerging technology being tested as
contemporary form of ICT, is gaining significance in the schools in India. Arulchelvan
(2012) examined effectiveness of Electronic Learning Management System (E-LMS)
which was launched in a rural school of Tamil Nadu, India in 2009. The E-LMS software
documented students’ overall performance data and sent SMS to parents on their
child’s attendance and academic performances. It was found that after implementing the
biometric system, the rate of absenteeism went down, which, in turn improved student’s
academic performance. In the survey, 97% of teachers responded positively towards
using E-LMS for documentation of students’ performance. It was reported that E-LMS
had positive impact among the rural high schools and it is believed that this will prove
very effective and efficient when implemented on a large scale in schools in India.
Although still in the budding stage, the Indian government policies are working towards
integration of LMS in higher and secondary education. In recent years positive trends
52
have emerged towards integration of technology in classrooms but a lot of work is
needed to achieve acceptability, understanding, and proper implementation of
technology in the maximum number of schools in India (Kumar, Rose & D’Silva, 2008;
Padmavathi, 2015; Singh, 2013).
Universal education became a right. The SSA act of universal elementary
education was endorsed as the Right to Education (RTE) by the government in 2010
ensuring universal primary education in the country. Since Independence of India in
1947, it was envisioned that universal education would be the panacea for mass-spread
illiteracy but it was not until 2010 that the Right to elementary education was
implemented in the country (Byker, 2014). Government initiatives aimed at reaching out
to all those children who were not receiving schooling in the country. Due to the lack of
over a million teachers who were needed to cater to the school going population, ICTs
were believed to be the tools to empower the existing teachers to cater to a large
section of students. ICTs in school education was an attractive preposition to retain
interest of students and parents in government schools. Besides the mid-day meal
scheme, computer education was especially seen as an initiative to motivate parents
from all social and economic strata in rural India to send their kids to school (Dossani,
Misra & Jhaveri, 2005; Garg, 2011). Based on the existing practices and efforts toward
integrating ICTs in Indian schools, the establishment of a statutory body for e-learning
has been recommended (Mishra, 2009).
Growth of Public-Private Partnership (PPP). The system of government grant
to privately managed schools is known as ‘aided’ schools. There has been a substantial
PPP system, especially at the secondary and higher secondary level of school
53
education. Though, it can be said that most of the aided schools have become more like
government schools in terms of teacher recruitment, pay scale and fee policy (Kingdon,
2007). There has also been an increase in public-private association since RTE came
into action. All private schools are required to give 25 per cent of their seats to
government-funded students from disadvantaged homes. It is assumed that this new
form of PPP in education will uplift opportunities for students coming from
disadvantaged communities. The presence of computer education and other ICT tools
in private schools are a strong reason for parents from slum communities to send their
kids to private schools for education (Tooley, 2007). Government, by aiding privately run
schools and by reserving seats for government students in private schools, is seen to
be working hand-in-hand with the private educational players toward improving
education in the country.
The decade also witnessed a corporate – academia partnership working towards
reframing the educational policy in a manner to overcome the constraints to IT adoption
in the school system of the country. With liberalization, modernization and globalization,
there has been huge inflow of private firms in the Indian school education sector. More
than 400 education technology firms in India have catered to K-12 education in the last
ten years (CSF Report, 2015). The ICT firms found a huge potential in the school
children of the country who are considered a source of software development talent.
There are many teacher training initiatives in India which have been spearheaded by
private ICT companies such as Dell Computers, Intel and Microsoft (Aggarwal, 2010;
Light, 2009; Mathur, 2007; Suckow, 2010). A 2007 study focused on appropriate ICTs
for pan-Asia distance education which brought up Asian readiness towards the use of
54
open-source software, mobile technologies, learning object materials, and online
assessment methods (The PANdora Model, 2007). Educomp Solutions, one of the first
Indian companies in the space of school ICT, came up with Smart class as digital
classroom program in 2004 and partnered with both government and private schools of
the country. A study examining the role of the smart class in student participation in the
classroom found that the Educomp smart class program both helped teachers manage
their time and had an overall positive impact on students, more in terms of generating
curiosity and grasping complex concepts than capturing attention (Srivastava, 2012).
Some of the dominant corporate players which partnered with academia for digital
learning are Educomp solutions, Edurite, Everonn Education, NIIT, Core Education &
Technologies, IL&FS and Compucom (Knowledge@Wharton, 2012). Studies in this
decade saw several new findings and scope for further research including extension of
role of distance education for teachers; individual and non-profit initiatives for
technology use by children; public-private partnership in bringing educational reform;
and looking into barriers and scope of ICT integration by different stakeholders in the
educational system (Panda, 2010; Padmavathi, 2013; Kannan & Narayanan, 2015).
Continued emphasis on quality education. Devi, Rizwaan & Chander (2012)
noted that that there can be quality improvement in education if careful and planned
implementation of ICT is ensured by the various stakeholders. In the last couple of
years, there has been a strong impetus on delivering quality education in rural and
remote areas. In the present decade, ICT resources have concentrated on and included
satellite- based teaching learning, teacher online education, global comparative needs
for integrating technology in schools in India, open and distance learning, introduction of
55
Web 2.0 tools, cloud computing and other ICT tools integration by teachers in
classrooms (e.g., Kumar & Kumar, 2014; Tyagi, 2012) . All these aspects are expected
to improve the time old problem that has plagued the school sector of the country i.e.
lack of good quality of school education. Tooley (2007) reported that elite schools have
been vigorously adopting ICTs in content and curriculum which has motivated other
private and government schools to integrate ICT in near future.
Penetration of m-Learning. The Indian mobile broadband landscape is evolving
rapidly, as smartphones and broadband is increasingly being adopted by people
belonging to lower socioeconomic strata of the society. Around one in three people are
using smartphones in urban India. The use of mobile technology has been
revolutionary, as never before has there been such a mass level of ownership of
personal use technologies (Ericsson Consumer Lab, 2013).
With respect to the huge proliferation of mobile phones in the country, a recent
study by Valk, Rashid, & Elder (2010) examined the extent to which the use of mobile
phones (m-Learning) helped to improve educational outcomes in six Asian countries,
including India. Mobile phones have been found to help increase access to education
and are aimed at promoting new learning. According to a report, India has the second
largest mobile phone user subscription base in the world, with over 900 million mobile
phone users (Mobile learning, Forbes India, 2015). The biggest advantage of mobile
phones, observed in the Indian context, is that it’s the only technological tool which has
penetrated even in rural areas where other infrastructure has not yet been instituted.
The ubiquitous growth of mobile phones, the widespread availability of mobile
broadband technology, market penetration of low-cost smartphones, improving
56
purchasing power of individuals and overall widening awareness towards educational
use of m-Learning hold key promises towards the use of mobile technologies for
education delivery in the country (Gupta & Singh, 2014). Recent government efforts to
launch the ‘Aakash’ tablet and create open educational resources (OERs) through
platforms like ‘Sakshat’- a national education portal--have been commended and are
initial examples of the growing focus of the government and private sector on integrating
m-Learning in school education.
The fact that most of the teachers from both private and government schools
have access to smartphones is changing the dynamic of integration of ICT in teaching in
India. Teachers are using web resources, mobile applications and classroom software
on their mobile phones to improve teaching. Best practices are coming from within the
country. Recently, Lilavatibai Podar School, Mumbai contacted ISTE and University of
Tennessee to assist its teachers in the mobile learning project which showcases
example of progressive growth in ICT use in schools in India.
Multidimensional role of teachers. Teachers are expected to take a multi-
dimensional role and possess wide varieties of competencies in teaching pedagogies.
Currently, India has witnessed an increasing population of Indian schools having media
supplement in the education system. Unfortunately, some research reveals that
teachers and learners are still inclined to use only print medium while the other tools of
the multimedia package remain mostly unused (Halder & Chaudhuri, 2010; Sarsani,
2007). Issues of digital divide and students’ discourse of use of technologies at home
and school have been analyzed (Kumar & Basavaraja, 2016; Behera, 2012) Continuous
focus on pre-service and in-service technology teacher training have been present
57
(Kharade & Peese, 2014; Khirwadkar, 2008; Kumar & Kumar, 2003; Bose, 2013). This
decade is also witnessing expanded research on the role of teachers in reaching out to
special need students i.e., learners with ADHD, autism and visually impaired learners
through technology and students’ learning classroom content through digital tools (Dutta
& Wadhwa, 2013; Glaeser, 2016) . Comparative studies of traditional vs. web –based
classrooms have been conducted (Tyagi, 2012), and attempts at bringing
transformation through the use of innovative technologies have been recognized. Online
forum discussions are seen as a growing platform for teachers worldwide to connect on
teaching pedagogies and use of educational technology in classrooms (Kumar and
Kumar, 2003). Teacher training has been identified as the most dominant factor in order
to influence teachers to adopt technological educational innovations at schools. There
has been continued attention paid to ICT training for both pre-service and in-service
teachers. Government policies emphasize the need for instruction in twenty-first century
computer skills for the country’s young children. Jaiswal (2006) reported that distance
education and teacher training has been the impetus in this decade in a fervent effort to
make technology professional development available to the millions of the Indian
teachers. Teachers have been integrating constructivist medium of teaching. The focus
has shifted towards learner-centered teacher training through different means of training
programs. Present research studies question teacher education curriculum and suggest
integration of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) in order to
incorporate requirements of personalized learning for students through problem-based
learning approach (e.g., Bose, 2013). Another study by Murthy, Iyer & Warriem (2015)
proposed the use of ‘attain-align-integrate (A2I) model’, a framework which has some
58
elements derived from the TPACK framework, in order to design short-term training
programs for teachers with an aim to enable student-centered learning with ICT
integration. Recently, there has been a growing trend in research on technological
pedagogical integration in teaching and learning in India (Jaipal & Figg, 2010).
It can be said that teachers are expected to encourage students to explore the
new ways of communication via open access, institutional repositories and e-publishing
trends. Blogs, RSS feeds, instant messaging, social networking services, wikis, and
social tagging application are being explored in elite schools of the country. Although
these changes and programs are being introduced country-wide, teachers continually
need to be prepared to use the contemporary technology in the classrooms of
government and small private schools on a mass level. Consequently, the adoption and
integration of such technology is still an ongoing necessity.
Teachers’ Perspectives on ICT
A Snapshot
There are several studies at the micro and macro-level regarding best practices
in ICT integration that focus on teachers’ perspective (e.g., Ertmer & Ottenbreit-
Leftwich, 2013; Hughes, 2005; Kozma, 2003; Tondeur, Kershaw, Vanderline, & Van
Braak, 2013; Wastiau, Blamire, Kearney, Quittre, Van de Gaer, & Monseur, 2013).
Research has shown that even with similar sets of ICT resources, teachers with
dissimilar attitudes to the instructional process could have very different perspectives on
ICT integration which leads to achievement of different outcomes for different teachers
(Hodas, 1996). It is usually believed that in general, there is a need for adequate
training commensurate with teachers’ skills and beliefs to bring in the expected
59
changes. Teachers use computers only if they find it beneficial to their teaching tasks.
Moreover, teachers are likely to use ICT creatively in the teaching process only if the
objectives of their courses are consistent with the prevailing culture of thinking (Ping,
2001). It has been found that in order to ensure successful integration of ICT in the
classrooms by the teachers, it is essential to know their pedagogical and social beliefs
toward the use of ICT and how such beliefs influence their practice (Ertmer, 2006).
Teachers’ beliefs can be referred as their internal constructs that help them
interpret experiences that guide specific teaching practices (Pajares, 1992). Teachers’
beliefs are their underlying assumptions about how students learn, the nature of subject
matter, expectations for students, or what constitutes effective instruction (Coburn,
2003). Rogers (1995) in ‘Diffusion of innovation’ defined beliefs and attitudes as being
interchangeable. Beliefs or attitudes play an important part in human endeavors,
particularly in situations where there is a great deal of uncertainty, as in schools
(Nespor, 1987). It is said that teachers, by the nature of their work are pragmatists.
Confronted by large numbers of technology or not, they arrive at their classrooms with
their beliefs about schooling in mind where they have to survive each day and be ready
for the next. The introduction of technology to classrooms does not radically change
teaching. It serves as a symbol of change which grants teachers a license for
experimentation. Sandholtz, Ringstaff, & Dwyer (1996) suggested few conditions which
should be kept in mind for strategizing change in teachers’ perspectives as a condition
for instructional change. First, successful change should be marked as an
organizational, systematic, or cultural phenomenon. Second, skills and attitudes are
inherently complex concepts. And, third, groups bound by commitment to change,
60
sharing reflections and shaping new perspective can lose their objectivity and create
new problems.
Role of teacher perspectives about the value of technology in the classroom has
been significant. MacArthur and Malouf (1991) conducted a study in the US to explore
how teachers’ pedagogical beliefs and goals, perspectives about computers,
instructional planning processes, overall classroom organization, and curriculum
influenced their decisions about how to use computers. Some of the significant points
from the research study are:
1. Teachers make technology fit not only with their educational perspectives and goals but also with their instructional practices and classroom organization.
2. Teachers’ self-perspective about the unique potential of technology influence their decisions to use these tools.
3. Planning and monitoring computer-assisted instruction has been more difficult as teachers face problems in planning computer based instructional activities and monitoring student performance. And,
4. Different teachers have different comfort level with technology and global understanding about the value of technology do not provide much guidance in planning instruction or professional development.
Worldwide, it can be said that some teachers see students as members of the
computer generation who think that computers is a subject that is part of their culture.
Some teachers feel alien whereas some feel comfortable using these technological
tools. There also exist sophisticated teachers who are prepared to let students teach
themselves computer skills. Teachers can also be seen condemning, co-opting, and
marginalizing the technologies (Denicolo & Kompf, 2005). Harre (1980) brought out that
teaching activities can be considered from two points of view: expressive (how teachers
want to be seen by students) and the instrumental (what process-product paradigm
teachers’ use). Olson (2003) argues that both the expressive and instrumental
61
dimensions of teaching activities influence on how a teacher perceives the existing
routine and scope of integration of new technologies within it. Teacher routine and
teaching culture also need to be understood to make any kind of school reform a
success (Hage, 1999; Lester & Onore, 1990).
Perera, Karunanayaka & Ariyaratne (2015) came up with ten affinities that
explored perspectives of secondary school teachers of Sri Lanka towards the
integration of ICT in the instruction process. These included Principal, ICT laboratory,
teacher- in - charge of ICT laboratory, student, curriculum (Non-ICT), ICT knowledge,
pedagogical ICT knowledge, time, non-ICT teacher and professional development
program. Another similar study by Wattanawaha (2011) in the context of Thailand
teachers explored their affinities to include all the factors of the previous mentioned
research along with environment and parent or guardian as added factors.
Niederhauser and Stoddart (2001) found out that when authorities ignore teachers’
perspectives toward the use of technology in the classroom then it has led to
disappointing results. Chen (2006) discovered that there is a direct relationship between
teachers’ plan for the use of ICT in the classrooms to their knowledge and attitudes
about ICT in education. Research has found that teachers’ self-efficacy or confidence
regarding technology use is a critical predictor of technology integration in a class.
Voogt (2010) found out that teachers who have high level of confidence in pedagogical
technology skills and focus on a learner-centered approach are the ones who tend to
use technology extensively in their lessons. Teachers’ perception about the
effectiveness of technology for student learning also has a significant impact on their
technology use in the classroom. The extent to which students enjoy learning and
62
believe that e-learning will enhance their learning outcomes have a direct impact on
teachers using technology (Jame & Istance, 2000). A number of research studies
suggested that pedagogical beliefs of teachers play a role in technological adoption
(e.g. Bebell & Kay, 2010; Miranda & Russell, 2012).
Teachers who have constructivist learning beliefs tend to believe that technology
should be integrated for high-level learning such as engaging students in inquiry-based
activities, collaborating with peers online, and using multiple technologies to support
students’ problem-solving activities. On the contrary, teachers who have teacher-
centered beliefs use technology for low-level learning such as using technology to teach
remedial skills and using a single technology to support a lecture or other teacher-
centered practices (Cuban, 1991; Ertmer, 2005; Mama & Hennessy, 2013).
When innovations fail, teachers often receive a share of blame for being resistant
to change. MacArthur (2000) says that this notion of resistance to change is a simplistic
notion that does not really explain why teachers (and schools) do not embrace new
technologies. Ertmer (1999) categorized factors that hinder ICT application in schools
into two main categories- internal and external obstructions. Internal obstructions are
barriers associated with people in an organization, such as Principals and various
teachers’ roles, knowledge and attitudes. On the other hand, external obstructions are
those associated with factors outside of the organization, like lack of ICT resources, lack
of policy related to Ministry of education and lack of technical support (Al-Alwani, 2005).
Instructional change can proceed only with a corresponding change in attitudes about
instruction and learning. Instructional evolution in teacher’s perspective is not simply
abandoning prior beliefs but is replacing them with more relevant ones shaped by
63
experiences in an altered context. Institutional supports including technical training on
the use of hardware and software, and instructional support like setting release time for
collaboration, planning and presentation to showcase one’s involvement with
technology can be said to be significant toward developing teachers’ positive
perspective toward the value of technology in classrooms. Opportunities for teacher
reflection complement contextual changes and further promote teacher change (Finley
& Hartman, 2004). Recent research highlight that teachers are beginning to integrate
ICT in their classrooms which is expected to steadily increase but integrating technology
is a complex process of educational change, and the use of ICT in schools is still
extremely varied (Lim, Zhao, Tondeur, Chai, & Tsai, 2013; Newhouse & Clarkson, 2008;
Spector, 2010).
There have been research studies on different aspects of teachers’ perspectives
including their knowledge, attitude, decision and practice of ICT integration in schools.
Below is the literature on ICT availability in schools and each of the different stages of
Rogers’ IDP model in relation to integration of ICT in classroom teaching and learning.
ICT availability
Inadequate hardware and software, technology support, or insufficient time for
implementation have been perceived as major impediments for teachers to implement
ICT based education (Bauer & Kenton, 2005; Dakich, 2009; Kirkscey, 2012). Schmidt
(1991) in her study on ‘Iowa survey of computer-related technology use by K-12
teachers’ determined the accessibility of computer- related technologies for teachers at
home and in schools with nine questions on the topic. These included questions on
availability and accessibility of tools for instructional use by teachers in elementary,
64
middle/junior high, and high schools. Meyer, Abrami, Wade & Scherzer (2011) reported
in their study on the use of electronic portfolio in Canadian schools that low
implementers experienced significant technical obstacles whereas high implementers
felt supported by their administration and used more pedagogical practices that support
self-regulated learning as a result of the scaffolding provided by the software. Research
studies on instructional uses of computers in schools have focused on counting the
number of computer-related technologies in schools, the locations of computers in
schools, and the types of computers used (e.g., Becker, 1985, 1986, 1990; Bruder,
1988, 1989). There have been longitudinal and national surveys on the availability of
ICT tools in schools in different parts of the world. Riccobono (1985) came out with the
“School Utilization Survey” that reported on the availability, use, and support of
instructional technology in schools throughout the US. In-school instructional
applications of programming and equipment in the areas of audio/radio, instructional
television, computers and other media have been studied which showed that a clear
instruction on the use of the available ICT tools is a significant factor for teachers to
utilize the available resources in teaching. Similarly, Kiptalam and Rodrigues (2011) in a
more recent survey conducted on accessibility and utilization of ICTs among secondary
school teachers in Kenya reported that most of the schools studied were expending a
substantial part of their annual budget on receiving Internet connectivity. The proportion
of sampled teachers with access to computers and Internet at schools and homes was
high implying that the affordable bundle rates and increased access of the mobile
wireless broadband services was having an impact. Looking at the Indian context,
Bharadwaj (2007) reported in his study on ICT usage in 1000 schools of India that the
65
access to ICT facilities, whether by students or by teachers is a matter of great concern
in India. The average has been described as less than six computers per school and
one computer for seventy two students in the study conducted in the states of Gujarat
and Karnataka in India.
Teachers’ Knowledge of ICT
Teacher knowledge framework. Lee Shulman (1986) proposed that teachers
must not only be capable of defining how students need to learn but at the same time,
should be able to explain why the content they teach are warranted, why it is worth
knowing, and how it relates to other propositions, both in theory and in practice. The
conceptual categories of subject matter knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, and
pedagogical content knowledge form a useful framework for connecting teachers’
theoretical and practical understanding in the classroom (Leinhardt, & Greeno, 1986;
Shulman, 1987). It is said that teachers’ prior knowledge mediates their future learning
(Bransford & Schwartz, 1999; Borko & Putnam, 1996). It has been put forth that it is
strategic to identify the relevant knowledge base teachers draw on and develop when
they learn to teach with technology (Drier, 2001; Dun, Feldman & Rearick, 2000;
Hughes, 2005; Margerum-Leys & Marx, 2002). Hughes (2005) brought up that teachers
who learn about technology from a content perspective may be more likely to use it to
support content learning, whereas teachers who learn it as a skill may have greater
difficulty in using it for teaching and learning.
Building on Shulman’s concept of Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK),
Mishra and Koehler (2005) introduced a framework on Technological Pedagogical
Content Knowledge (TPACK) for teachers. It was stressed that effective technology
66
integration for teaching subject matter does not only require teachers’ knowledge of
content, technology and pedagogy, but also of their relationship to each other.
Role of professional development. There has been little clarity on how
teachers’ technological knowledge should be formed and how it should be represented
and measured. It is believed that professional development helps teachers to make
meaning of new constructs and experiences in a way that gets integrated with their
learning processes, access to content, and instructional methods. But it is widely
witnessed that the traditional methods of technology training for teachers are mainly
workshops that are ill-suited to produce the deep understanding in teachers to integrate
use of technology in classroom practices (Bakir, 2015; Gallant, 2000; Kay, 2006;
Koehler, Mishra & Yahya, 2007; Willis, Thompson & Sadera, 1999). There have been
doubts about the effectiveness of ICT teacher training in improving classroom practices.
In particular, research studies in the United Kingdom (Condie, Munro, Muir, & Collins,
2005; Harrison, Comber, Fisher, Haw, Lewin, Lunzer, McFarlane, Mavers, Scrimshaw,
Somekh, & Watling, 2002); Europe (Simpson & Payne, 2002) and the United States
(Cuban, 2005) have highlighted weak impact of ICT training initiatives on school
education. However, teacher training programs are constantly being challenged and
modified to prepare teachers who can efficiently and effectively integrate technology in
their teaching (Bakir, 2016). Ottenbreit-Leftwich et al. (2010) conducted a meta-analysis
of more than 100 teacher education programs and outlined a series of approaches to
integrate technology in teacher trainings in a way that helps teachers develop hands-on
technology skills and integrate technology in classroom content and pedagogical
practices.
67
Teachers’ self-efficacy about ICT. Bandura (1997) defined self-efficacy as
“beliefs in one’s capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action required to
produce given attainments” (p.3). Teacher efficacy is said to be related to teacher
classroom behaviors. Teacher self-efficacy can be defined as a teachers’ judgement of
his or her capabilities to bring about desired outcomes of student engagement and
learning in classrooms (Sang, Valcke, Van Braak & Tondeur, 2009; Tschannen-Moran
& Woolfolk Hoy, 2001). There have been research studies which suggest that teachers
with strong self-efficacy are open to new ideas and willing to experiment with strategies
including improved teaching methods and instructional materials (e.g., Albion, 1996;
Allinder, 1994; Compeau, Higgins & Huff, 1999; Guskey, 1988; Hasan, 2003; Potosky,
2002). It has been stated that computer self-efficacy is positively correlated with
teachers’ willingness to participate in computer-related activities in classrooms and
these teachers have effective coping behaviors when faced with computer-related
anxiety (e.g., Compeau & Higgins, 1995; Ropp, 1999; Sang et al., 2009).
Surveys measuring teachers’ ICT knowledge. In recent times, there have
been teacher education research around technology use that showcase that when
teachers are provided with trainings that involve them in solving real educational
problems by technology then these programs help teachers to build a strong knowledge
base for use of technology in classrooms (Niess, 2011; Thompson & Mishra, 2007;
Wetzel, Foulger & Williams, 2008).
There are research studies conducted on measuring teachers’ knowledge and
skills toward ICT integration in classrooms. Schmidt, Baran, Thompson, Mishra, Koehler
and Shin (2009) developed the survey of pre-service teachers’ knowledge of teaching
68
and technology instrument to measure pre-service teachers’ self-assessments of their
TPACK knowledge. The study established the need to go beyond the skills instruction
view offered by the traditional workshop approach. It has been argued that the
knowledge of technology needs to be imparted in the context that integrates the rich
connections between technology, the subject-matter and the means of teaching it.
Rastogi and Malhotra (2012) found a strong positive relationship between the
possession of ICT skills by teachers, their attitude toward ICT and actual
implementation of ICT in their classroom teaching in India. They measured teachers’
ICT skills and knowledge through teachers’ ability to use wide variety of technology-
related tools and their application in classroom teaching and learning. There were 10
technology teacher skill categories and these included rating scale on-- essential skills
for computer operation, setup maintenance and troubleshooting; Word processing skills;
spreadsheet and graphing skills; presentation skills; telecommunication skills; web
design skills; grade book skills; networking skills; teaching and learning environment
skills; and, social and ethical skills.
In another Indian study by Upreti and Surya (2011), most of the teachers were
found to have a moderate levels of computer competence. The dimensions of teachers’
ICT knowledge measured included basic computer operation skills; word processing;
preparing spreadsheets; basic programming skill; and, use of Internet.
Teachers’ Attitudes on Use of ICT
Components of attitudes. Zimbardo, Ebbesen & Maslach (1977) suggested
that attitudes are made up of three components: affect, cognitive and behavior. The
affective component brings forth an individual’s emotional response or liking to a person
69
or object. The cognitive component consists of one’s factual knowledge about a person
or object. And, the behavioral component involves someone’s visible action toward a
person or object. It has been contended that people, generally, change their behavior, if
there is a change in their attitudes. Fishbein Ajzen’s (1975) theory of reasoned action
provides an intention model that can predict and explain attitudes of individuals. There
exist internal psychological variables like one’s beliefs, past experiences,
understanding, etc. through which numerous external variables influence on user
acceptance. Some of the external variables that impact an individuals’ attitude may
include variables such as system design characteristics, user characteristics, task
characteristics, nature of the development or the implementation process, political
influences, organizational structure, etc. Davis (1985) introduced Technology
Acceptance Model (TAM) as an adaptation of theory of reasoned action tailored for
modeling user acceptance of information systems. As per this model, attitude is jointly
determined by perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use (Davis, Bagozzi &
Warshaw, 1989). Everett Rogers (2003) defined attitude as individual’s beliefs and
persuasion that predisposes one’s actions.
Teacher attitudes and ICT integration. Many research studies have brought
up that teacher attitudes and beliefs about teaching and learning are critical factors in
how ICT is practiced in classrooms (e.g. Becker, 2001; Cox, Webb, Abbott, Blankely,
Beauchamp, & Rhodes 2004; Orlando, 2009; Prestridge, 2010; Wozney, Venkatesh, &
Abrami, 2006). Attitudes play a significant role in analyzing why teachers accept or
reject technology (Rogers, 2010). There have been models created to address the issue
of whether teachers’ knowledge/skills or attitudes is more important in achieving
70
successful integration of ICT in classrooms and recent studies (e.g., Morales, 2006)
have reaffirmed that attitudes play a primary role (Christensen & Knezek, 2009).
Teacher attitudes have been identified as ‘second-order’ barrier to ICT
integration in teaching and learning and the ‘first-order’ barriers are extrinsic to the
teacher including factors like lack of resources, time, access and technical support
(Ertmer, 2005). The first-order barriers are being overcome with need realization and
resources allocation. Teachers are gaining access to ICT, technology trainings are
being imparted and open educational resources are being embedded in curriculums
(Prestridge, 2010). However, teachers’ behavior and beliefs to use these digital tools
have not necessarily increased with the increase in the presence of ICT in classrooms
(Lankshear & Bigum, 1998; Smeets, 2005; DEEWR, 2008). Rogers (2003) stated that
attitudes can either be favorable or unfavorable towards an innovation and when it
comes to technology integration in classrooms, it has been found that teachers with
positive attitudes integrate ICT much more than teachers with negative attitudes. While
developing a favorable or unfavorable attitude toward an innovation, an individual may
mentally apply the new idea to his or her present or anticipated future situation before
one decides whether or not to use the innovation. Covered under Rogers’ persuasion
stage, attitudes trial would involve a teacher to think hypothetically and counterfactually
and project into the future.
Surveys measuring teachers’ attitudes. Loyd and Gressard (1984) came up
with the Computer Attitude Scale (CAS) as a reliable instrument with subscales on
computer confidence, computer liking, computer anxiety and computer usefulness.
These scales have been widely used across the world but Garland and Noyes (2008)
71
came out with a study on how relevant these CAS are in the present times and found
out that the traditional style of computer attitude scale is no longer as relevant as was
when developed. There are many well-validated Teachers’ Attitudes toward Computers
(TAC) scales. Christensen and Knezek (1996) originally created the TAC as a 10- part
composite instrument that included 284 items spanning 32 likert and semantic
differential subscales. There were at least 14 instruments which also measured
teachers’ attitudes and had acceptable measurement properties before the
development of TAC (e.g., (Woodrow, 1991; Chu & Spires, 1991; D’Souza, 1992;
Francis, 1993; Gardner, Discenza, & Dukes, 1993; Kay, 1993; Knezek & Miyashita,
1993; Pelgrum, Janssen, Reinen, & Plomp, 1993; Loyd & Gressard, 1984). Christensen
and Knezek (2000) came up with the 7-factor structure as the most parsimonious
foundation for further development of the TAC. TAC version 6 was created in 2001 as a
51-item instrument placed in the order of the 7-factor structure.
Teachers’ Attitudes towards Information Technology (TAT) was constructed to
measure items which were not addressed in TAC such as multimedia content,
electronic mail, and the World Wide Web (Knezek, Christensen & Rice, 1997). There
has been research measuring teacher attitudes toward instructional technology by
combining the TAC and TAT scales (e.g., Shattuck, Corbell, Osbourne, Knezek,
Christensen & Grable, 2011). A recent study by Zyad (2016) measured teachers’
attitudes toward integrating computers in Moroccan classrooms through subscales on
the affective, cognitive and behavioral components.
Sathiyaraj and Rajasekar (2013) studied anxiety towards the use of instructional
aids in teaching with 627 higher secondary school teachers in India and found that
72
majority of teachers were processing low level of anxiety towards the use of
instructional aids in teaching and had favorable attitudes towards using new technology
in teaching. ‘Attitude towards using new technology scale (ATUNTS)’ was constructed
and standardized for the study. Upreti and Surya (2011) measured the dimensions of
usefulness, confidence, anxiety and aversion to study secondary school in-service
teachers’ attitudes towards computers and found out that teachers’ attitudes towards
computers were high. Another Indian study by Rastogi and Malhotra (2012) highlighted
that studying teachers’ attitudes is particularly important in developing countries like
India, where ICT is usually not a part of school culture. The study consisted of 68 items
on a five point Likert instrument to gather data on five factors namely,
enthusiasm/enjoyment, anxiety, avoidance, e-mail use for classroom learning and
productivity improvement. It was found that teachers’ attitude towards the use of
technology in the teaching-learning process was favorable. Recently, Mishra, Sharma,
Sharma, Singh and Thakur (2016) have developed a valid and reliable scale to measure
faculty attitude towards open educational resources under three main themes-
awareness, sharing of resources and adoption and use of OER. Victor and Swamy
(2011) developed an attitude scale to measure the computer application of secondary
school teachers in Bangalore, India. The scale was constructed by using five point
Likert’s method and the main factors selected for constructing the tool included
personal, affective, teaching - learning and usage confidence.
Teachers’ Decision and Use of ICT
Teacher effectiveness in use of ICT. There is a lack of research on ICT that is
being used in meaningful ways in teaching. Instead, schools and research have often
73
looked at how much time students spend using technology and what technologies are
available as indicators of successful technology integration (Lei & Zhao, 2007). There is
no clear measurement of effective teaching and also, there is no agreed-upon definition
of effective teaching (Campbell, Kyriakides, Muijs, & Robinson, 2004). Cambell and
colleagues (2003) pointed out three problems associated with the concepts of teacher
effectiveness. First, the conceptualization of the concept is problematic. Second,
teacher effectiveness needs to be viewed simultaneously with the school effectiveness.
And, third, the effectiveness should not be limited to the cognitive aspects only, but
should include other aspects such as affective and moral values. It has been suggested
that research needs to measure effective use of innovation by teachers by considering
the context and the levels at which teachers are teaching (Lim, Zhao, Tondeur, Chai
and Tsai, 2013).
Johannessen (2009) noted that there is a need for carefully selecting the
indicators related to the use of technology which can reflect the integration of new
applications in classroom practices. It has been recommended that it is not sufficient for
schools to just provide ICT infrastructure but there is a strong need for schools and
teachers to develop knowledge base of evidence of the effective use of ICT which in
turn, can make a difference in analyzing how ICTs are being integrated in the systems
of teaching and learning. It has been found in research that teachers’ beliefs about the
nature of a given subject (content) and the associated pedagogical practices
(pedagogical knowledge) influence their use of ICT (e.g. Archambault & Crippen, 2009;
Pringle, Dawson, Ritzhaupt, 2015; Veen, 1993). There have been studies suggesting
effective relationship between constructivist approaches and the use of ICT in
74
classrooms (Becker, 2000, Ertmer, Ottenbreit-Leftwich & York, 2007; Jonassen, 2006).
Prestridge (2010) noted that it is teachers’ beliefs and attitudes that play a crucial role in
making them use ICT as an integral part in facilitating creative-thinking and conducting
learner-centered activities. In ‘Technology Uses and Perceptions Survey’ conducted by
Dawson and Ritzhaupt (2015) both teacher and student use of technology was used to
measure the practice of ICT integration amongst the 1376 Florida teachers.
Surveys measuring use of ICT as innovative practice. Technology and
innovation can be interchanged with each other (Rogers, 2003). Schools have been
providing ICT infrastructure in name of innovative practices. But it’s important to keep in
mind that a school is complex organization and is not a homogeneous community
(Shields, 2000). Pearson and Naylor (2006) noted that the correspondence between
schools’ collective efforts at introducing innovative practices and their implementation at
classroom levels is not a straightforward relationship and there is a need for more work
to be done to understand the interface between the two. Anderson, Hansen, Johnson &
Klassen (1979) were few of the earliest investigators of computer uptake by teachers.
They designed the survey to assess technological and sociocultural factors influencing
computer use. The most highly significant predictors of computer use were found to be
resource availability, attitudes towards instructional computing, training, confidence, and
teaching experience. Sheingold, Kane & Endreweit (1983) in their large-scale
investigation of three US school districts came with one of the main findings that
teachers felt inadequately prepared to use computers in their classrooms. They found
that most of the teachers wanted time to use technology, to develop their expertise, and
to review software and plan for its use in the classrooms. Chandra (1986) considered
75
teachers’ attitudes as most important in determining the use of computers in the short-
term. However, for the long-term integration of technology in classrooms, additional
positive forces, such as strong leadership were important determinants. Olson & Eaton
(1986) studied the cost-reward structure of teachers’ computer use and found that
teachers responds to innovation if it is directed at producing student learning (impacting
teachers’ instrumental behavior) or is directed at creating respect for the teacher and
the subject (impacting teachers’ expressive behavior). Pelgrum & Plomp (1991)
conducted a survey on computer use in 21 countries and teachers frequently quoted
lack of hardware, lack of software, problems with finding enough time to learn about
computers, and lack of time to prepare lessons using computers as common barriers to
use of innovative technologies. Tondeur, Valcke & Braak (2008) administered a survey
to examine teacher and school characteristics that were associated with different types
of computer use by primary school teachers in Belgium and demonstrated that a
multidimensional approach provided more insight into the characteristics affecting
computer use.
In the Indian context, Rastogi and Malhotra (2012) studied five developmental
stages for teachers to explore their process of ICT-pedagogy integration and these
stages were familiarity, foundation, fusion, transformation, and facilitation levels. The
study confirmed that teachers’ attitudes in willingness to embrace such technology and
their knowledge and skills were the main predictors of use of ICT in classrooms. Bhalla
(2013) examined computer use by school teachers in teaching and learning by
identifying computer-aided learning (CAL), computer-managed instruction (CMI) and
computer-assisted instruction (CAI) as applications of computers for instruction use.
76
The survey was conducted with teachers of 20 government schools of New Delhi which
revealed that on an average, teachers used computers approximately once a month
and amongst the three categories of computer use, CAL was the most popular category
of computer use whereas CAI was the least popular amongst teachers.
Summary of the Literature Review
Some of the major trends and themes on ICT integration in Indian government
schools could be as follows:
1. Early and continued attention of Indian government towards ICT in school education.
2. India aspiring to become IT leader in world.
3. Computer education to build bridges between the diverse populations.
4. Shift from a focus on urban to semi-urban and rural schools.
5. Shift from a focus on higher education to K-12 education.
6. Relative balance of investment by government and corporate partners.
7. Parallel development of training para-teachers and expansion of exploratory ICT initiatives.
8. Thrust on development of local materials, methods and instructional media packages.
9. Increased attention on technology teacher training for ICT integration in classrooms.
10. Mobile learning to hold unusual potential for palpable impact towards ICT integration in both urban and rural schools in India.
11. Real challenges to ICT integration being discussed- infrastructure, lack of teachers, quality of education, quality of teachers, technology integration, Internet penetration.
12. Rapid increase in ICT in schools all across India. Both, the central and the state government along with private and non-profit educational organizations have been realizing the potential of educational technology.
The literature on the historical development of ICT in Indian schools and
teachers’ perspectives on ICT- their knowledge, attitude, decision and practice of ICT
77
use from both, global and Indian aspects presented a comprehensive background. India
is witnessing presence of technological innovation in the space of education.
Government and state policies are directed toward ICT integration in schools. Public-
private partnerships are strengthening to provide ICT infrastructure as well as teacher
training towards the use of ICT. Efforts are also put toward creation of e-content for
Indian schools. Teachers are taking multidimensional roles and expectations are levied
upon them to integrate ICT in their classroom practices. Literature shows that research
have been started in the direction to examine teachers’ knowledge/skills,
attitudes/beliefs and use of ICT in schools in India. One of the research study (Bhalla,
2013) found that Indian teachers can be said to have gone through knowledge and
persuasion stages of Rogers’ IDP model and are probably proceeding to the decision
phase to integrate ICT in teaching and the expectation is that teachers will use
computers in education once they have more access to computers. Based on the
literature, this study on teachers’ perspectives toward ICT integration in classrooms in
India used relevant information from related studies.
78
CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY
This research utilized survey methodology to explore the state of teachers’
perspectives toward ICT integration in those Delhi government schools where
technology was being integrated in classroom teaching and learning. There were 72
Delhi government schools which were associated with AIF’s DE program in the
academic year 2016-2017. AIF referred to these schools as DE schools. The teachers
of these DE schools who were selected by their Principal to be the part of the DE
program for the academic year 2016-2017 participated in this study. The objective of
this survey research was to make descriptive assertions about how teachers in these
schools perceived of and used ICT in their teaching. A systematic approach was
adopted to create the survey questionnaire which was based on the theoretical
framework of Roger’s Innovation-Decision Process model. The survey was designed to
address the research questions of this study which incorporated items in the five
categories, namely, knowledge, attitude, decision, implementation, and confirmation
regarding the use of ICT by teachers. Two additional categories in the survey design
were ICT availability and teacher background information which were added to provide
a picture about the population under study. The survey was constructed with an aim to
explore where the teachers perceive themselves on the spectrum of ICT integration-
i.e., what do teachers think of their ICT knowledge/skills; do they feel favorable or
unfavorable toward ICT integration; do they adopt or reject ICT integration; if they adopt,
how do they use ICT; and, do they integrate ICT in student use. There were AIF
appointed and trained field coordinators who visited the DE schools weekly with an aim
of working with the teachers to assist them in integration of technology in their
79
classroom teaching. These field coordinators got the survey questionnaire filled out by
the teachers.
There were four stages in the development and finalization of the survey
instrument. Once the instrument was finalized, copies of it were printed and distributed
to AIF’s field coordinators who took the survey to all of the DE schools in Delhi. Three
weeks’ time was allotted to collect the completed survey from the teachers. Reminders
were given to achieve high response rate from the survey participants (Dillman, Smyth
& Christian, 2009). Data analysis was done henceforth and results and
recommendations were listed. This chapter presents the development of the survey
instrument, including the stages of preparing a survey draft from validated and reliable
scales; conducting expert reviews and cognitive interviews; and, finalization of the
survey items. Data collection procedures and a description of data analysis methods are
also presented in the sections below.
The research questions for the study were:
RQ1. What are the knowledge, attitudes, decisions and practice of teachers toward ICT
integration in the Indian classroom?
1. How do teachers perceive their own knowledge of ICT use in classrooms? (Research variable: knowledge - stage 1 of IDP (Knowledge))
2. What are teachers’ attitudes about the ICT available in their school? (Research variable: attitudes - stage 2 of IDP (Persuasion))
3. What decisions do teachers make regarding using ICT available in their school? (Research variable: decisions – stage 3 of IDP (Decision))
4. How are teachers practicing integration of ICT in classrooms? (Research variable: practice – stage 4 and 5 of IDP (Implementation and Confirmation))
80
Instrument Development
A survey design through a field study was conducted with a purpose of making
descriptive assertions about ICT using teachers of Delhi government schools in order to
discover the distribution of their traits of integrating ICT in teaching (Babbie, 1990). In
order to craft a survey questionnaire, a systematic procedure was followed. Figure 3-1
shows the steps followed in the survey design process.
Figure 3-1. Survey design steps
Draft 1: Initial Survey Items
The initial survey items were composed of well-validated portions of several
knowledge, attitudes, decisions and practice/use surveys that have been used in the
past (e.g. Sclater, Sicoly, Abrami, & Wade, 2006; Ashrafzadeh & Sayadian, 2015;
Bhalla, 2013; Dawson & Ritzhaupt, 2015; George, Hall & Stiegelbauer, 2006; Martinez,
2012; Padmavathi, 2015; Schmidt, 1991; Corbell, Osbourne, Knezek & Christensen,
Grable, 2011; Surendra, 2001). There were survey questionnaires which covered one or
81
more aspects of the five stages of the IDP model in the context of teacher integration of
ICT for teaching. Though, no survey was found in research that addressed all the five
stages in totality. This research survey brought forth all the five stages on which the
teachers could report their levels and perspectives of ICT integration in classrooms. The
instrument items aligned to the stages of the IDP model included the following sections:
Section 1: Information about computer-related technologies available for teacher use
Section 2: Teachers’ knowledge/skills toward use of computer-related technologies
(Knowledge: Stage 1 of IDP)
Section 3: Teachers’ attitudes about available computer-related technologies
(Persuasion: Stage 2 of IDP using Rogers Innovation Attributes)
Section 4: Teacher self-reports of technology adoption/rejection (Decision: Stage 3 of
IDP)
Section 5: Teacher self-reports on their technology use (Implementation: Stage 4 of
IDP)
Section 6: Teacher self-reports on confirmation of use of computer-related technologies
(Confirmation: Stage 5 of IDP)
Section 7: Teacher background information
Table 3-1 presents the different categories of the survey draft which were
coinciding with the five stages in the IDP and also presents survey subscales and items
which had been adapted from relevant sources.
82
Table 3-1. Aligning Survey Categories with IDP stages and subscales adapted from existing surveys
Section Categories Stages in the Innovation-Decision Process
Survey subscales from existing sources
Adapted from sources
Sec 1
Information
about computer-related technologies available for teacher use
▪Accessibility of
computer-related technologies
Schmidt, 1991
Sec 2
Teachers’
knowledge/skills toward use of computer-related technologies
Knowledge stage
1. Recall of information 2.Comprehension of messages 3. Knowledge or skill for effective adoption of innovation
▪Computer In-service Education and Staff Development
▪ Level of adoption of web-technology-based educational systems
▪Teachers’ readiness to use technological tools
▪ Levels of competency toward computers among teachers
Schmidt, 1991 Surendra, 2001 Schmidt, Baran,
Thompson, Mishra, Koehler, Shin, 2011(TPACK)
Padmavathi, 2015
83
Table 3-1 Continued.
Section Categories Stages in the Innovation-Decision Process
Survey subscales from existing sources
Adapted from sources
Sec 3 Teachers’ attitudes about available computer-related technologies
Persuasion stage 4. Liking the innovation 5. Discussion of the new behavior with others 6. Acceptance of the message about the innovation 7. Formation of a positive image of the message and the innovation 8. Support for the innovative behavior from the system
▪Teacher attitudes toward computers and computer-related technologies
▪ TAC subscales (interest, comfort, concern, utility, perception, absorption)
Schmidt, 1991 Shattuck,
Corbell, Osbourne, Knezek & Christensen, Grable, 2011 (TAC and TAT)
Sec 4
Teacher self-
reports of technology adoption/rejection
Decision stage
9. Intention to seek additional information about the innovation 10. Intention to try the innovation
▪ Intention to use
ICT ▪ Intention to try
the innovation based on the stages of concern
Ashrafzadeh &
Sayadian, 2015
George, Hall & Stiegelbauer, 2006 (SoCQ)
Sec 5
Teacher self-
reports on their technology use
Implementation
stage 11. Acquisition of additional information about the innovation 12. Use of the innovation on a regular basis 13. Continued use of the innovation
▪ Ways of
computer use ▪Frequency of
ICT usage
Bhalla, 2013 Abrami, Sclater
& Wade, 2006 (TIQ: Version 2)
84
Table 3-1 Continued.
Section Categories Stages in the Innovation-Decision Process
Survey subscales from existing sources
Adapted from sources
Sec 6 Teacher self-reports on confirmation of use of computer-related technologies
Confirmation stage 14. Recognition of the benefits of using the innovation 15. Integration of the innovation into one's ongoing routine 16. Promotion of the innovation to others
▪Student use of technology
▪ Adoption and integration of technology
Dawson & Ritzhaupt, 2015 (TUPS)
Ashrafzadeh & Sayadian, 2015
Sec 7
Teacher
background information
▪Teacher
background information
▪ Survey questionnaire
Schmidt, 1991 Martinez, 2012
Draft 2: The Expert Review
The first draft of the survey had 40 items under the seven sections. The five IDP
sections in the survey draft had items placed under the sixteen sub-categories of the
IDP stages (see Appendix A). These items were adapted from existing surveys
mentioned above. A revised questionnaire was drafted on the basis of the expert
review feedback and comments. Four experts reviewed the draft survey items-- two of
them were Professors of Educational Technology, one was a Professor of Educational
Research and another was a Professor of Educational Technology who had also
worked in the Indian educational context. All four experts shared their comments,
feedbacks and edits via email. Revisions were incorporated as each expert review was
received. The first expert reviewer provided feedback on how to make the items more
user-friendly. The previous draft had different sections and sub-sections titles based on
85
the IDP model. The expert suggestion was incorporated to remove the sub titles and
information in the survey which might confuse the respondents. All extraneous details
were suggested to be removed. The consistency of the term ‘ICT’ was stressed
throughout the survey as many items which were adapted from the existing surveys
used the terms ‘computers’ and ‘computer-related technologies’. The suggestion was
made to cut down items by merging the questions which seemed connected or
repetitive. Revision was made and the cleaned up survey draft was shared with the
second expert reviewer. She also used the comment feature of the Word document to
share her inputs. Feedback was provided to align the survey items in a way that the
questionnaire looked crisp and focused. Two open-ended questions on teachers’ barrier
and motivating factors to use ICT were suggested to be incorporated in the survey.
Changes were made, and the survey draft was shared with the third expert reviewer
who was not an educational technologist but had agreed to help review the survey
regarding the flow of the content, formatting and alignment. The reviewer provided
inputs on the flow of the questionnaire and suggested to check if ‘in-service training’
was commonly understood by the Indian teachers. The fourth expert reviewer had
experience of working in the Indian education sector. She pointed out several minute
details in terms of the names of ICT tools listed in the survey (e.g. ‘desktop’ would be
more comprehensible by Indian teachers when listed as ‘desktop computer’), terms
used like ‘in-service training’ which might not be common for Indian teachers, and, gave
insight on the kinds of examples which needed to be listed for the Indian respondents
(see Appendix B).
86
Table 3-2 highlights the items which were deleted and added in the survey draft
depending on the expert review feedbacks and comments received.
Table 3-2. Changes in the survey instrument made after the expert review round
Items deleted Items added Inputs
Expert Reviewer 1:
Subtitles relating to Rogers' stages of IDP model were removed.
The participants might get confused by extra information.
Questions which did not make explicit connection with the response items were removed. An example was that there was a question about school focus but all the response items were about what teachers feel they were expected to do.
A direct relation between the question and response lists was suggested.
The word 'computers' was being equated with 'ICT’. It was replaced everywhere.
The term 'ICT' was added in places where 'computers' were mentioned.
With this, the focus stays on ICT.
Similar items under different sub-categories were merged or removed for avoiding repetition. For example, ‘How would you rate your acceptance of ICT practices in your school?’ preceded a similar question which stated, ‘How would you rate your image of ICT practices in your school?’ and it was removed.
It was suggested that one could group similar items together even if they were from different parts of IDP. The idea was to make the survey as user-friendly as possible. One could always change how items appear in terms of order during the data analysis.
87
Table 3-2 Continued.
Items deleted Items added Inputs
Expert Reviewer 2: More ICT tools options
were added in the 1st section which was on availability of ICT tools in home and school. For e.g., printer, VCD/DVD/, TV, Internet were added to the list.
More choices would broaden the scope for answering for the survey respondents.
Layout for questions seeking response on ICT tools available at home and school were suggested to be the same.
The questions in section 1 on usage of ICT in school were deleted.
There were similar questions under ‘teacher self-reports on their technology use’ in section 5 of the survey draft.
Question no. 7 and 8 were merged into one question asking about teachers’ in-service training received.
Avoid repetition in any item.
ICT adoption/rejection question stated, ‘How would you rate your intention to try ICT?’
This was modified to ‘intention to increase the use of ICT’.
As this survey would be filled by those teachers who had already been using ICT, the question and its following response items needed to be appropriately changed.
The question stem on 'how you have been able to use ICT in teaching in your current position' was changed.
The question was changed to whether there are barriers to using technology on a regular basis.
This change would leave scope for a more focused response. An open-ended item was added to this question.
A question on motivating factors toward using technology was added.
This was added as another open-ended question to seek respondents’ elaborate and specific response.
88
Table 3-2 Continued.
Items deleted Items added Inputs
Expert Reviewer 3:
Items including 'in-service instruction' was highlighted.
It was recommended to check if 'in-service' was a commonly used educational term by Indian teachers.
Expert Reviewer 4:
Name of ICT tools mentioned in question 1 and 2 were highlighted to be modified as per the Indian context. For e.g., desktop was changed to desktop computer.
It was suggested that many Indian teachers would not be familiar with technical IT names and terms. Those names should be added which teachers would know in their day-to-day teaching language.
‘In-service instruction’ was highlighted to be checked if is relevant in Indian context or not.
In-service and pre-service have been usually very American terms. Suggestion was made to check if Indian teachers understood the term clearly.
The term 'technology plan' was modified.
Instead, ‘Technology policy’ was used.
It was seen as more of an American term.
Examples of OER given were: YouTube and Google. They were deleted.
For the OER examples, wikis and eBooks were added to the list.
OER was being considered an appropriate query for teacher use. Though, it was suggested to look into the examples of the OER.
Words 'LAN' and 'Broadband' were replaced.
‘Internet’ was used instead.
It was suggested that most of the technical terms were understood by the IT staff in schools. For teachers, simple direct words would elicit correct response.
89
Draft 3: Teacher Review
Dillman et al. suggested that conducting cognitive interviews of the survey
questionnaire help in identifying wording, question order, visual design and navigation
problems. Potential survey respondents are asked individually to respond to the
questionnaire in the presence of the interviewer. As a general rule, the number of
interviews conducted as part of cognitive interviews is usually less than twenty. For the
purpose of this research, after the expert review round, six teachers from the Delhi
Government schools took the cognitive interview on the draft survey during my visit to
Delhi in the months of October and November, 2016. As permissions needed to be
obtained to visit government schools, I took permissions from the New Delhi Municipal
Corporation (NDMC) office and AIF to visit their schools. A letter was issued by NDMC
office to visit two of their model technology schools and regarding the AIF-DE schools,
the organization assigned the dates on which I could accompany their field coordinators
to visit some of the DE schools. Video recording in the schools was not permitted until
and unless the government itself had issued a letter of support in this regard. In the
short span of time, I could not seek permission for video recording the cognitive
interviews. Instead, I followed the traditional format of extensive note-taking (see
Appendix C- H).
The six teachers who participated in the cognitive interviews were from the
different Delhi government schools. The first three teachers interviewed were teachers
from the NDMC schools where technology had been placed and was in the process of
being integrated. All these three teachers had conducted their classes using digital
content and short videos. The other three teachers were from the DE schools. I had
90
accompanied the DE field coordinators to the schools where DE program was running
and conducted cognitive interviews with some of the teachers after their classes. The
three NDMC schools’ teachers were senior secondary section teachers and the three
DE schools’ teachers were middle and secondary sections teachers. I explained the
process of cognitive interview to all of them and noted their comments, feedbacks and
suggestions related to the draft survey items. I’ve named the teachers as teacher A to
teacher F in the chronological order of our meeting. Teacher A was a Computer
teacher, teacher B was an English teacher, teacher C was a Social Science teacher,
teacher D was a Science teacher, teacher E was a Math teacher, and teacher F was a
Social Science teacher. Out of the six teachers, the first five teachers were female and
the last one was a male teacher. The first three teachers were assigned by the Principal
of the schools and the last three teachers were interviewed after observing their DE
classes. All these teachers had been teaching in the Delhi government schools from the
start of their teaching careers and had over ten years of teaching experience. All the
teachers shared that most of the classes taken in the government schools were held in
Hindi language. During the cognitive interview with teacher A, she mentioned that four
out of the five sections in each class were taken in Hindi medium and only one class
had English medium of instruction. Teacher D mentioned that she had to learn the Hindi
terminologies of Science subject in order to teach in the Delhi government schools. The
survey given to them to read aloud during the cognitive interviews was in English
language. Five of the six teachers mentioned that it would be easier for the teachers to
fill the survey if it was also in Hindi language. The process of the cognitive interview was
91
highly beneficial as it provided the facts and suggestions on the survey draft coming
from the teachers who represented the mass of respondents who took this survey.
Revisions were made in the second survey draft after the cognitive interviews
round with the teachers. The notes of the cognitive interviews with the six teachers
were laid out (see Appendix C-H). It was found out that the term ‘ICT’ was not common
amongst government school teachers in India. They suggested using terms like
‘computer’ and ‘computer-related technologies’. The terms like ‘troubleshooting’, ‘e-
learning’, and ‘programming’ were taken as very technical terms by the teachers.
Suggestions have been made to use simpler terms. As pointed in the expert review, it
was checked during the cognitive interview whether teachers were aware of the term
‘in-service training’ or not. In all the six interviews, teachers mentioned that they were
aware of in-service and pre-service training (Delhi government has been conducting
extensive in-service training for teachers to improve the overall quality of education).
Teachers pointed out that terms which were not common in the Indian context should
be removed. For example, one teacher said that a portable cart was still not used in
India to hold ICT tools whereas another teacher pointed to replace the term
‘instructional’ to ‘educational’ in the survey. On the frequency of use of different kinds of
technologies, all the teachers mentioned that in India, teachers were still not using
emails in government schools. Though, almost all the teachers used WhatsApp groups
to communicate. All the teachers had inputs to share on what response items could be
added to the list of academic and professional qualification of teachers. For e.g. B.Ed,
M.Ed, NET, CTET, TET were added to the professional qualification list. Teachers said
that filling out a physical copy of the survey would be much better for teachers than
92
asking them to do a web survey. Teacher E clearly stated that most of the teachers
hesitated using technology and still have a clear preference for paper work. Five out of
six teachers suggested that the survey be both in English and Hindi Language.
Suggestions came to prepare two separate surveys—one in English and one in Hindi
and let the teachers have the choice to pick up whichever survey language they wanted
to fill in.
Table 3-3 highlights the changes made in the survey based on the cognitive
interviews of teachers.
Table 3-3. Changes made in the survey draft after the cognitive interviews with teachers
Items deleted Items added Inputs
Teacher A:
A response item on location of computers in school included ‘computer/ICT lab’. It was modified to ‘IT/ICT lab’.
It was suggested that computer rooms were commonly referred as IT labs in government schools.
The term ‘ICT’ in the survey was replaced.
It was modified with ‘computer-related technologies’.
The teacher suggested that ICT term may not click with all the teachers. She suggested that computer-technology or computer-related technologies might be better understood.
‘Competency’ word replaced.
‘Skill’ was added instead. Suggestion was made to use simpler words which could be comprehended by non-English teachers too.
The word ‘black board’ from one of the response item was replaced.
Instead of black board, ‘traditional chalk and board’ was mentioned.
This provided more clarity to the response item.
93
Table 3-3 Continued.
Items deleted Items added Inputs
Teacher B: “ICT’ term was replaced. Instead, ‘computer
technology’ was suggested to be added.
Same as teacher A, teacher B also reiterated that ICT was not commonly known to government school teachers.
TV was added to the list of technologies in school.
The teacher shared with the researcher that lots of government schools have been provided with TV so that students can hear the weekly Modi speech (the Prime Minister’s address to youth screened on TV).
‘Portable cart’ removed from the response item.
It was still not used in India.
Teacher C:
One of the response item included ‘computers as instructional aid’. It was modified.
Instead of ‘instructional’ aid, ‘computers as educational aid’ was added.
It was mentioned that ‘educational’ was used more than the tern ‘instructional’ in the Indian context.
A question on use of WhatsApp was added. It was ‘on average, how often do you use WhatsApp to communicate with teachers?’
Almost all the government school teachers had smart phone and were using WhatsApp. It was suggested that a question on use of WhatsApp should be included in the survey.
M.Phil. and NET were added as response items to educational qualification of teachers.
There should be advanced skills options available in the list of response items.
94
Table 3-3 Continued.
Items deleted Items added Inputs
Teacher D:
The word ‘classrooms’ have been replaced in questions which were on use of technologies in classrooms.
Instead, ‘teaching’ was used in its place. Hence the questions were as use of technologies in teaching.
The teacher said that in government schools, usually, students are taken to a lab for technology class. It was still not a part of classroom activity.
A question on ‘teaching qualification’ which is different from teacher’s educational qualification was added.
For example, B.Ed. could be added under the teaching qualification.
Teacher E: The term ‘ICT’ to be
replaced. It was not a known term.
Question number 16 was removed from the survey which had 3 sub-questions: ‘I know how my teaching role has changed when I am using computer-related technologies’; ‘I know that using computer-related technologies require extra time commitments’; ‘I have come to know what other teachers are doing in this area’.
The teacher mentioned that this section could be removed. Firstly, to measure ‘how’ role has changed is difficult for any teacher. Secondly, it was obvious that technology would require extra time. And, thirdly, teachers don’t observe other teachers and hardly get time to discuss about the benefits of technology.
More options added to the teaching qualification response items. 2 items were added- 1) Diploma in Education and 2) Additional (specify).
It was suggested to leave a blank space so that teachers may fill out a qualification which she/he might have and not be present in the options listed.
95
Table 3-3 Continued.
Items deleted Items added Inputs
Teacher F:
Pen drive was added to
the list of technology tools available in school.
Many teachers have been using pen drive with minimum instruction.
The term ‘moderate’ in skills level was replaced.
Instead, the word ‘medium’ was used.
The idea was to simplify the English terms used.
CTET (Central Teacher Eligibility Test), TET (Teacher Eligibility Test at State level), and, computer education were added to the teaching qualification.
These were the qualifications which some teachers hold in the context of Indian school teaching.
Discussion with AIF Director
I visited a couple of government schools during my trip to Delhi in 2016. I
explored three specific programs taking place in Delhi government schools. They were
NDMC schools’ technology integration plan, DE program in government schools, and,
Delhi mentor teacher training program where teachers were being trained on innovative
practices in teaching and learning. All the three programs were strong witness toward
the efforts to integrate technology in teaching in Delhi government schools. But NDMC
schools had just launched their technology integration program and mentor teachers
were not necessarily only engaging in technology integration as innovative practices.
AIF’s DE program was a direct fit to be studied for my research. Hence, an agreement
was formed where AIF agreed to assist me in data collection on technology integration
by the teachers of DE schools. I met with the Director of Digital Equalizer, AIF, Mr. J.
96
Sundarakrishnan, in their New Delhi office after the cognitive interviews round with
teachers to share the feedback received on the survey. ‘Pretesting’ traditionally has
been referred to asking individuals with special knowledge of the topic or member of the
survey population to complete the questionnaire and report problems experienced
(Presser, Couper, Lessler, Martin, Martin, Rothgeb, & Singer 2004) I requested Mr.
Sundarakrishnan to review the survey and share his views on the survey items. As the
participants of the survey were to be the teachers of DE schools, he reviewed the
survey draft with the notion that the items of the survey be relevant to the teacher
participants. He suggested to include items to seek teachers’ response to specific DE
initiative. For example, in the second section of the draft survey which was to elicit
teachers’ knowledge about the innovation (DE’s techno-pedagogy program in this
study), items on the subject teachers with whom DE program works and the classes in
which DE program runs were added. Designing DE Way of Teaching (DEWoT) and
flipped classrooms have been a part of teacher training in all the DE schools. These
were added as response options in the survey draft item on teacher training received.
Ground level challenges and problems were discussed. Regarding the item detailing the
skills level of teachers on different computer-related technologies, response options i.e.,
downloading from the Internet, uploading to the Internet, adding examples of Logo and
Scratch to the programming option were suggested to be added. In the sixth section of
the draft which aimed at detailing the confirmation of the use of computer-related
technologies by students, a suggestion was made to add an item on equity. Mr.
Sundarakrishnan said, ‘The survey can let us know if boys and girls are using
technology in an equal manner. It would be relevant to see whether teachers see any
97
connect between girls/boys and technology’. These suggestions were incorporated in
the survey.
Table 3-4 presents the feedback recommended by the AIF Director. Changes
made to the content of the survey have been highlighted in the table but does not
include the suggestions which were on the technical or grammatical issues.
Table 3-4. AIF Director’s feedback on the survey instrument
Items deleted
Items added
Inputs
An item was added in the
knowledge section which stated – ‘DE program is working with selected teachers of my school.’
As the survey would be
circulated to DE teachers, it was recommended to seek their recall of information on the program.
Another item was added in the knowledge section which was- ‘DE program is working with specific classes of my school.’
These items would assist in knowing about teachers’ knowledge about the DE program.
On the item related to areas in which teachers have received technology training, 3 response items were added to the existing list i.e., 1) to conduct the Digital Equalizer Way of Teaching (DEWoT), 2) to conduct a flipped classroom, and 3) to use educational software (e.g., English Helper, MacMillan)
These were part of DE program and teachers were expected to be trained in these areas. The survey could bring out teachers’ awareness about the trainings which they would have received.
98
Table 3-4 Continued.
Items deleted
Items added
Inputs
On school focus toward use of technology by teachers, suggestion was made to break the response items these: 1) provision of professional development of teachers, 2) maintenance of technology software and hardware, and, 3) incentives provided to teachers for using technology in teaching.
It was suggested that these response items would seek teachers’ responses which could be relevant for analysis.
On school expectation toward the use of technology, an addition was made i.e., ‘my school has no expectation.’
This would widen the scope of choices for the respondents.
A question was added to the survey - ‘do you see any difference between girls vs. boys in using computer-related technologies in your class?’
This would be an equity question which could help in knowing whether teachers see any connect between girls/boys and technology.
‘Motivating’ factors to use of technology in teaching was replaced.
Instead of ‘motivating’, ‘inspiring’ was suggested to be used.
‘Motivating’ would be action.
An item was added- ‘How many years have you been teaching with computers-related technologies?’
This would be a specific item on experience using technology.
Another item was added under the demographic information and it was- ‘In which year did you
One would know for how long the respondent has been engaged with technology training.
99
receive your first training on teaching with computers?’
Final Survey
The final survey had a total of 34 items spread out in A to G sections (see
Appendix I for English and Appendix J for Hindi). As it came out in the cognitive
interview, both English and Hindi version of the survey questionnaire were finalized and
printed. Google translator was used as the first step to translate the English survey into
Hindi. I simplified the translation to make it easier for the participants to read and
understand the questions. Back translation procedures were used to ensure accuracy of
the survey items. A team of field coordinators at AIF Delhi office who were proficient in
Hindi cross-checked and validated the translation of the survey. The focus was on
accurately translating concepts across the two different languages (Dillman et al, 2009).
Table 3-5 shows the organization of the final survey.
Table 3-5. Organization of the final survey questionnaire: Sections, stages in the IDP and the corresponding items
Section of the survey Stages in the Innovation-Decision Process Items in the survey
A. Information about computer-related technologies available for teacher use
A1. Technology at home A2. Technology at school A3. Location of technology at school A4. Number of computers in school
B. Teachers’ knowledge/skills toward use of computer-related technologies
Knowledge stage 1. Recall of information 2.Comprehension of messages 3. Knowledge or skill for effective adoption of innovation
B1. Information on other teachers integrating technology in teaching B2. Subject teachers with whom DE program works B3. Classes in which DE program runs B4. Awareness about school support B5. Computer-related technologies' trainings received B6. Your skill level
100
Table 3-5 Continued.
Section of the survey Stages in the Innovation-Decision Process Items in the survey
C. Teachers’ attitudes about available computer-related technologies
Persuasion stage 4. Liking the innovation 5. Discussion of the new behavior with others 6. Acceptance of the message about the innovation 7. Formation of a positive image of the message and the innovation 8. Support for the innovative behavior from the system
C1. Rate your attitudes toward
computers and computer-related technologies
D. Teacher self-reports of technology adoption/rejection
Decision stage 9. Intention to seek additional information about the innovation 10. Intention to try the innovation
D1. Rate your decision to use computers-related technologies
E. Teacher self-reports on their technology use
Implementation stage 11. Acquisition of additional information about the innovation 12. Use of the innovation on a regular basis 13. Continued use of the innovation
E1. Rate your use of computers-related technologies E2. Frequency of use E3. Use of computers on continuous basis E4. Barriers to use E5. Inspiration to use
F. Teacher self-reports on confirmation of use of computer-related technologies
Confirmation stage 14. Recognition of the benefits of using the innovation 15. Integration of the innovation into one's ongoing routine 16. Promotion of the innovation to others
F1. Benefits for students F2. Integration of computers in teaching routine F3. Promotion of benefits of computers-related technologies
F4. Difference in girls and boys in computer use
F5.School’s technology provisions F6. School’s expectations toward your use of technology
101
Table 3-5 Continued.
Section of the survey Stages in the Innovation-Decision Process
Items in the survey
G. Teacher background information
G1. Level of education G2. Teaching qualification G3. Gender G4. Age
G5.Number of teaching years G6. Number of teaching years with technology G7. 1st computers training G8. Primary teaching language G9. Teaching subject G10. School zone G11. Class size
Participants
There were a total of 288 teachers from 72 government schools in Delhi who had
participated in the AIF-DE program during the 2016-2017 academic year. These
teachers were nominated by the Principals of their schools. Each participating school
had selected at least 4 teachers for the DE program who taught Math, Science, Social
Science (SST) and English in the middle section (comprising 6th, 7th and 8th
standards). AIF’s field coordinators conducted weekly visits to these schools and
ensured that these teachers took their classes by integrating the techno-pedagogy
program into classroom practices. The field coordinators hand-delivered the survey
questionnaire to 271 DE teachers.
The participants were described using the teacher background information
elicited from the survey response. Their education, teaching qualification, gender, age,
teaching experiences, technology training, teaching language, subject, school zone,
and, class size were studied. Additional information about the participants and their use
102
of computer-related technology were also analyzed from the survey section. Teachers’
responses on their knowledge, attitude, decision and implementation of technology in
teaching were studied in order to answer the four research questions. The participants
filled out the paper survey where three answer options were provided- encircle the right
answer, circle all that apply or fill in the blank.
Data Collection
A cross-sectional survey was conducted with an aim to collect data at one point
in time from the participants. The survey was distributed personally by the AIF field
coordinators to all the DE teachers in the first week of April, 2017. It is said that the
presence of a person to deliver the questionnaire, pick it up, or both, seems to produce
a higher completion rate than other means like mail surveys (Babbie, 1990). The survey
questionnaires were printed in a booklet form and had an introductory letter stating the
purpose of participation in the study (see Appendix I). There were 15 field coordinators
who participated in the survey distribution, each having 5 schools in a zone. They were
guided by an instruction sheet on how to get the surveys filled (See Appendix K). Each
coordinator was given the responsibility of collecting the filled surveys back within a
span of 3 weeks’ time.
Teachers were given the option to choose between the English (see Appendix I)
or the Hindi (see Appendix J) version of the questionnaire. The English survey was
translated into the Hindi version so that those teachers who were more comfortable in
Hindi could fill out their responses better in the Hindi survey. The first level translation
was done by the researcher and the final version was prepared by the AIF field
103
coordinators who were proficient in creating Hindi documents. Surveys were collected
back by the field coordinators in the last week of April, 2017.
In order to increase the response rate from the participants, efforts were put to
reduce the total survey error including errors of coverage, sampling, nonresponse, and
measurement (Dillman et al, 2009). Coverage error occurs if the choice of survey mode
may not provide adequate coverage of the population. In this study, it was kept in mind
that most of the government school teachers did not use email and hence a web survey
could not be the source of the survey instrument. Paper survey was administered to
ensure the coverage of the population under study. Coverage error is also possible if
the list from which the sample is drawn does not include everyone in the population. For
this study, all the teachers involved in the AIF-DE program for the academic year 2016-
2017 from all of the 72 schools were approached to answer the survey. Sampling error
is said to result from surveying only some rather than all the members of the population
under consideration for the study and it exists as part of all the sample surveys. A total
population sampling was done in this survey where all the DE teachers for the academic
year 2016-17 were selected to participate. This was administered to address the
sampling error in this survey. Dillman et al. defined nonresponse error as not getting a
response from everyone who received the survey request. Thus, in order to reduce the
nonresponse error, the field coordinators were asked to provide teachers enough time
to complete the survey. Though, it was out of control to ensure that the participating
teachers filled each and every survey question. Measurement error occurs when a
respondent’s response is incomplete, inaccurate or imprecise. This happens more if
respondents misinterpret the meaning of the questions in self-administered surveys. To
104
avoid these errors, cognitive interviews were held with a sample of the respondents who
suggested the required changes in the survey in order to lessen any scope of
misinterpretation in the survey. But the fact remains that despite the efforts taken to
increase the response rate in the survey, the actual participants’ response could not be
controlled as it was a voluntary participation and teachers could leave any
question/section if they didn’t feel like answering.
Data Analysis
A coding scheme was created on the survey items (see Appendix L). Alpha-
numerical codes were entered into a survey codebook which was referred for coding of
participant’s responses (see Appendix M). The code of each sub-item was entered on
the first row of an excel spreadsheet and the responses of all the participants were
entered manually. The items with missing response from the participants were marked
NR for no response.
The data analysis included four areas of interpretation. First, the internal
consistency reliability was addressed by calculating Cronbach’s Alpha for the relevant
items under the five sections aligned to the stages of IDP model. Second, the
background information about the participants of the study was presented through the
descriptive statistics on the first and the last sections of the survey. Third, each of the
four research questions was addressed through descriptive analysis. Data were
analyzed though measures of central tendency i.e., mean and median along with
dispersion i.e., range and variance. Themes about inspiration and barriers for teachers
to use technology were analyzed based on the participants’ responses on the two open-
ended survey items as part of answering the last research question (teachers’ use of
105
technologies in teaching). Fourth and the last part of the data analysis were cross-
tabulations and correlations in order to understand the relationship between teachers’
knowledge, attitude and decision with their use of technologies respectively.
The participants in this study were described according to their background
information and the way they had access to computer-related technologies for their use.
The format of these survey items was either choose the right answer or fill in the blank.
Each research question was addressed as below:
RQ1- Knowledge- An analysis was conducted on the ‘knowledge’ research variable in the questionnaire on the items related to teachers’ training and skills on computer-related technologies (survey item B6).
A section of the survey (B6) enumerated technological skills. Teachers’ skills on
computer-related technologies were analyzed based on their responses in this section.
The questions were formulated to address how teachers' perceived their own
knowledge of ICT skills. There were 13 sub-items under the section, each further
divided for analysis. Sub-items a to d factored operational skills; sub-items e to g for
editing skills; and, sub-items h to m to analyze their online skills. The rating scale for
these sub-items was nil (1), low (2), medium (3), high (4), and expert (5). The average
levels in the different areas were reported in the results below. Table 3-6 illustrates the
different technical skills sub-items under the three broad categories.
Table 3-6. Technological skills
Skills Survey sub-items
Operational Skills
a) Basic computer operation skill (e.g., opening pages,
using pen drive)
b) Microsoft Word
c) Microsoft Excel
d) Microsoft Power Point
106
Table 3-6 Continued.
Skills Survey sub-items
Editing Skills e) Video Editing Tool
f) Picture Editing Tool
g) Audio Editing Tool
Online Skills h) Browsing the Internet
i) Downloading from Internet
j) Uploading to Internet
k) Use of Educational Blogs/Websites
l) Use of Open Educational Resources (e.g. YouTube,
Google)
m) Basic programming skills (e.g. Logo, Scratch)
RQ2 - Attitudes- An analysis was conducted on the ‘attitudes’ research variable in the questionnaire on the items related to teachers’ attitudes about technology practices (survey item C1).
There was a section (C1) in the survey which focused on collecting information
based on teachers’ interpretation of their attitudes about computer-related technologies.
There were 10 sub-items in the section which could be categorized into two -
experiential view and conceptual view of teachers. The experiential view sub-items
(items a, b, d, j) drew information on teachers’ opinion on ICT based on their teaching
experiences. The conceptual view sub-items (items c, e, f, g, h, i) focused on eliciting
information on the thoughts and beliefs of teachers’ about the concept of computer-
related technologies in teaching. The rating scale for these items included strongly
disagree (1), disagree (2), neutral (3), agree (4) and strongly agree (5). The average
levels in the different areas were reported in the results below. Table 3-7 demarcates
the survey questions under the two categories to analyze teachers’ attitude toward
technology integration.
107
Table 3-7. Teachers’ attitude through their experiential and conceptual views
Experiential view Conceptual view
a) Working with computers make me
feel tense and uncomfortable
c) Computer-related technologies are an
important part of the future for improving the quality of education
b) I think computer-related technologies make my professional work more difficult
e) WhatsApp groups amongst teachers
are useful resources d) I have colleagues who have positive
experience in teaching with computer-related technologies
f) Computer-related technologies are
necessary tools in both educational and work settings
j) My school supports and encourages
me to integrate technology in my teaching
g) Computers can be useful educational
aids in almost all subject areas
h) There are more disadvantages than advantages in teaching with technology in my situation
i) Teaching with the help of traditional
chalk and board method is the only way to teach effectively
RQ3 - Decisions- An analysis was conducted on the ‘decisions’ research variable in the questionnaire on the items related to teachers’ decision to use computers for teaching purposes (survey item D1).
A section (D1) of the survey investigated on how teachers rated their decision to
use computers for teaching purposes. There were five sub-items which focused on
bringing out teachers’ decision on whether they had decided to use, or increase, or not
use technology in their teaching. The rating scale for these items were strongly disagree
(1), disagree (2), neutral (3), Agree (4), and strongly agree (5). Table 3-8 lists out the
five areas for interpretation.
108
Table 3-8. Decision to use computer-based technologies
Decision to use computer-based technologies
Items
Tried to determine usefulness
of ICT
Plan to continue to use ICT in
my teaching
Interested in increasing my use of
ICT in teaching
Used ICT then
decided to stop
it
Never considered integration
of ICT in my teaching
RQ4 - Practices- An analysis was conducted on the ‘practices’ (implementation + confirmation) research variables in the questionnaire on items related to teachers’ use of computer-related technologies and their schools’ expectation toward their use of computers in teaching (survey items E2 and F6).
There was a section (E2) in the survey which was designed to draw information
about teachers’ use of computer-related technologies in their teaching. There were
eleven sub-items and the rating scale was never (1), once in six months (2), monthly
(3), weekly (4), and daily (5). The average levels in the different areas were reported in
the results below. Table 3-9 lists out the items to analyze teachers’ use of computer-
based technologies.
Table 3-9. Teachers’ use of computer-based technologies
List of Use items
Items:
Use computer
for job
Use technologies at home for schoolwork
Use WhatsApp to communicate with teachers
Use email to communicate
with colleagues
Print teaching materials
Use computers
for teaching
Use presentation programs in
class
Use video projector in
class
Ask students to consult
Internet for class
Use Internet to prepare your class
Use Web 2.0
tools
A section (F6) of the survey was based on schools’ expectation toward teachers’
use of computers in teaching. It was significant to analyze how schools confirmed to the
109
use of technology by the teachers. There were four items under this section and the
rating scale was strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). Table 3-10 lists out the
items on which analysis was done.
Table 3-10. Items to determine confirmation of use of technology
School's expectation toward teachers' use of technology
Items
School expects
teachers to have technical
skills
School expects to teach
combining course content,
technologies and teaching approaches
School has no expectation to use computers
in teaching
Schools expects continuation of use of
technology even without support from DE field coordinators
Cross-tabulations were also tallied to investigate if there was a relationship
between teachers’ knowledge, attitude and decision with their actual use of computer-
related technologies. There were several sub-items under each category which were
averaged to create aggregate values for all the participants under each of the sub-
items. The averaged value of teachers’ knowledge, attitude and decision items were
cross -tabulated over the averaged value of the use of computer-related technologies.
This analysis provided a deeper outlook on teachers’ practice of computers in teaching
and learning.
Lastly, correlation analysis was conducted amongst the same research variables
on which cross -tabulations were computed. Spearman’s rho rank correlation coefficient
was used. It is a non-parametric measure of correlation applied when both variables are
ordinal level. It ranges from -1.0 to +1.0. A negative sign indicates that when the values
for one variable increase, the values for the other variable decrease whereas the
positive sign signals that as value of one variable increases, the value of the other
110
variable increases as well (Hahs-Vaughn & Lomax, 2013). This was done to examine if
the ranked pairs were correlated and to what extent.
Validity and Reliability
The survey questionnaire was drafted based on the existing literature and scales,
and was adapted to fit culturally in the Indian context. The survey had the face validity
as the items placed under each category could be associated with the concept being
discussed. Edward Carmines and Richard Zeller (1979) discussed about criterion-
related validity, content validity, and construct validity. Criterion-related validity, also
called predictive validity is strengthened in this study as the criteria on which the
variables were created were based on a robust theoretical framework. To increase the
validity and efficacy of the survey instrument, expert reviews and cognitive interviews
were conducted. First, expert reviews were conducted on the draft survey by involving
educational technologists and other experts in the field of education. Then, cognitive
interviews of the Delhi government school teachers and discussion with the AIF Director
validated the understanding about the clarity, content, grammar, sentence formation,
etc. of items in the survey draft. Finally, all the revisions were incorporated to make the
final version of the survey to ensure that all the desired changes in the instrument had
been incorporated before taking it to the participants. The content validity and construct
validity were also strengthened by the cross-validation of the questionnaire by experts
and teachers in the field (Miller, 1983; Oppenheim, 1966).
The internal consistency reliability was calculated with the Cronbach’s Alpha
which tested that removing any item would not contribute to or detract from the high
level of item consistency. There were random missing data in surveys which indicated
that there were many teachers who filled out the survey but did not fill out a few
111
responses in between the different sections of the survey. Dismissing the whole survey
as incomplete or not to be considered for analysis would have dropped out several
other relevant information which the participants had shared in the survey. In order to
solve the problem of missing values, Expectation-Maximization (EM) algorithm on SPSS
software was run on the dataset. This technique replaced missing value by predictive
value. Firstly, Missing Completely at Random (MCAR) test was run on the whole
dataset. It tested the null hypothesis which claimed that the data were missing in a
random fashion. The result of the test proved that the data were randomly missing as
the null hypothesis could not be rejected and no statistically significant difference was
calculated at Sig. = 1.000 value (See Appendix N). Thus, the randomly placed missing
values were replaced by the predictive value and the whole dataset on which
descriptive statistics were run was considered to be a total of 191 filled surveys by the
participants of this study.
The internal consistency reliability addressed by calculating Cronbach’s alpha
was also calculated for the relevant items in the survey under the five sections aligned
to the stages of IDP model. Inter-item correlation matrix was run on individual sections
along with finding the correlation amongst all the five sections of the survey (see
Appendix N). Reliability has been described as the calculation of the ability of an
instrument to measure consistently (Tavakol & Dennick, 2011). The evaluation of the
reliability of this survey measured the consistency of this measurement instrument. This
survey measured the different domains of IDP model which brought forward the
perspectives of teachers towards ICT integration. But as all the items in the survey
measured the same construct, measurement of the inter-relatedness of the items within
112
the survey was significant. In order for each and every section of the survey to be
reliable for measurements of the results, Cronbach’s Alpha was run which is expressed
as a number between 0 and 1. For the purpose of this study, the sections on knowledge
(survey item B6 (13 sub- items)), attitude (survey item C1 (10 sub-items)), decision
(survey item D1 (5 sub-items)), and, practice (survey items E2 and F6 (14 sub-items))
were measured for internal consistency reliability. The internal consistency of these
sections was tested in both the scenarios for comparative purposes- first, in the dataset
with random missing values and second, with the dataset with no missing values. The
knowledge items generated α = .941in the original dataset and α = .939 in the second
dataset; attitude items generated α = .826 in the first and .818 in the second; decision
items generated α = .735 in the first and .727 in the second; and practice items
generated α = .830 in the first and .838 in the second. When all these sections were
combined to measure the consistency of the instrument, it generated α = .932 in the
original dataset and .923 in the dataset with no missing values. In both the cases, the
survey instrument can be said to have high internal consistency as all the items
individually and collectively generated alpha value above .70 which is considered as
highly reliable.
Limitations and Delimitations
There are some limitations to this study and choices have been made to set the
boundaries for this research. I had to travel internationally to the site of research. I
could visit the field site (Delhi, India) only for a period of two months due to my
commitments back in the US. During my visit, I observed AIF’s DE program in the Delhi
government schools and conducted cognitive interviews with teachers to formulate an
authentic and robust survey. It was recommended by the teachers and the AIF staff that
113
in order to get maximum survey response, it should be a paper survey filled out by the
teacher participants despite the fact that those teachers who would be filling out the
survey would be the ones who had been using technology in their teaching. I could have
little control over the web surveys but I had to be dependent on AIF’s field coordinators
when paper surveys had to be distributed and collected back from the teachers. But it
was not difficult to coordinate as I had already met with the field coordinators at AIF’s
office during my field visit. I had discussed with the coordinators about this study and
they were aware of their responsibilities in collecting the filled surveys from their
teachers. The coordinators could collect back 70% (191 out of 271) survey responses
from the teachers participating in the DE program. But nothing more than these could
be expected in any other mode of data collection as these coordinators were in the best
position to convince teachers to take out a few minutes to fill this survey as they had
been in touch with these teachers supporting their digitally assisted classes.
Rogers (1995) had mentioned that the average time to study the adoption of
innovation would be almost a decade after the initial inception of an innovation
(Surendra, 2001). But in the case of this study, the DE program had been running only
for the last two years in the selected government schools. The length of the diffusion
process had been less as per the desired timeframe. However, it would be a great
source of information for a comparative study which could be done with the same
population of participants a few years later.
It was a self-administered survey to be filled out by the teachers. There are some
inherent limitations to this process like it would be the participant’s interpretation of the
questions which might not be the same as the researcher’s. In order to decrease any
114
confusion of understanding of the language or the structure of the survey items, I
conducted cognitive interviews with a few teachers from the sample population on the
survey items.
Another limitation of the study was that not much could have been done to
control the missing data from the filled surveys. The participants’ responses were
voluntary and one could have skipped any question which one didn’t want to answer.
But due to some random missing data in the survey, it didn’t make sense to dismiss the
whole survey as incomplete as many other relevant information would have been lost
that way. Missing Completely at Random (MCAR) test was run on the whole dataset
which was proven statistically significant and all the surveys collected could be utilized
for data analysis.
Also, only the DE program teachers of the schools were involved in this study.
Not all the teachers in the schools were part of this research. The perspectives of the
participating teachers would definitely be more positive towards integrating technology
in teaching as they had already been doing this. If all the teachers in the schools would
have been selected for this study then the result would have been different. But there
was already a large group of around 300 teachers in these government schools who
were part of the DE program and to study their perspective gave significant results of
how do those teachers who use technology perceived of this process. However, the
selection criteria for the teachers by the Principals of each of the DE schools was
unknown in the study.
Ethical considerations are an important part of any research. Having lived
experiences of the Indian education system, I had to ensure that my personal biases did
115
not find a place in the analysis and investigation of the research. For the same, I
consulted subject matter experts for cross-consultations on instruments and analysis.
This research seeks to elicit a comprehensive response from teachers, but the
generalization of this study can be challenged for analysis of the belief and perception
of teachers all across the Indian states. Still, the survey instrument which is created as
part of this study could be applied for analysis of teachers’ technology perception across
the country and beyond.
116
CHAPTER 4 RESULTS
This chapter is comprised of three sections. The participants are described first.
The availability of technology with teachers and their background information are
presented through charts and graphs. Second, the four research questions are studied.
The average level of teachers and their percentages in each category that define the
knowledge, attitude, decision and practice level of computer-related technologies in
teaching are examined. Besides, themes about inspiration and barriers for teachers to
use computer-related technologies are also analyzed in order to deepen understanding
about teachers’ practice of technology. Lastly, series of cross-tabulations and
correlations are computed to identify inter-relationship between teachers’ knowledge,
attitude and decision towards their technological application in classrooms.
The teachers from the Delhi government schools who participated in the AIF’s -
DE program during the academic year 2016-2017 filled out the survey which was
digitally encoded, studied and interpreted for this research. The AIF’s field coordinators
distributed the assessment sheets to 271 teachers and received back 191 (70%)
surveys comprising 126 English and 65 Hindi filled out surveys. As the first step for
systematic evaluation, all the paper forms were given a unique identification number
(Leahy, 2004) on the front page e.g., 001 through 191. The survey contained items,
sub-items, and multiple choice answer categories that were entered through Excel
columns. When all entries were digitally entered, the SPSS.24 statistical package was
utilized to answer different sections of this research (Nie, Bent & Hull, 1970). All the
analysis have been conducted at N = 191 teachers.
117
A. Participants
This section presents the description of the participants in two areas - their
background information; and the details about computer-related technologies
available for their use. Below is the description.
Teacher Background Information
This area pertains to the teacher’s background information included in their
teaching qualification, gender, age, teaching experience, technology training, primary
teaching language, subject taught and class size.
Teaching Qualification
Most of the participants had B.Ed degree (85.5%) or higher degrees (M.Ed- 12%
and M.Phil- 3.7%), and 11.5% of the teachers had a diploma in education. The Central
Teacher Eligibility Test (CTET) is for Central government teaching jobs while the
Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) is for State-run government schools as teaching
qualification requirements for Class 1 to Class 8. About 39% of teachers had taken
these qualifying tests (36% took CTET, and 3% did TET). Only 9 out of 191 teachers
had some kind of computer certification. There were about 5% of teachers who had
taken National Eligibility Test (NET) which is a qualifying requirement for college and
university teaching. Figure 4-1 reports the teaching qualifications of the participants of
this study.
118
Figure 4-1. Teaching qualification
Gender and Age
Seventy-four percent of teachers who filled out the survey were female and 26%
were male. Figure 4-2 charts it out.
Figure 4-2. Gender Figure 4-3. Age
Around 40% of the participants belonged to the age bracket of 31– 40 years old,
and 25% in 20-30 years old and 41-50 years old bracket respectively. This suggested
that teachers who were selected to integrate technology in teaching at their respective
119
schools were in the varied age ranging from 20s to 50s. Figure 4-3 shows the
percentage of teachers in different age group.
Teaching Experience, Teaching with Technology, and 1st Technology Training
Majority of the teachers had long years of teaching experience in the Delhi
government schools. Twenty-six percent of these teachers had been working for 16-20
years, 23% worked for 21-25 years, and 21% worked for 11-15 years. Moreover, 5% of
them were more than 30 years in service, while 2% worked in less than five years.
Figure 4-4 charts out the percentage of teachers having a different range of years of
teaching experience.
Figure 4-4. Teaching experience
The emergence of teaching with technology mostly occurred in 2015-2017,
wherein 80 out of 191 teachers started using ICT in teaching three years back, while 63
of them began implementing the application in 2016. Given this, very few of the
participants stated that they had been using technology since 10-15 years ago. The
year 2000 was the earliest season to introduce technology still many teachers were not
trained for the integration. In fact, many of them reported that they just finished their
training between the years 2015-2016. Figure 4-5 shows the number of teachers
120
corresponding to the number of years of teaching with technology. Figure 4-6 shows the
number of teachers receiving technology training over the last couple of years.
Figure 4-5. Number of years of teaching with technology
Figure 4-6. Year of receiving 1st time technology training
Language and Subject
Little over half of the teachers surveyed (54.5%) reported teaching in Hindi
language whereas 30.4% of them stated to teach in English language. Around 15% of
them mentioned teaching in both Hindi and English language. Figure 4-7 is a pie chart
that shows the percentage of teachers teaching in Hindi, English and both.
Figure 4-7. Primary teaching language
Thirty-five percent of the participants were using technology in teaching
mathematics, 26% for science and 20% for social science. English teachers comprising
121
13% of the participants also used computer software to enhance student’s reading skills
effectively. A small percentage of 6% used technology in teaching ‘other’ subjects in
which the participants mentioned Hindi and History. Figure 4-8 shows the percentage of
teachers teaching different subjects.
Figure 4-8. Primary subject
Class Size
Thirty-one percent of the classes had around 40-50 students, 27% had 30-40
students, and 25% had 50-60 students. Sixteen percent of teachers reported being
teaching in classrooms with more than 60 students. This result is put in a graph in figure
4-9 showing the percentage of schools having varied range of the class size.
Figure 4-9. Class size
122
Computer-Related Technologies Available for Teacher Use
The information about computer-related technologies available for teacher use
included the description of technology available at home and school; location of
computer-related technologies in school; and, number of computers available for
teaching in school.
Technology at Home
The majority of the teachers were found to possess smartphone devices (76.4%).
More than half (59.8%) of the participants had Internet access at home and almost half
of them had desktop (45.5%) and laptop (44.7%). Access to other computer-related
technologies i.e., pen drive, printer, tablet and VCD/DVD were seen to be sprucely
available. Only 4 out of 191 teachers mentioned that they did not have access to any
kind of ICT tool at home. Figure 4-10 shows the percentage of teachers possessing
different kinds of technology at home.
Figure 4-10. Technology at home
123
Technology at School
The majority of schools were reported to have desktop (76.8%) and projector
(79.9%). Internet was said to be available in 73 out of 191 schools (38%). Almost 42%
of teachers had access to printer and 30% of them to computer software in school.
Some government schools were also reported to have TV/VCD (14%), laptop (13.3%)
and interactive whiteboard (11%). Tablet (1.9%) had rarely found an entry in the
government schools of Delhi. Figure 4-11 shows the percentage of teachers possessing
different kinds of technology at school.
Figure 4-11. Technology at school
Location of Technology in School
The result showed that numerous schools had computer-related technologies in
their IT/ICT lab (74.6%) and CAL lab (61.1%). Some schools (12.4%) also had
computers in their library. There were also teachers (7.3%) who mentioned AIF lab as
the location of technologies in their schools. Figure 4-12 graphs the various location of
124
technology at schools.
Figure 4-12. Location of technology at school
Number of Computers in School
Almost half of the participants (49.2%) stated having 5 to 10 computers in school.
Thirty percent had better accessibility with 10 to 20 computers in their school. Five
percent of the total participants shared that they had more than 20 computers. Eight
teachers mentioned having only 1 computer in the school. Figure 4-13 shows this
statistics.
Figure 4-13. Number of computers in school
125
Summary of the Participants
Teachers’ background and their access to technology provided a context to
analyze the research questions in the following section. Teachers’ perception of
technologies in teaching was measured in terms of their knowledge, attitude, decision
and practice of computer-related technologies in the classroom. While analyzing
teachers’ ICT knowledge, one might keep in mind that most of the teachers under this
study had received their first technology training in the last three years and only a very
few teachers had any kind of computer certification with them. Though, most of the
participating teachers possessed proper teaching qualification (B.Ed.) and had been
teaching in schools for a long time. In this study, the majority of the teachers deciding
whether to use technologies in teaching or not were in the age range of 20 to 40 years
who, on an average, were teaching a class size of 40 - 50 students. Three-quarters of
the teachers who were analyzed for practicing technologies in teaching were female
teachers who were mostly teaching in Hindi language and taught subjects including
Math followed by science and social studies.
The availability of computer-related technologies with teachers at their home and
in school was also analyzed. Silver (1998) noted that if a school is not prepared as a
whole in terms of its curricula, teaching strategies and innovations in the allocation of
resources, then the teachers who supposedly are the ‘innovators’ are in an impossible
position as institutional norms support or constrain changes. The analysis of the
technological tools accessible, number of computers available and their school locations
was conducted. Majority of the teachers possessed smartphone (76.4%) with them.
This highlighted that mobile revolution was taking place in the country where
126
smartphones were available at an affordable rate. It was also in time that in 2016, India
ranked second as the largest smartphone market worldwide, as even average level
individuals were using it (Joshi, 2017). About half of the teachers had desktop, laptop
and Internet at home. Majority of them had access to desktop and projectors while
Internet had started being available at schools. About 50% who had participated in this
study could access 5 to 10 computers in the IT/ICT lab and/or the CAL lab at their
respective schools. The study of teachers’ background and their accessibility to
technologies provided a bigger backdrop picture behind their analysis of perception
towards ICT studied in the next section.
B. Answering Research Questions
Four research questions were prepared to understand the perspectives of
teachers toward ICT integration in Indian classrooms. The following questions were:
RQ1. What are the knowledge, attitudes, decisions and practice of teachers toward ICT
integration in the Indian classroom?
1. How do teachers perceive their own knowledge of ICT use in classrooms? (Research variable: knowledge - stage 1 of IDP (Knowledge))
2. What are teachers’ attitudes about the ICT available in their school? (Research variable: attitudes - stage 2 of IDP (Persuasion))
3. What decisions do teachers make regarding using ICT available in their school? (Research variable: decisions – stage 3 of IDP (Decision))
4. How are teachers practicing integration of ICT in classrooms? (Research variable: practice – stage 4 and 5 of IDP (Implementation and Confirmation))
Teachers’ knowledge, attitude, decision and practice toward ICT integration were
studied. Each of these four categories addressed the four research questions stated
above. Below is the description of each of these questions.
127
RQ1 -Teachers’ Skills and Knowledge on Computer-Related Technologies
The results of the ICT operational skills of teachers suggested that 54% of them
noted to have medium skill level in basic computer operations, i.e., opening pages, and
using pen drive. Forty-three percent had medium skill level in Microsoft Word, and 41%
and 42% were reported medium skill level in Microsoft Excel and PowerPoint
respectively. The average level of teachers in ICT operational skills was found to be at a
medium level. Table 4-1 shows the average (mean) rating of the teachers in the
different categories of operational skills out of a scale of 1 to 5.
Table 4-1. Average operational skills
Operational Skills
Mean Std. Deviation Basics 3.31 0.940 Word 2.90 0.993
Excel 2.67 1.0121
PPT 2.73 1.090
Table 4-2 shows the percentage of teachers in each skill category ranging from
nil to expert.
Table 4-2. Percentage of teachers in the different operational skills categories
Level Nil Low Medium High Expert
Basics 2.10% 11.50% 53.90% 17.20% 15.20% Word 7.90% 25.10% 43.40% 16.70% 6.80% Excel 13.60% 27.70% 41.40% 12.00% 5.20% PPT 14.60% 22.90% 42.30% 14.60% 5.20%
Looking at the results of teachers’ self-perception toward their technological
editing skills, it was found that over 75% of them believed they were in low/nil level of
editing skills (See table 4.4). Out of the three categories of the editing skills, teachers
responded to be most comfortable with picture editing followed by video and then audio.
Table 4-3 shows the average (mean) rating of the teachers in different categories of
editing skills ranging from 1 to 5.
128
Table 4-3. Average editing skills
Editing Skills
Mean Std. Deviation
Video 1.96 1.017
Picture 2.07 1.145
Audio 1.84 0.917
Table 4-4 shows the percentage of teachers in each skills category scaling from
nil to expert.
Table 4-4. Percentage of teachers in the different editing skills categories
Nil Low Medium High Expert
Video 37.70% 38.10% 17.20% 3.10% 3.60%
Picture 38.10% 35% 14.60% 4.70% 6.30%
Audio 41.80% 41.30% 11.50% 2.60% 2.60%
The last set of sub-items under teachers’ skills and knowledge included their
online skills under different aspects like browsing, downloading, uploading, use of
educational blogs/websites, the use of Open Educational Resources (OERs) and basic
programming skills. Majority of the participants’ browsing skills were at medium (29%) to
high (27%) levels and around 25% of them had low and below levels. The graph for
downloading skills remained similar to their browsing skill. In their uploading skills,
almost 40% of teachers admitted to having low/nil level; 30% were at medium level;
20% had high skills; and 10% were experts. Forty-one percent had medium level skill in
the use of educational blogs/websites, 22% had low level, and 18% had high skill rating.
Only 18% had low level, and 4% had nil skill level in the use of OERs i.e., using
YouTube, Google, etc. whereas 78% of them had medium and higher level. In the last
sub-item, around half of the participants reported to have nil level of skill in basic
programming, i.e., Logo, Scratch, etc., and 35% had low skill. Table 4-5 shows the
129
average (mean) rating of the teachers in the different categories of online skills scaling
from 1 to 5.
Table 4-5. Average online skills
Online Skills
Mean Std. Deviation Browse 3.32 1.162 Download 3.33 1.162 Upload 2.91 1.288 Use of websites 2.92 1.075 Use of OERs 3.33 1.074 Basic Programming 1.75 0.917
Table 4-6 shows the percentage of teachers in each skills category on the
scaling from nil to expert.
Table 4-6. Percentage of teachers in the different online skills category
Nil Low Medium High Expert
Browse 5.8% 20.4% 28.8% 26.7% 18.3%
Download 7.9% 15.2% 30.9% 28.7% 17.3%
Upload 17.3% 20.9% 27.7% 21.4% 12.5%
Use of websites 10.4% 22.0% 40.7% 17.8% 8.9%
Use of OERs 3.7% 17.8% 36.1% 25.6% 16.7%
Basic Programming 47.5% 34.5% 11.0% 6.8% 0.0%
Summary of RQ1
In order to answer the first part of the research question, ‘How do teachers
perceive their own knowledge of ICT use in classrooms?’ there were items in the survey
which were sub-divided as operational skills, editing skills and online skills, each having
sub-categories for analysis.
In general, teachers reported to be having a medium level of computer operation
skills, low level of editing skills and medium level of online skills. Most of the participants
130
had a nil level in their basic programming skill. It suggested that teachers were not
trained or exposed to programming for classroom teaching.
RQ2 - Teachers’ Attitudes about Computer-Related Practices
Teachers’ attitudes toward technology were measured according to their
experiential and conceptual views. Starting with the analysis of teachers’ experiential
views, about 75% of teachers disagreed (41%) and strongly disagreed (33%) that the
technological advancements made them feel tense and uncomfortable whereas 20%
reported to be holding a neutral opinion and only 6% agreed. Similarly, three - quarters
of the teachers surveyed reported to disagree (44%) and strongly disagree (30%) that
computer-related technologies made their work more difficult whereas 17% held a
neutral opinion and 9% of them agreed to it. The next sub-item enquired about teachers’
views on their colleagues having a positive experience in teaching with technologies.
Again, around 75% of teachers agreed (66%) and strongly agreed (14%) whereas 16%
of them held a neutral opinion and 4% disagreed. The pattern was similar in the last
sub-item as well. Seventy-two percent of them agreed and strongly agreed that their
schools supported and encouraged them to integrate technology in teaching whereas
23% remained neutral, and 5% disagreed. Table 4-7 shows the average (mean) rating
in the different categories based on the experiential view of teachers scaling from 1 to 5.
Table 4-7. Average experiential view
Mean Std. Dev
Feeling tense and uncomfortable 2.01 0.891
Making professional work more difficult 2.05 0.925
Colleagues having positive experience 3.905 0.6855
School supporting and encouraging 3.8 0.757
131
Table 4-8 shows the percentage of teachers in each of the experiential view
category scaling from strongly disagree to strongly agree.
Table 4-8. Percentage of teachers in the different experiential view categories Strongly
disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
agree
Feeling tense and uncomfortable
32.5% 40.8% 20.9% 5.2% 0.5%
Making professional work more difficult
30.3% 43.9% 16.8% 8.4% 0.5%
Colleagues having positive experience
1.0% 2.6% 16.2% 66.4% 13.6%
School supporting and encouraging
1.6% 2.6% 23.0% 59.6% 13.1%
The second category of sub-items was to analyze teachers’ attitude about
computer-based technologies slotted under their conceptual view. The results had
higher percentage of positive response compared to the ones derived from the
experiential view of teachers. About 94% believed that computer-related technologies
played a very important role in improving the quality of education (61% agreed and 33%
strongly agreed) and 4% of them remained neutral and 2% disagreed. When asked if
WhatsApp groups were useful resources, 88% of them answered positively (63%
agreed and 26% strongly agreed) and 7% held a neutral view whereas 5% of them
disagreed. Ninety percent expressed a positive opinion while answering the survey
which indicated that the teachers felt that computer-related technologies were
necessary tools in both educational and work settings while 7% were neutral and 3%
disagreed with it. The next sub-item to analyze teachers’ attitude asked if computers
can be useful educational aids in almost all subject areas. Eighty-six percent of the
participants responded positively to it (61% agreed, and 25% strongly agreed), 10%
remained neutral, and 4% disagreed. Another sub-item enquired if there were more
132
disadvantages than advantages in teaching with technology and 66% disagreed (41%
disagreed and 25% strongly disagreed) to it, and 20% of them remained neutral, while
14% agreed (13% agreed, and 1% strongly agreed). The last sub-item under the
attitude section of the survey sought to find out if teaching with the help of traditional
chalk and board method was the only way to teach effectively. Sixty-six percent again
disagreed (46% disagreed, and 20% strongly disagreed), 17% remained neutral, and
18% agreed (15% agreed, and 3% strongly agreed). Table 4-9 shows the average
(mean) rating of teachers in different categories under the conceptual views scaling
from 1 to 5.
Table 4-9. Average conceptual view Mean Std.
Dev
Technology as important part of future of education 4.24 0.689
WhatsApp groups as useful resources 4.08 0.783
Technology as necessary tools in both education and work settings
4.09 0.693
Computer as useful educational aids in all subjects 4.06 0.759
More disadvantages than advantages in teaching with technology
2.24 1
Traditional chalk and board as the only way to teach effectively
2.34 1.043
Table 4-10 shows the percentage of teachers in each of the conceptual view
category scaling from strongly disagree to strongly agree.
133
Table 4-10. Percentage of teachers in the different conceptual view categories Strongly
disagree Disagree Neutral Agree
Strongly agree
Technology as important part of future of education
1.6% 0.5% 3.7% 61.2% 32.9%
WhatsApp groups as useful resources
2.1% 2.6% 6.8% 62.8% 25.6%
Technology as necessary tools in both education and work settings
1.6% 1.0% 7.3% 67.5% 22.5%
Computer as useful educational aids in all subjects
1.6% 2.1% 9.9% 61.2% 25.1%
More disadvantages than advantages in teaching with technology
24.6% 40.8% 20.9% 12.5% 1.0%
Traditional chalk and board as the only way to teach effectively
20.4% 45.5% 16.7% 14.7% 2.6%
Summary of RQ2
The second research question to be answered was, ‘What are teachers’ attitudes
about the ICT available in their school?’ The analysis was conducted based on the
experiential and the conceptual views of teachers.
Overall, teachers held a positive opinion in both their experiential and conceptual
views. Though, higher percentage of teachers remained neutral in responding to the
experiential view items than the ones in the conceptual view items. A high percentage of
teachers chose to remain neutral when asked if their school supported them in
integrating technology in teaching. Many also remained neutral when asked whether
134
there were more disadvantages than advantages in teaching with technology. These
suggested that teachers mostly held positive attitude toward ICT but many chose to
remain neutral when had to answer against the school authority or had to outweigh
technological advantages in front of its barriers. The pattern which emerged about
teachers’ attitudes toward technology suggested that about three-quarters of teachers
who participated in technology integration program at their school held positive opinion
and belief toward it.
RQ3 - Teachers’ Decision to Use Computers for Teaching
The first sub-item to determine teachers’ decision in computer usage for teaching
enquired if the participants had tried to determine the usefulness of computers in their
teaching career. There was no teacher who disagreed with it. Seventeen percent of
teachers remained neutral and 83% shared positive opinion (74% agreed and 8%
strongly agreed). The next item was to determine if the teacher planned to continue
teaching with computer-related technologies. No teacher strongly disagreed and only 3
disagreed whereas 18.3% of teachers remained neutral and 80% gave a positive
response to it (67.02% agreed and 13.15% strongly agreed). The third decision-based
sub-item was whether the teacher was interested in increasing one’s use of computer-
related technologies in one’s teaching activity. Again, to this, only 1 teacher disagreed
and 21% remained neutral whereas 78% gave a positive response (64% of teachers
agreed and 14% of them strongly agreed). The next sub-item had a negative tone as it
stated that a teacher used technology in teaching for some time but then decided to
stop using it anymore. Forty-six percent of teachers disagreed and 13% strongly
disagreed to it. Twenty-six percent remained neutral whereas 13% agreed and 2% of
teachers strongly agreed. The last sub-item was again in a negative tone and enquired
135
if the teacher had never considered the integration of computers technology in one’s
teaching. To this, 22% teachers strongly disagreed and 48% disagreed. Fourteen
percent of teachers remained neutral to this question whereas 15% of them agreed to it
and 2% strongly agreed. Table 4-11 shows the average (mean) rating of the teachers in
the different categories to determine teachers’ decision to use computer-based
technologies scaling from 1 to 5.
Table 4-11. Average decision to use computer-based technologies Mean Std. Dev.
Tried to determine usefulness of ICT 3.91 0.5
Plan to continue to use ICT in my teaching 3.91 0.611
Interested in increasing my use of ICT in teaching 3.92 0.607
Used ICT then decided to stop it 2.46 0.933
Never considered integration of ICT in my teaching 2.27 1.024
Table 4-12 shows the percentage of teachers in each category on the scale from
strongly disagree to strongly agree.
Table 4-12. Percentage of teachers in the different decision categories Strongly
disagree Disagree Neutral Agree
Strongly agree
Tried to determine usefulness of ICT
0.0% 0.0% 17.3% 74.3% 8.4%
Plan to continue to use ICT in my teaching
0.0% 1.6% 18.3% 67.0% 13.1%
Interested in increasing my use of ICT in teaching
0.0% 0.5% 20.9% 64.3% 14.1%
Used ICT then decided to stop it
12.6% 46.0% 26.1% 13.6% 1.6%
Never considered integration of ICT in my teaching
22.0% 47.6% 13.6% 15.2% 1.6%
136
Summary of RQ3
The third research question was ‘What decisions do teachers make regarding
using ICT available in their school?’ There were five sub-items in the survey to analyze
teachers’ decision toward the use of computers in teaching.
The results suggested that about 80% of teachers surveyed found usefulness of
ICT; planned to continue using ICT in their teaching; and, showed readiness to increase
its use as well. It was about 15% of the teachers who used ICT and then stopped using
it; and had never considered integration of ICT in their teaching.
RQ4 - Teachers’ Use of Computer-Related Technologies and their Schools’ Expectation toward their Use of Computers in Teaching (Practice- Implementation and Confirmation)
A weekly usage of computers was reported by sixty-three percent of teachers for
their work and 67% of them for using computers for teaching purposes. Thirty-eight
percent teachers said to have weekly usage of technologies at home for schoolwork
whereas 30% said to have used it daily and 28% said monthly. The only usage of
technology by teachers which received daily usage response was the use of WhatsApp
to communicate with other teachers. When asked about the usage of email to
communicate with colleagues, there was a mixed response by the teachers as 32% of
teachers said to be using email monthly, 26% said to never have used email, 21% said
to have used it once in six months and 15% said to have used it daily. On how often did
teachers print teaching material, 40% said monthly, 26% said weekly, 19% said once in
six months and 11% said never. More than half of the teachers said to have used
presentation programs weekly e.g. PowerPoint and video projectors in classes (59%
and 60% of teachers respectively). There were three sub-items based on web usage.
137
Majority of the teachers responded that on a weekly basis they asked their students to
consult Internet materials for classes (43%); used the Internet themselves to prepare for
classes (43%); and, used Web 2.0 tools e.g. wiki, YouTube, Google, etc. for classes
(43%). Table 4-13 shows the average (mean) rating of the teachers in the different
categories to determine teachers’ use of computer-based technologies scaling from 1 to
5.
Table 4-13. Average teachers’ use of computer-based technologies
Mean Std. Dev
How often do you use a computer for your job? 3.7 0.7
How often do you use technologies that you have at home for schoolwork (e.g., smart phone, tablet)?
3.9 0.9
How often do you use WhatsApp to communicate with teachers?
4.6 0.7
How often do you email to communicate with colleagues? 2.5 1.2
How often do you print teaching materials? 3 1
How often do you use computers for teaching? 3.7 0.8
How often do you use presentation programs (e.g., PowerPoint) in classes? 3.3 1.1
How often do you use video projectors in classes? 3.4 1
How often do you ask students to consult Internet materials for your classes? 3.5 1
How often do you use the Internet to prepare your classes? 3.5 1
How often do you use Web 2.0 tools (e.g., Wiki, Blog, YouTube, Google, FB, Twitter) for your classes?
3.4 1.1
138
Table 4-14 shows the percentage of teachers in each category on the scale from
never to daily usage.
Table 4-14. Percentage of teachers in the different use categories
Never Once in six months
Monthly Weekly Daily
How often do you use a computer for your job?
1% 5% 24% 63% 8%
How often do you use technologies that you have at home for schoolwork (e.g., smart phone, tablet)?
1% 4% 28% 38% 30%
How often do you use WhatsApp to communicate with teachers?
1% 2% 4% 21% 72%
How often do you email to communicate with colleagues?
26% 21% 31% 15% 6%
How often do you print teaching materials?
11% 19% 40% 26% 5%
How often do you use computers for teaching?
4% 3% 21% 66% 6%
How often do you use presentation programs (e.g., PowerPoint) in classes?
13% 7% 20% 59% 2%
How often do you use video projectors in classes?
9% 7% 21% 60% 3%
How often do you ask students to consult Internet materials for your classes?
5% 8% 30% 43% 14%
How often do you use the Internet to prepare your classes?
5% 7% 30% 41% 14%
How often do you use Web 2.0 tools (e.g., Wiki, Blog, YouTube, Google, FB, Twitter) for your classes?
8% 12% 27% 43% 9%
139
Under the practice category, both, implementation and confirmation of the use of
technology were assessed. Teachers’ uses of technology mentioned above stated the
implementation. For the confirmation part, schools’ support toward teachers’ use of
technology was analyzed.
When teachers were asked to report on school’s expectation from them to have
technical skills to use technology, 75% of them stated positive response towards it
(67.5% agreed and 8.9% strongly agreed). Seventeen percent of teachers remained
neutral and only 6.8% disagreed with it. The next item enquired whether or not the
school expected the teacher to teach lessons that appropriately combined one’s course
content, technologies, and teaching approaches, and to this,79% teachers responded
positively (69.5% agreed and 9.4% strongly agreed). To this, 17.8% teachers remained
neutral whereas only 3.1% teachers disagreed. The next item to which the teachers
responded was the question which stated that the school had no expectation from the
teacher to use computers in teaching. To this, 63% teachers disagreed (43% disagreed
and 20% strongly disagreed), 20% remained neutral and 16% teachers agreed (14%
agreed and 2% strongly agreed). The last item under this section stated that the school
expected the teacher to continue using computers in teaching despite there was no
support from AIF’s field coordinators. This confirmed whether the ICT integrating
program in teaching at Indian schools actually was sustainable or not. Fifty-six percent
of teachers agreed (50% agreed and 6% strongly agreed), 32% remained neutral and
10% disagreed. Table 4-15 shows the average (mean) rating categories to determine
teachers’ confirmation to use computer-based technologies out of 1 to 5.
140
Table 4-15. Average school’s expectation toward teachers’ use of technology
Mean Std. Deviation
School expects teachers to have technical skills 3.76 0.749
School expects to teach combining course content, technologies and teaching approaches
3.85 0.614
School has no expectation to use computers in teaching
2.327 1.0435
Schools expects continuation of use of technology even without support from DE field coordinators 3.54 0.84
Table 4-16 shows the percentage of teachers in each category on the scale from
strongly disagree to strongly agree.
Table 4-16. Percentage of teachers in the different school expectation categories
Strongly disagree
Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly agree
School expects teachers to have technical skills
0.5% 6.3% 16.7% 67.5% 8.9%
School expects to teach combining course content, technologies and teaching approaches
0.0% 3.1% 17.8% 69.5% 9.4%
School has no expectation to use computers in teaching
20.9% 43.4% 19.5% 13.6% 2.1%
Schools expects continuation of use of technology even without DE support
1.0% 9.4% 32.4% 50.2% 6.7%
141
Summary of RQ4
The last research question was, ‘How are teachers practicing integration of ICT
in classrooms?’ There were survey items directed to seek participants’ responses to
gauge both the implementation and confirmation part.
There were eleven sub-items that focused on the implementation of teachers’
use of computers in teaching. On an average, 52% of the participants reported to be
using eight out of the eleven sub-items on a weekly basis. These were on use of
computer for job, use of technologies at home for school work, use of computers for
teaching, use of presentation programs in class, use of video projector in class, asking
students to consult Internet for class, use of Internet to prepare for class and use of web
2.0 tools.
The only usage on a daily basis was the use of WhatsApp to communicate with
other teachers. The use of email and printing materials were the ones used on a
monthly basis or even fewer times by the majority of teachers.
The confirmation part of the practice of ICT by the teachers was done through
the analysis of schools’ expectation toward their use of computers in teaching. The
result of this section suggested that teachers of around three-quarters of the schools
believed that their schools expected them to implement technology in teaching while
half of them believed that technology integration in teaching would remain sustainable in
the long run, even without the support from the DE field coordinators.
The results of this research noted that the teachers in the Delhi government
schools were exploring the use of ICT in their teaching. Sixty percent teachers
responded ‘yes’ to the question, ‘Have you been able to integrate computers use in your
teaching routine?’ In another item stating a more specific detail about current use of
142
technologies in teaching on a continuous basis, 65% of teachers responded ‘yes’ which
reiterated that 60-65% of Delhi government school teachers were already
using/adopting ICT in their teaching. Whether they would continue to use technology
without the support of DE program or not was a separate set of analysis. Another item
in the survey directed into analyzing teachers’ acceptance of the technology was, ‘Have
you been able to promote the beneficial use of computers to your colleagues?’ To this,
85% responded positively which indicated that most of the teachers realized the
benefits of the techno-pedagogical tool which they had been using as part of the DE
program. When asked if they felt computers integration in their classrooms had been
beneficial for their students, 95% teachers responded positively. This confirmed that
teachers had no doubts about the benefits of technology use for students’ learning.
One of the surveyed items in this study was based on school’s expectation
toward teachers’ use of computers in teaching. Three-quarters of them agreed that their
schools expected them to have the technical skills to use technology and teach lessons
that appropriately combined course content, technologies and teaching approaches.
Sixty-one percent of the participants disagreed when asked if their schools had no
expectation from them to use computers in teaching. And, little over half of the teachers
(53%) agreed that their schools expected them to continue using computers in teaching
despite having no support from DE field coordinators. There was another survey item
that highlighted school’s provision. Over half of the teachers responded that their
schools provided professional development training in computer use for teachers along
with providing maintenance of computer-related technologies. Though, around three-
143
fourth of teachers said that their schools did not provide any incentives/rewards for the
use of computers in teaching.
Inspiration and Barriers for Teachers in Using Technologies
Both inspiration and barriers for teachers in using computer-related technologies
in classrooms were analyzed to find out themes reported by the participants which
impacted their use of computers in teaching and learning. Below are the descriptions of
both the factors.
Inspiration for Teachers to Use Computer-Related Technologies in Teaching
The teachers in this study narrated factors that inspired them to use computer-
related technologies in their teaching. The most common theme recorded was that
students were more motivated and enthusiastic during the technology-enabled classes.
They seemed to enjoy learning and paid more attention to teachers. A teacher stated, ‘It
makes teaching and learning easy and interesting and students enjoy learning. It helps
students participate pro-actively during discussions. It improves knowledge retention. It
encourages individual learning.’
The digital content were said to be innovative, interesting and apt for lesson
planning. Teachers stated that syllabus related materials were on YouTube and other
online medium. Many said that the topics of science which were difficult to explain orally
could easily be taught with the help of computers.
Students were also attracted with the visual aids used during the class. Learning
by visualizing helped students a lot in enhancing their learning capacity. In a lecture
method, students primarily used listening as their major sense. When computers were
introduced in teaching, more senses have been involved for better understanding.
Active discussion and demonstration took place in classrooms.
144
Some teachers wrote that it was not just the students’ interest but their own
interest as well to create more effective teaching environment in their class. A teacher
commented, ‘In DE program, English Helper and Macmillan software helped me a lot.
The technology has really changed my teaching-learning process.’ These technologies
have created a more efficient, reliable, and convenient ways of learning. It has changed
the way teaching was initiated in government schools. It introduced creative and
entertaining activities in the Indian education sector. A teacher remarked, ‘Almost all
work and tasks are computer based and online these days. Apt knowledge of computer-
related technologies is thus a necessity.’
These tools have been significant in improving the performance of slow learners
as well. Three-fourth of the teachers reported no difference between girls vs. boys in
using computer-related technologies in their class. Teachers stay motivated to use
technology when their students benefitted directly from its use.
Barriers for Teachers to Use Technology in Teaching
The teachers in this study listed different responses when asked to mention
about the barriers to using technology on a regular basis. One of the major problems
highlighted was scheduling conflicts to incorporate technology in teaching. Competing
demands such as time-bound weekly syllabus, adjusting several components within a
single period, and, taking class in computer rooms requiring prior scheduling in time-
table were reported. A teacher wrote, ‘…Because of time table which is already fixed,
we cannot make suitable arrangements or we cannot reschedule the classes.’ Another
teacher remarked, ‘In school, we have to manage our schedule according to daily
deadlines. We are not able to teach according to our plans. There are chores which
145
have to be completed then and there. Our syllabus would also lag behind if we give
extra time to students on computers.’
Lack of computer units was mentioned by the teachers. A teacher wrote as a
challenge, ‘Insufficient computers. Moreover, all available computers are not in working
condition.’
Another teacher said, ‘There is a separate classroom for computers. Computers
are not enough. There are problems with scheduling computer class for every subject.’
As not all the classrooms had computers, it resulted in longer duration to accommodate
all the students to have access to computers.
Internet access also posed as one of the big challenge for teachers.
Lack of computer knowledge was another set of barriers noted. Some teachers
also commented that it was difficult to manage traditional classes and technology
related lessons together. A teacher remarked, ‘…sometimes we can resonate better
without technology.’
Some of the specific problems encountered by the teachers of the Delhi
government schools were extra work load, shortage of time (for preparation and
implementation), lack of infrastructure (space problem), resources and support, power
interruption in schools, big class size, support from the school, insufficient training, lack
of content related to lessons, need for smart boards and Internet, involvement in non-
teaching activities, first generation learners of English language, old style teaching
ways, lack of coordination with other teachers, some students not taking technology
seriously, and expensive facilities.
146
C. Cross-Tabulations and Correlations
Teachers’ Knowledge and ICT Usage
The first cross -tabulation was computed between teachers’ knowledge (B6) and
the use of computer-related technologies category (E2). A cross -tabulation was created
on an aggregate value for each of the sub-items in both of the categories. An interaction
between them projected how the teachers with varied knowledge level used
technologies in their teaching. Table 4-17 shows the number of teachers with different
knowledge levels using computers in teaching with respect to different use levels.
Table 4-17. Teachers’ knowledge and their use (Knowledge*Use) of computer-related technologies
Use 1=
Never
2=Once in 6
months
3= Monthly
4= Weekly
5= Daily
Total
Knowledge
1=Nil 0 3 2 3 1 9
2=Low 0 8 33 36 1 78
3=Med 1 1 23 48 1 74
4=High 0 0 7 17 0 24
5=Expert 0 0 2 1 3 6
Total 1 12 67 105 6 191
The inter-relationship showed that the majority of teachers belonged to the low
and medium levels of ICT knowledge and almost half of them used computer-related
technologies at weekly basis and the other half used these at monthly basis. Sixteen
percent of teachers reported to possess high and expert level of ICT knowledge and
most of them also used computers in teaching at weekly basis followed by monthly
basis.
It was observed that teachers possessing any level of technological knowledge
exhibited weekly and monthly usage of computer-related technologies in teaching.
147
Teachers’ Attitude and ICT Usage
The next cross -tabulation was formulated between teachers’ attitude (C1) and
their ICT usage (E2). There were a few negatively toned sub-items which were reversed
for calculation. Aggregate value of the sub-items of both the variables were calculated
and compared for analysis. The inter-relationship between these two variables showed
how teachers’ attitude impacted their ICT use. Table 4-18 shows the number of
teachers with different attitude levels using computers in teaching at different use levels.
Table 4-18. Attitude and use (Attitude * Use) of computer-related technologies
Use 1=
Never
2=Once in 6
months
3= Monthly
4= Weekly
5= Daily
Total
Attitude
1= Strongly Disagree
0 0 0 0 0 0
2= Disagree
0 0 0 0 0 0
3= Neutral
0 8 5 16 1 30
4=Agree 1 4 56 66 2 129
5=Strongly Agree
0 0 6 23 3 32
Total 1 12 67 105 6 191
The cross -tabulation between these variables stated that there was no teacher
with negative attitude who used computer-related technologies in teaching. The majority
of teachers (129 out of 191) held positive attitude and half of them used computers at
weekly basis and the other half used at monthly basis. A few teachers who held neutral
and extremely positive (strongly agree) attitude also used technologies at a weekly
basis followed by some at monthly basis. What stood out was that most of the Indian
teachers had favorable attitude and used ICT both at the weekly and monthly level.
148
Teachers’ Decision and ICT Usage
Lastly, a cross -tabulation was conducted to see interaction between teachers’
decision (D1) and their ICT usage (E2). Aggregate values for both the variables were
computed while the negatively toned questions were reversed for appropriate analysis.
Table 4-19 shows the number of teachers with different decision levels using computers
in teaching with respect to different use levels.
Table 4-19. Teachers’ decision and ICT usage (Decision * Use)
1=
Never 2= Once in 6 months
3= Monthly
4= Weekly
5= Daily
Total
Decision
1=Strong Disagree
0 0 0 0 0 0
2=Disagree 0 0 0 1 0 1
3=Neutral 0 9 19 21 1 50
4=Agree 1 3 45 72 3 124
5=Strongly Agree
0 0 3 11 2 16
Total 1 12 67 105 6 191
The result of this cross -tabulation showed that again there was almost no
teacher who decided to strongly disagree/disagree to use computers in teaching.
Neither were there many teachers who had strongly agreed to use technologies and it
was found that most of those teachers had decided to use computer-related
technologies at weekly basis. Most of the teachers (140 out of 191) positively decided to
use computer-related technologies at weekly followed by monthly basis. Amongst those
teachers who were neutral in their decision to use technologies in teaching, almost half
of them used these at weekly level and the other half did it at monthly level. Most of the
teachers had favorably decided to use ICT in teaching and were using these on a
weekly basis.
149
Correlation Analysis
Spearman’s correlation was run on teachers’ knowledge, attitude and decision
research variables with their use of computers research variable respectively (See
Appendix O). Table 4-20 shows the correlations between these variables.
Table 4-20. Spearman's Rho Correlations of knowledge, attitude and decision with usage
Comparison Correlation Coefficient
P
Knowledge vs. Usage .239** 0.001
Attitude vs. Usage .207** 0.004
Decision vs. Usage .234** 0.001
N = 191
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
The correlation coefficient was .239 amongst teachers’ knowledge and their
usage; .207 amongst teachers’ attitude and their usage; and, .234 amongst teachers’
decision to use computers and their usage in teaching. The p-value for all these three
interactions were smaller than the alpha value (0.01). These results suggested that
there existed statistically significant small to moderate positive correlation between
teachers’ knowledge and their usage; teachers’ attitude and their usage; and, their
decision and usage.
Summary of Cross-Tabulations and Correlations
Three sets of cross-tabs were computed namely, teachers’ knowledge and their
use of ICT; teachers’ attitude towards the use of ICT, and teachers’ decision and their
use of ICT. All these variables were analyzed in order to study teachers’ perspectives in
terms of factors including knowledge, attitude and decision to use computers in
teaching. The cross -tabulation for these categories expanded the understanding of the
relationship amongst the four variables. The results of cross tabulations showed that
150
technology usage was mostly at weekly followed at monthly basis amongst teachers
possessing any level of knowledge and having either positive or neutral attitude and
decision toward it.
The correlation analysis between the four variables (see Appendix O)
strengthened cross -tabulations findings as it was found that a positive relationship
existed between teachers’ knowledge, attitude and decision with their use of computer-
related technologies in teaching. There was only a small to moderate positive
correlation found amongst these variables which again supported the interactions found
in the cross tabulations. This also fell in line with Roger’s IDP model where the
variables- knowledge, attitude, decision and use were posited as the stages of
innovation where covariance among the set of variables existed, though without their
time order. It could be suggested from the correlations that an increase in the level of
teachers’ technological knowledge, attitude and decision could positively impact their
usage of computer-related technologies in their classroom teaching.
151
CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION
Summary of the Study
The responses of teachers who were participating in AIF’s technological
integration program in teaching and learning at government schools of Delhi, India were
studied in order to analyze their perception toward their use of computer-based
technologies in classrooms. Some of the major highlights which could be observed from
the analysis suggested that recently (especially in the last three years) a lot of the
teachers received technology advancement training and many started to use ICT in
their teaching. Broadly, teachers were at a medium level of technological skills and
knowledge and held a positive attitude toward integrating technologies in teaching. The
majority of the teachers had been using ICT on a weekly basis and had decided to
continue its use in future. Schools had been supportive toward teachers to continue
their exploration of technological use in teaching and learning.
No teacher ever denied the usefulness of computer-based technologies. The
participants were aware that there were teachers in their school who were integrating
technology in teaching. Most of them (94%) were aware that the DE program was a part
of 6th, 7th and 8th grade of their school and eighty-seven percent of them knew that the
program was being implemented in science, math, social studies and English. Teachers
perceived that technology was the need of the time and had been positively using these
resources with the assistance of AIF’s DE program.
152
Discussion
RQ1 – How Do Teachers Perceive their Skills and Knowledge on Computer-Related Technologies? As stated in previous sections of this study, teachers’ perceptions of their own
technological competence was measured in terms of their operational skills (basic
computer operation, Microsoft Word, Excel, and PPT), editing skills (picture, audio and
video editing) and online skills (browsing, downloading, uploading, use of websites, use
of OERs, and basic programming). Most of the teachers reported that they had
moderate operational and online skills but relatively low editing capability.
With regard to operational skills, the result suggested that most of the teachers
were moderately competent in basic technological operational skills. Many initial teacher
technological trainings have mostly focused on how to operate computers. About 70%
of the teachers in the study reported of receiving professional training on computer
operations, comparable to rates reported for teachers in private schools (Rastogi &
Malhotra, 2012; Upreti & KJ, 2011). Although this was encouraging, there were still
teachers in the study who reported having low skills in basic computer operations.
Looking at the results for online skills, the majority of the teachers reported
medium level of competence in browsing, downloading, uploading, using websites and
using OERs. Although the use of digital media in government school education is fairly
new in the Indian context, many of the teachers had received training on Digital
Equalizer Way of Teaching (DEWoT) and Flipped Classroom (FC) from AIF- DE
program. The AIF-DE program focused on working with teachers to harness the
potential of digital media to promote constructive knowledge, active learning and
enhanced innovation atmosphere (Kubricky & Castkova, 2015; Rodriguez, 2012).
153
On the other hand, most of the teachers reported having no competence in basic
programming, and low competence in picture, audio and video editing. Of the three,
teachers reported possessing maximum skill in picture editing followed by video and
then audio editing. This is not surprising because to date programming and editing have
not been the focus of teacher training.
RQ2 – What are Teachers’ Attitudes about Computer-Related Practices?
The survey results suggested that about three-quarters of the teachers had a
positive view of the use of technologies in classroom while the rest of the teachers
mostly remained neutral rather than negative. Most of the teachers had positive views
about computers although their own skills were moderate. This is encouraging because
their positive attitude suggests that teachers will be receptive to additional training to
build their skills (Lal, 2014; Huang & Liaw, 2005, Moon & Kim, 2001; Johnson & Hignite,
2000).
Almost all of the teachers in this study held more favorable attitudes toward the
concept of ICT use in education in comparison to what they felt about their teaching
experiences with technologies in education. There have been several barriers reported
by the teachers which they faced with the use of computers in teaching that hampered
their technological integration experiences in teaching.
RQ3 – What Decisions do Teachers Make to Use Computers for Teaching?
The findings from the study indicated that the teachers of the Delhi government
schools who were part of the DE program in classroom education had favorably decided
to use computers in teaching. There were five sub-items in the survey which focused on
whether teachers had decided to use, or increase, or not use technology in their
154
teaching. About three-quarters of teachers surveyed had evaluated their use of ICT;
planned to continue using ICT in their teaching; and, showed readiness to increase its
uses. There was only a small percentage (15 – 17%) of teachers who had used ICT and
later on decided to discontinue or had never considered integration of ICT in their
teaching.
RQ4 – How are Teachers Practicing Integration of ICT in Teaching?
Over half of the teachers reported to be using computer-related technologies on
a weekly basis. Although AIF field coordinators visited these schools on a weekly basis,
it is not known if the teachers were using ICTs when the field coordinators were present
or otherwise as well. The only technology being used on a daily basis was the use of
WhatsApp to communicate with other teachers via smartphones. Still, weekly usage
appears more frequent than in other schools. In a previous study, teachers of 20
randomly selected government schools in Delhi reported using computers
approximately once a month (Bhalla, 2013).
This study also suggested that around three-quarters of the teachers thought that
their schools expected them to implement technology in teaching. Half of the teachers
surveyed reported that technology integration would remain sustainable in the long run
even without the support from the DE field coordinators. It is an encouraging
assumption that teachers felt that their practice of integrating technologies in teaching
would continue in the future too. This showed that teachers had the motivation, will and
belief in the benefits of computers in teaching and were looking forward to continuing
this integration in the times to come.
155
Rogers’ Innovation-Decision Process (IDP) Framework
The theoretical framework of this study was based on Rogers’ IDP model. The
five stages of the IDP model included knowledge, persuasion, decision, implementation
and confirmation. The four research questions of this study analyzed teachers’
knowledge, attitude, decision and practice (implementation and confirmation) of
computer-related technologies in teaching. Rogers had proposed a cyclic movement
where an individual would obtain sufficient knowledge about the innovation so that one
would be persuaded to accept the innovation and practice it. The results suggest that
the teachers of the Delhi government schools who were part of the AIF-DE program
were fairly knowledgeable about ICT, viewed it positively, and had decided to accept it.
Schools where DE program was running were found to be supportive toward teachers’
use of technology. It was the second year of the AIF-DE program at these Delhi
government schools when the survey was distributed to the teachers. Teachers seemed
to be open to training to increase their technological knowledge level in order to ensure
efficient usage of computers in teaching.
Broad Implications
It could be postulated that AIF-DE program provided technological orientation
and guidance to teachers to harness the potential of digital media for enriching teaching
and learning experiences at schools. Mostly teachers had been interested in exploring
technology and were even open for new addition in teaching and learning. Valid and
reliable survey tools like the one created in this study could be referred and customized
for evaluation at frequent intervals.
156
Teachers reported having favorable attitude towards computer-based
technologies and this could be attributed to their formal training in computers and at the
same time could be influenced by the widespread increase of technologies in day-to-
day lives.
The majority of the teachers in this study possessed smartphone (76.4%) with
them. It would be significant to study teachers’ use of the easily available mobile apps
on the smartphones to see if these assist them in improving their digital creativity skills.
Olson & Eaton (1986) found that teachers responded to innovation if it was
directed at producing student learning or was directed at creating respect for self and
the subject. This study also strengthened the finding as almost all of the teachers felt
that computers integration in their classroom teaching had been beneficial for their
students. The teachers also reported absence of disparity between boys and girls in
innovative practices taking place at schools. The teachers were able to promote the
beneficial use of computers to their colleagues. This indicated that teachers’ positive
decision to use technologies in teaching could have been inspired from the learning
outcomes of their students and their own belief of ICT usage benefits. Program
implementing agencies like AIF need to motivate teachers about the act of ICT in
teaching- learning that offers more student-centered learning settings. This would
encourage teachers to accept and utilize ICTs even more in their educational
institutions.
There have been a number of studies which highlighted the need for increase in
ICT equipment in schools to ensure teachers’ use of technologies in teaching
(Anderson, 2002; Tondeur, Valcke & Van Braak, 2008; Sangra & Gonzalez-Sanmamed,
157
2010). This study also reinforced these findings in the context of Delhi government
schools where the teachers reported presence of only 5 to 10 computers on an average
along with the need for focused technological training as huge factors impacting the use
of computer-related technologies in classrooms. There have been day-to-day level
operational barriers faced by the teachers integrating the DE program in the Delhi
government schools which need to be resolved.
The education department of the Indian government has started awarding
teachers of the government schools for exemplary use of technologies in their teaching.
This is a novel beginning in the direction of recognition of teachers though the data
shows that the number of teachers allotted for recognition from each state has just been
a few. The teachers in this study reported lack of recognition and appreciation for the
use of technologies in teaching. It would be suggested to schools to recognize teachers'
noteworthy use of ICTs on a frequent basis. Monetary benefits are huge source of
motivation. In case if monetary incentives could not be awarded, even recognition of
teachers’ good work in staff meetings, notice boards or morning assembly would be a
great source of motivation for the teachers to continue practicing the innovation.
There is a need for techno-pedagogical inclusion by all the teachers, and, for all
the subjects. So far, technological integration was being practiced in math, science,
social studies and English. Students of all the subjects should benefit from technological
integration in teaching and learning. Also, students of all the classes from K- 12 and not
just of grade 6, 7 and 8th should reap the benefits of AIF-DE program.
Key Take Away and Recommendations
RQ1: Teachers of the Delhi government schools in this study reported to have moderate level of technological operational competence. Their online skill was at
158
medium level too despite digital media being fairly new in the Indian school education. Their editing skill was found to be mostly at nil level.
Efforts should be made towards making teachers’ techno-pedagogical skills at a
high/expert level to ensure effective technological integration. The majority of teachers
reported having received training in operating computers. However, their skill level did
not qualify for an advanced level. It is highly suggested to provide a more focused and
target-oriented teacher training to achieve the goal of advancement.
Digital media is significant in enhancing the quality of education and it can be
achieved through its pedagogical integration in teaching and learning (Bhat & Beri,
2016). To make teachers' online skills high, it would be recommended to share with
them about the digital resources available and train them on how to efficiently use these
resources in enriching their course content delivery.
The teachers reported a beginning toward the use of technological content in the
schools of Delhi but the creative use of technological teaching resources would come
with the advancement in their editing skills. Training on digital content creation would
provide the teachers with skills of digital storytelling, websites and blog creation, etc.
which could be strong mediums of expressions in teaching.
RQ2- Teachers were more positive about accepting the idea of technological integration in teaching compared to what they felt about their teaching experiences with technology.
In order to assist teachers have favorable experiences with technology, it would
be recommended that just teacher training program would not be sufficient. Some of the
frequently quoted barriers for teachers to use innovative technologies in this study have
been lack of hardware, lack of software, problems with finding enough time to learn
about computers, and scheduling conflicts with integrating lessons using computers. All
159
kinds of barriers in the school ecosystem have to be removed in order to make teachers
feel more confident and positive about their teaching experiences with computer-related
technologies.
RQ3- Teachers were exploring the use of ICT in their teaching. They wanted to continue and even increase technological integration in their classroom practices. Most of the teachers realized the benefits of the techno-pedagogical tools which they had been using as part of the DE program. They felt that computers integration in their classroom teaching had been beneficial for their students.
One of the most important and challenging issues in information system research
has been to understand why people accept or reject technology (Davis, Bagozzi &
Warshaw, 1989; Huang & Liaw, 2004). There could be different predictors like
perceived self-efficacy, anxiety, liking, usefulness, etc. to determine teachers’ decision
to use or not to use computer-related technologies in teaching. The teachers of this
study reported to have had favorably decided to use ICTs in classrooms.
Teachers in this study had shown interest in continuing and even increasing their
technological integration in their teaching. The teachers mentioned about their
immediately felt benefits of the techno-pedagogical integration in teaching. Research
has been conducted reinforcing the need for technology competent teaching. This
would encourage teachers’ will and desire to strengthen their consideration towards
application of ICTs in classrooms.
RQ4- Teachers were integrating technologies in teaching on a weekly basis. Their schools showed expectations from them in regard to usage of ICTs in classroom but did not provide any incentive/reward for the use of computers in teaching. There have been operational barriers to using technology on a regular basis.
Teachers should be assisted with tools to measure and monitor the changes
taking place in their teaching role when using computer-related technologies in
classrooms. It would be very significant to evaluate and monitor understanding, usage,
160
and progress. Evaluation of their technological use and integration would be a helpful
exercise for the teachers to further analyze its pros and cons in classroom practices.
The teachers in this study reported that technological integration in classroom
practices also depended on school leadership. There is a need for a continuous ICT
integration training not just for the teachers but also for the school administrators so that
they can understand the benefits and challenges associated with ICT integration in
teaching.
At the school institutional level, it would be recommended to involve teachers in
the decision-making process of how to effectively integrate technology in teaching. As
this is a fairly new innovative practice being promoted in Delhi public schools, teachers’
involvement in preparing how to monitor and evaluate the program would not just give
them ownership but at the same time would ensure better implementation of the
program.
Summary of Recommendations
There is a lot to be done to increase the ICT integration in school education
which can be achieved by continued focus from all the stakeholders involved in
education. There is a huge need for a targeted technological teacher training in order to
assist integration of educational technologies within classroom curriculum. In fact, until
teachers are provided with sustainable training in ICT- enabled teaching pedagogies
and methodologies and until lack of technological infrastructural resources are met, not
much change can be envisioned. Teachers envisage computer-related technologies to
change the paradigm of teaching and learning. Availability of Internet in the Indian
government schools is still very limited. Broadband and Internet facilities have to spread
out massively to be explored and exploited for educational purposes. Although, the
161
increasing accessibility of smartphones and mobile devices have revolutionalized
technological access to the teachers at a level which had never been witnessed before.
Also, the new technology and services which schools adopt need to be evaluated at
short intervals.
Conclusions
Application of ICT in teaching and learning in Indian classrooms is a recent
phenomenon despite the fact that government paid attention to it since several decades
while technological integration in education was receiving global attention. There
existed several challenges for the program implementation. Many private players
emerged in the education sector with liberalization and globalization taking place in
India in the1990s and 2000s. Still, not much could be done alone by the
private/developmental organizations as the Central and the state government have
control on about 75% of schools in India which are government/government-aided
schools. Hence, an emergent trend in the Indian schools had been public-private
partnership where the private implementing agencies partner with public institutes for
shared responsibilities of program implementation, monitoring and evaluation. This
research analyzed how teachers of the government schools of Delhi perceived
technological integration in their classroom practices, as being part of DE program run
by America India Foundation, an international developmental organization. This study is
significant for both government schools and AIF as it presents results from the
perspectives of the teachers who are the main players in successful implementation of
technological program. The government schools gave approval and AIF came out with
the DE program to be implemented at these schools. But if the teachers don’t perceive
of running this program as significant then this could lead to failure of the innovative
162
practice. This research focused on teachers’ perspectives to analyze what were their
knowledge, attitudes, decisions and practice toward technological integration in
government schools. All the stakeholders involved in ICT integration in teaching and
learning should learn from this research about teachers’ position in their understanding
and commitment to implement such innovative practice in classrooms.
A valid and reliable survey instrument has been created as a part of this
research. The instrument was adapted from existing literature and was contextualized in
the Indian classroom scenario. This survey can be used to study similar investigations
in different schools. A comparative study of ICT integration in all the schools at the
national level would be recommended using this survey instrument.
In this study, a little over half of the teachers reported to have medium level of
technological skills and three-fourth of them mentioned of having positive attitude,
deciding to use technology, and practicing computer-based technologies on a weekly
basis. Previous research have mentioned that teachers’ knowledge and attitudes toward
use of ICT in classrooms hold utmost significance for its proper integration. As per the
results of this study, all the educational stakeholders working in the direction of
technological integration in the Indian classrooms should notice that even after receiving
professional development training, it’s just about half of the teachers implementing ICT
who had medium level of technological knowledge and the next closest number of
teachers possessed low level of technological knowledge. The results also showed that
majority of the teachers thought highly about the concept of technological integration in
education though there existed huge scope to enhance their views and opinions by
working on providing them favorable experiences with the use of computer-related
163
technologies in their teaching activities. Also, even with teachers’ use of computer-
related technology in classrooms, this study projected just little over half of the
participants to be using technologies in teaching on a weekly basis and the next closest
number of teachers were at the monthly usage level. These results about the
knowledge, attitude and technological use of teachers from this study strongly suggest
to program implementing agencies to hold focused and specific technological teacher
training programs to ensure that teachers’ knowledge and attitude advance
exponentially which could lead to stronger integration of ICT in classrooms.
Fullan (1985) suggested three phases in the field of planned educational change.
Those were adoption, implementation and institutionalization. It could be interpreted
from this research that the Indian government schools’ teachers, by being a part of the
technological integration program and receiving weekly support by AIF coordinators
were at a stage where they could be said to be adopting the program and moving in the
next direction of implementation stage where they would run the program with their own
motivation and felt-need requirements. There is still a long way to go but the pace of
expansion of integration is really fast and needs to be studied.
164
APPENDIX A 1ST DRAFT OF THE SURVEY INSTRUMENT SHARED WITH EXPERT REVIEWERS
Initial Survey Instrument
For the purpose of this survey, Information and Communications Technology (ICT) is referring to all the digital technologies- that is, computers, laptops, printers, handhelds, interactive whiteboards, software programs, etc. that teachers use for instructional purposes in schools. It will be commonly referred as computers and computer-related technologies in this survey. Please answer all of the questions.
I. Information about ICT available for teacher use Accessibility of computers and computer-related technologies
Instruction: This section includes questions about the accessibility of computer-related technologies for you. Please mark the option which best answers the question for you or fill in the blank. 1) Do you currently have a computer in your home which you use?
□ Yes □ No
2) Do you currently have a tablet in your home which you use? □ Yes □ No
3) Do you currently have a smart phone which you use? □ Yes
□ No 4) Do you have access to computers for instructional use in your school?
□ Always □ Sometimes □ Not often □ Rarely □ Never
5) Do you have access to Internet for instructional use in your school? □ Always □ Sometimes □ Not often □ Rarely □ Never
6) Which types of computer-related hardware is available for instructional use in your school? (Circle all that apply)
□ Desktop □ Laptop □ Tablet □ Interactive White Board □ LCD Projector □ Printer □ VCD/DVD □ Local Area Network (LAN)
165
□ Wi-Fi hotspot □ Any other (specify)
____________________________________________________________ 7) Do you have computer-related software available for instructional use in your school?
□ Yes □ No □ Don’t know
If yes, of all the computer software programs you have used for instructional purposes, please list the name of three programs you use most often. _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
8) Where are the computers and computer-related technologies designated for instructional uses located in your school? (Circle all that apply)
□ In computer lab(s) □ In classrooms □ In library □ In staff room □ On a portable cart □ Any other (specify) ____________________________________________________________
II. Teachers’ knowledge/skills toward ICT integration A.) Recall of information Instruction: Please mark the option which best answers the question for you or fill in the blank. 9) Have you participated in any computer-related technologies in-service training/workshop/ course?
□ Yes □ No
10) If yes to the above question, which statement best describes the in-service training you receive in regard to technological devices?
□ Specific device skills training (training on specific applications) □ Curriculum integration (how to integrate successfully) □ A combination of skills training and curriculum integration □ Something else (specify) ________________________________________________________
□ Not applicable 11) In what computer-related technologies have you received in-service instruction? (Circle all that apply)
□ Computer based instruction (e.g., drill and practice, tutorials, simulations) □ Computer tools (e.g., word processor, database, spreadsheet) □ Telecommunications/Distance Learning □ Programming
166
□ Web 2.0/multimedia □ Computer hardware (Troubleshooting) □ Examples of integration into specific curriculum areas □ Any other (specify) ____________________________________________________________ □ Not applicable
12) Do you think that an adequate number of ICT in-service training/workshop/ course have been available to teachers in your school?
□ Yes □ No
13) In general, have you been able to find ICT in service opportunities appropriate for your needs?
□ Yes □ No
14) To your knowledge, does your school have a technology plan? □ Yes □ No □ Don't know
15) What has been your school focus toward use of ICT in classrooms? □ Use ICT extensively □ Use ICT sometimes □ Use ICT rarely □ Never use ICT □ Use ICT when needed □ Any other (specify) ____________________________________________________________ B.) Comprehension of messages Instruction: Please rate your understanding on the rating scale of Strongly Disagree = SD Disagree = D Neither Agree/Disagree = N Agree = A Strongly Agree = SA. Please mark the option which best answers the question for you. 16) What has been your school’s focus toward your integration of ICT in classroom teaching?
SD D N A SA
I should have the technical skills to use technology □ □ □ □ □
I should know about technologies that I can use for understanding and doing my course content. □ □ □ □ □
I should be able to choose technologies that enhance the teaching approaches for a lesson □ □ □ □ □
I should be able to teach lessons that appropriately combine my course content, technologies, and teaching approaches □ □ □ □ □
167
C.) Knowledge or skill for effective adoption of ICT Instruction: Please rate your level of competency toward each on the below categories on the rating scale of Low, Moderate, High. Please mark the option which best answers the question for you. 17) What is your competency level in the following categories?
Low Medium High
Basic computer operation skill □ □ □
Knowledge of Software application □ □ □
Computer hardware □ □ □
Microsoft Word □ □ □
Microsoft Excel □ □ □
Microsoft Power Point □ □ □
Video Editing Tool □ □ □
Picture Editing Tool □ □ □
Audio Editing Tool □ □ □
Surfing on Internet □ □ □
Making/Operating Educational Blogs □ □ □
Use of Open Educational Resources □ □ □
Basic programming skills □ □ □
Use of Internet □ □ □
III. Teachers’ attitudes about available ICT
D.) Liking the ICT practices Instruction: Please rate your liking toward ICT practices on the rating scale of Strongly Disagree = SD Disagree = D Neither Agree/Disagree = N Agree = A Strongly Agree = SA 18) How would you rate your liking toward ICT in your school?
SD D N A SA
I like learning about computers □ □ □ □ □
Working with a computer makes me feel tense and uncomfortable □ □ □ □ □
I think computers make my professional work more difficult □ □ □ □ □
Computer-related technologies are an important part of the future for improving the quality of education □ □ □ □ □
E.) Discussion of the new behavior with others Instruction: Please rate the question on the rating scale of Strongly Disagree = SD Disagree = D Neither Agree/Disagree = N Agree = A Strongly Agree = SA 19) Please rate whether you discuss about ICT practices with others or not.
SD D N A SA
I like to talk to others about teaching with computers □ □ □ □ □
168
F.) Acceptance of the message about ICT Instruction: Please rate the following categories on the rating scale of Strongly Disagree = SD Disagree = D Neither Agree/Disagree = N Agree = A Strongly Agree = SA 20) How would you rate your acceptance of ICT practices in your school?
SD D N A SA
It is fun to figure out how computers work □ □ □ □ □
Computers are necessary tools in both educational and work settings □ □ □ □ □
Computers can be useful instructional aids in almost all subject areas □ □ □ □ □
Teaching with the help of a black board is the only way to teach effectively □ □ □ □ □
G.) Formation of a positive image of ICT Instruction: Please answer the following semantic differential questions. Choose one location between each adjective pair to indicate how you feel about computers. 21) How would you rate your image of ICT practices in your school?
“To me, using computers for my professional productivity is.”
Exciting □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Unexciting
Appealing □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Unappealing
Fascinating □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Mundane
“For my students, using computers in the classroom is.”
Exciting □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Unexciting
Appealing □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Unappealing
Fascinating □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Mundane
H.) Support for the innovative behavior from the system Instruction: Please mark the option which best answers the question for you or fill in the blank. 22) Do you feel your school helps you to integrate technology effectively in your curriculum?
□ Yes □ No
23) Do you feel rewarded by your school when you integrate ICT into classroom practices?
□ Yes □ No
24) Please share how your school has supported you in adopting ICT practices in teaching.
169
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
IV. Teacher self-reports of ICT adoption/rejection I.) Intention to seek additional information about ICT Instruction: Please answer the below categories on the rating scale of Strongly Disagree = SD Disagree = D Neither Agree/Disagree = N Agree = A Strongly Agree = SA 25) How would you rate your intention to seek information about ICT?
SD D N A SA
I would like to know how my role will change when I am using computer-related technologies □ □ □ □ □
I would like to know the effect of use of ICT on my professional status □ □ □ □ □
I would like to know what resources are available if we decide to adopt the computer-related technologies □ □ □ □ □
I would like to have more information on time and energy commitments required by the computer-related technologies □ □ □ □ □
I would like to know what other teachers are doing in this area □ □ □ □ □
I would like to know how computer-related technologies is better than what we have now □ □ □ □ □
J.) Intention to try ICT Instruction: Please answer the below categories on the rating scale of 0- never; 1- rarer than once a month; 2- monthly; 3- weekly; 4- almost daily 26) How would you rate your intention to try ICT?
How interested are you in using ICT in your teaching activity? 0 1 2 3 4
Do you intend to use ICT in your teaching activity? 0 1 2 3 4
V. Teacher self-reports on their technology use K.) Acquisition of additional information about ICT Instruction: Please answer the below categories on the rating scale of Strongly Disagree = SD Disagree = D Neither Agree/Disagree = N Agree = A Strongly Agree = SA 27) Have you already acquired information about ICT integration in classroom?
SD D N A SA
I know how my role has changed when I am using computer-related technologies □ □ □ □ □
170
I know the effect of use of ICT on my professional status □ □ □ □ □
I know what resources are available when we have adopted the computer-related technologies □ □ □ □ □
I have information on time and energy commitments required by the computer-related technologies □ □ □ □ □
I have come to know what other teachers are doing in this area □ □ □ □ □
I know how computer-related technologies is better than what we have now □ □ □ □ □
L.) Use of ICT on a regular basis Instruction: Please answer the below categories on the rating scale of 0- never; 1- rarer than once a month; 2- monthly; 3- weekly; 4- almost daily 28) How frequently do you use ICT?
On average how often do you use a computer for your work? 0 1 2 3 4
On average how often do you email to communicate with students? 0 1 2 3 4
On average how often do you email to communicate with colleagues? 0 1 2 3 4
On average how often do you print teaching materials? 0 1 2 3 4
On average how often do you use computers in classrooms for teaching? 0 1 2 3 4
On average how often do you use presentation programs (e.g., PowerPoint) in classes? 0 1 2 3 4
On average how often do you use video projectors in classes? 0 1 2 3 4
On average how often do you ask students to consult Internet materials for your classes? 0 1 2 3 4
On average how often do you use the Internet to prepare your classes? 0 1 2 3 4
On average how often do you use Web 2.0 tools (e.g., Wiki, Blog, YouTube, FB, Twitter) for your classes? 0 1 2 3 4
On average how often do you use e-learning platforms (e.g., Moodle, Blackboard, etc.) for your classes? 0 1 2 3 4
171
M.) Continued use of ICT Instruction: Please mark the option which best answers the question for you or fill in the blank. 29) Have you been able to use computers and computer-related technologies in teaching on a continuous basis? □ Yes □ No □ Any other (specify): ____________________________________________________________
VI. Teacher self-reports on confirmation of ICT use N.) Recognition of the benefits of using ICT Instruction: Please mark the option which best answers the question for you or fill in the blank. 30) Do you feel ICT integration in your classroom teaching has been beneficial for your students? □ Yes □ No □ Have not reached this stage □ Any other (specify): ____________________________________________________________ O.) Integration of ICT into teacher’s ongoing routine Instruction: Please mark the option which best answers the question for you or fill in the blank. 31) Have you been able to integrate ICT use in your teaching routine? □ Yes □ No □ Have not reached this stage □ Any other (specify): ____________________________________________________________ Instruction: Please answer the below categories on the rating scale of 0- never; 1- rarer than once a month; 2- monthly; 3- weekly; 4- almost daily 32) How would you envision ICT integration in the coming days?
How interested are you in using ICT in your teaching activity in the future? 0 1 2 3 4
How probable do you think it is that within the next five years you would use ICT significantly more in your teaching activity? 0 1 2 3 4
P.) Promotion of ICT to others Instruction: Please mark the option which best answers the question for you or fill in the blank. 33) Have you been able to promote the beneficial use of ICT to your colleagues?
□ Yes
172
□ No □ Have not reached this stage □ Any other (specify): ____________________________________________________________
VII. Demographic Information Teacher background information Direction: Please mark the option which best answers the question or fill in the blank. 34) What is the highest level of your education?
□ 12th pass □ Bachelors □ Masters □ PhD
35) What is your gender? □ Female □ Male
36) What is your age? __________________________________________________________________ 37) How many years have you been teaching? _______________________________________________ 38) What is the primary language that you teach in?
□ English □ Hindi □ Other (Please specify) ________________________________________________________
39) Which subject do you primarily teach? □ Math □ Science □ English □ Hindi □ Social Studies □ Computers/Media □ Fine Arts □ Other ___________________________________________________________
40) What is the average class size that you teach? □ Less than 20 students □ 20-30 students □ 30-40 students □ 40-50 students □ 50-60 students □ More than 60 students
Thank you for your participation!
173
APPENDIX B DRAFT 2 OF THE SURVEY BASED ON EXPERT REVIEW
Initial Survey Instrument For the purpose of this survey, Information and Communications Technology (ICT) refers to all the digital technologies- that is, computers, laptops, projectors, printers, handhelds, interactive whiteboards, software programs, etc. that teachers use for instructional purposes in schools. It will be commonly referred to as computers and computer-related technologies in this survey. Please answer all of the questions.
I. Information about ICT available for teacher use
Instruction: This section includes questions about the availability of computer-related technologies for you. Please mark the option which best answers the question for you or fill in the blank. 1) Which of these technologies do you have in your home which you use? (Circle all that apply)
□ Desktop Computer □ Laptop □ Tablet □ Smart Phone
□ Printer □ VCD/DVD □ Internet □ None
□ Any other (specify):
2) Which of these technologies do you have in your school which you use? (Circle all that apply)
□ Desktop Computer
□ Laptop □ Tablet □ Projector
□ Interactive White Board (Smart board)
□ Printer □ VCD/DVD □ Internet (LAN /Server)
□ Any other (specify):
3) Where are the computers and computer-related technologies designated for instructional uses located in your school? (Circle all that apply)
□ In computer/ICT lab(s) □ In classrooms □ In the library □ In staff rooms □ On a portable cart □ Any other (specify) _____________________________________________________
II. Teachers’ knowledge/skills toward ICT integration
Instruction: Please mark the option which best answers the question for you or fill in the blank. 4) In what computer-related technologies have you received in-service instruction? (Circle all that apply)
□ Computer based instruction (e.g., drill and practice, tutorials, simulations) □ Computer tools (e.g., word processor, database, spreadsheet) □ Telecommunications/Distance Learning □ Programming
174
□ Web 2.0/multimedia □ Computer hardware (troubleshooting) □ Examples of integration into specific curriculum areas □ Any other (specify) _____________________________________________________ □ Not applicable
5) Would you be interested in more in-service ICT training opportunities? □ Yes □ No
6) In general, have you been able to find ICT in-service opportunities appropriate for your needs?
□ Yes □ No
7) To your knowledge, does your school have a policy on technology integration in teaching practices?
□ Yes □ No
8) What has been your school focus toward use of ICT in classrooms? □ Use ICT extensively □ Use ICT sometimes □ Use ICT rarely □ Never use ICT □ Any other (specify) _____________________________________________________ 9) What has been your school’s focus toward your integration of ICT in classroom teaching? Instruction: Please rate your understanding on the rating scale of Strongly Disagree = SD Disagree = D Neither Agree/Disagree = N Agree = A Strongly Agree = SA. Please mark the option which best answers the question for you.
SD D N A SA
My school expects me to have the technical skills to use technology □ □ □ □ □
My school expects me to teach lessons that appropriately combine my course content, technologies, and teaching approaches □ □ □ □ □
10) Do you feel your school helps you to integrate technology effectively in your curriculum?
□ Yes □ No
11) Do you feel rewarded by your school when you integrate ICT into classroom practices?
□ Yes □ No
12) Please share how your school has supported you in adopting ICT practices in teaching.
175
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 13) What is your competency level in the following categories? Instruction: Please rate your level of competency toward each of the categories below on the rating scale of Low, Moderate, High.
Low Medium High
Basic computer operation skill □ □ □
Microsoft Word □ □ □
Microsoft Excel □ □ □
Microsoft Power Point □ □ □
Video Editing Tool □ □ □
Picture Editing Tool □ □ □
Audio Editing Tool □ □ □
Browsing the Internet □ □ □
Making/Operating Educational Blogs □ □ □
Use of Open Educational Resources (e.g. Wiki, ebooks) □ □ □
Basic programming skills □ □ □
III. Teachers’ attitudes about available ICT 14) Please rate the following items related to your attitudes about ICT. Instruction: Please rate your attitudes about ICT practices on the rating scale of Strongly Disagree = SD Disagree = D Neither Agree/Disagree = N Agree = A Strongly Agree = SA
SD D N A SA
Working with ICT tools makes me feel tense and uncomfortable □ □ □ □ □
I think ICT makes my professional work more difficult □ □ □ □ □
Computer-related technologies are an important part of the future for improving the quality of education □ □ □ □ □
I like to talk to others about teaching with ICT □ □ □ □ □
ICT are necessary tools in both educational and work settings □ □ □ □ □
ICT can be useful instructional aids in almost all subject areas □ □ □ □ □
Teaching with the help of a black board is the only way to teach effectively □ □ □ □ □
To me, using ICT for my professional productivity is exciting □ □ □ □ □
176
For my students, using ICT in the classroom is exciting □ □ □ □ □
IV. Teacher self-reports of ICT adoption/rejection
15) How would you rate your decision to use ICT for instructional purposes? Instruction: Please answer the below categories on the rating scale of Strongly Disagree = SD Disagree = D Neither Agree/Disagree = N Agree = A Strongly Agree = SA
SD D N A SA
I plan to use ICT in my teaching activity □ □ □ □ □
I am interested in increasing my use of ICT in my teaching activity □ □ □ □ □
V. Teacher self-reports on their technology use
16) Please rate your information regarding ICT use in classroom Instruction: Please answer the below categories on the rating scale of Strongly Disagree = SD Disagree = D Neither Agree/Disagree = N Agree = A Strongly Agree = SA
SD D N A SA
I know how my teaching role has changed when I am using computer-related technologies □ □ □ □ □
I know that using computer-related technologies require extra time commitments □ □ □ □ □
I have come to know what other teachers are doing in this area □ □ □ □ □
17) How frequently do you use ICT? Instruction: Please answer the below categories on the rating scale of 0- never; 1- rarer than once a month; 2- monthly; 3- weekly; 4- almost daily
On average, how often do you use a computer for your job? 0 1 2 3 4
On average, how often do you use technologies that you have at home for schoolwork (e.g., smart phone, tablet) 0 1 2 3 4
On average, how often do you email to communicate with students? 0 1 2 3 4
On average, how often do you email to communicate with colleagues? 0 1 2 3 4
On average, how often do you print teaching materials? 0 1 2 3 4
On average, how often do you use computers in classrooms for teaching? 0 1 2 3 4
On average, how often do you use presentation programs (e.g., PowerPoint) in classes? 0 1 2 3 4
On average, how often do you use video projectors in classes? 0 1 2 3 4
177
On average, how often do you ask students to consult Internet materials for your classes? 0 1 2 3 4
On average, how often do you use the Internet to prepare your classes? 0 1 2 3 4
On average, how often do you use Web 2.0 tools (e.g., Wiki, Blog, YouTube, FB, Twitter) for your classes? 0 1 2 3 4
On average, how often do you use e-learning platforms (e.g., Moodle, Blackboard, etc.) for your classes? 0 1 2 3 4
18) Have you been able to use computers and computer-related technologies in teaching on a continuous basis in your current position? □ Yes □ No □ Any other (specify): _____________________________________________________ 19) Please mention what are the barriers to using technology on a regular basis (e.g., not enough computers, scheduling conflicts, power/internet access problems, lack of support/repair services, etc.) ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 20) If applicable, please mention what have been the motivating factors which have led to using ICT more than what you had been doing before? ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
VI. Teacher self-reports on confirmation of ICT use
21) Do you feel ICT integration in your classroom teaching has been beneficial for your students? □ Yes □ No □ Any other (specify): _____________________________________________________ 22) Have you been able to integrate ICT use in your teaching routine? □ Yes □ No □ Any other (specify): _____________________________________________________ 23) Have you been able to promote the beneficial use of ICT to your colleagues?
□ Yes □ No
178
□ Any other (specify): _____________________________________________________
VII. Demographic Information 24) What is the highest level of your education?
□ 12th pass □ Bachelors □ Masters □ PhD
25) What is your gender? □ Female □ Male
26) What is your age? __________________________________________________________ 27) How many years have you been teaching? ______________________________________ 28) What is the primary language that you teach in?
□ English □ Hindi □ Other (Please specify) _________________________________________________
29) Which subject do you primarily teach? □ Math □ Science □ English □ Hindi □ Social Studies □ Computers/Media □ Fine Arts □ Other ________________________________________________________________
30) What is the average class size that you teach? □ Less than 20 students □ 20-30 students □ 30-40 students □ 40-50 students □ 50-60 students □ More than 60 students
Thank you for your participation!
179
APPENDIX C COGNITIVE INTERVIEW WITH TEACHER A
Ms. Jasjeet Kaur (name changed) was a middle school Computer teacher at a New Delhi government school. The Principal of the school had made an announcement for Ms. Kaur to come to the Principal’s room from a hand set which was next to her chair. In about five minute’s time, Ms. Kaur came in the office. The Principal requested both the researcher and the teacher to sit on the couch at the back side of her office and conduct the cognitive interview. In order to break the ice, I informed her about myself and my research and asked her about her experience of working with technology in her current job. She explained to me that she had recently taken a class on the solar system for 7th std. students using the interactive white board and the e-content which has been shared with the teachers. The educational contents were stored in the computers in both English and Hindi languages. E-content of four subjects i.e., Math, Science, Social Science and English were put on the computers in the schools. She informed the researcher that teachers were still getting acquainted with the electronic content. As a teacher proficient in use of computers, she has already explored the electronic content. She mentioned about the in-built lesson plans which are already there to assist teachers in preparing for their classes. The software also has the feature for the teachers to create their own lesson plan. She also informed that each class is for 40 minutes but so far the ICT based classes have been only for 10-15 minutes of the initial class time. When asked about the medium of teaching in the school, the teacher informed that out of the five sections of each class, one section is run in English medium and the other four sections are in Hindi medium. She informed that as teachers will become comfortable with ICT with training and usage, the time of use of ICT in classrooms will also increase slowly.
I explained to the teacher about the cognitive interview process and requested her to read aloud the survey questionnaire and pause wherever she had any confusion or had to raise any concern. I gave the copy of the survey draft to the teacher, and she started to read the draft in a low voice. By the time she reached the third sentence of the beginning paragraph, she had gained some confidence. I kept taking notes as Ms. Kaur read and stopped with her comments.
On item no.2, she said wi-fi option could be given. On item no. 4, IT room can be an option. At many government schools, the
computer room is different from the IT room. She showed agreement by her tone and nodding of head wherever she felt the
items were clear. She would also give examples of how things are clear to her. For example, she mentioned on item no. 5 that their Principal Mam had discussed the software and hardware of tools with the teachers.
On item no. 14, she mentioned that the word ‘competency’ might not be easy for all the teachers to understand. That may be replaced by the word ‘skill’.
On coming to the item no. 15, the teacher appreciated the visual box for the ease of understanding of the content. ‘Visuals are very helpful’, mentioned the teacher. One of the sub-item under item no. 15 included the word ‘black board’. She specified that it is not clear. She suggested to replace it with traditional method/ chalk and board.
She continued reading the rest of the survey draft and kept re-affirming the items as she found them clear to understand. When I asked her about the ease of the survey
180
for the teachers, she said that the survey is clear and should be fine for the teachers to fill it up. She also mentioned that most of the teachers in government schools are comfortable in the Hindi language. But if the survey is written in simple and non-technical English language then it should be fine for the teachers to fill it up. I thanked Ms. Kaur for her taking out time to do the cognitive interview.
181
APPENDIX D COGNITIVE INTERVIEW WITH TEACHER B
Ms. Manisha (name changed) was the second participant for the cognitive interview. She was an English teacher in senior secondary section. I had a discussion with the Principal of the school on the scenario of ICT in her school. She then announced for two teachers to come in the Vice Principal room which was empty. The cognitive interviews could be held there. I waited in the room for the teacher to come. Ms. Manisha came in the room. I introduced myself and my research and explained to her about the process of the cognitive interview. The teacher informed that she had once participated in filling a survey questionnaire and had found it relevant. After settling in, I gave her the copy of the survey draft to read it aloud and talk out whatever comes to her mind.
On introduction paragraph, the teacher stopped on the very first line of the description and stated that ICT is not a very common term. The more commonly known term amongst teachers is computer technology.
On item 2, the teacher paused for a few seconds and mentioned that they also have a TV in their hall. ‘We use the TV for the students to hear Modi’s (the Prime Minister of India) speech addressed to the youngsters’, said the teacher. She also informed that they were also using recorders for ASL and English spoken activity.
On item 3 which was about the access of technologies to teachers on a scale of 0 to 4, the teacher said that this sounds similar to item 2. She suggested that I may merge the two items together.
On the option listings of item 4, she mentioned that portable cart is not yet relevant in the Indian context.
The teacher stopped on the option listing of item 5 and mentioned that she is not able to understand what ‘telecommunication/Distance Learning’ meant.
She continued reading the items and the options aloud affirming that those were clear to understand. When she reached item no. 14, I asked her if the term ‘competency’ will be clear for teachers to comprehend. She said that it is fine despite being a little technical term. She also mentioned that usually they terms and questions should be fine for young teachers. Old teachers are completely ignorant of the technical terms.
On item 15, while listing out the sub-items, she mentioned that sub-items 1 and 2 sound very similar. ‘You might want to have just one of the two’, said the teacher.
On item 18, the teacher asked me, ‘what do you mean by e-learning platform?’ Though the sub-item had examples listed, she could not understand it. I explained to her about the concept. The teacher mentioned that e-learning platform has not been integrated in the schools in India. ‘Probably, higher education institutes and professors might be aware of it’, said the teacher.
There were a few items which the teacher re-read twice to better understand the question and then said ‘okay’ before moving on to the next item. On item 25, the teacher suggested that we can divide the item into two separate questions - one can be on academic qualification of teachers and second can be on their professional qualification. She suggested that some of the listings under professional qualification can include- B.Ed, M.Ed, Computer-related Diplomas/ Certificate/ courses.
182
At the end, I asked if there’s any suggestion if she would want to make. To this the teacher responded that if feasible, the survey should be bilingual. Teachers might be more comfortable with survey in the Hindi language. On asking whether a survey link sent on whatsApp will be filled out or not, she said that it’s tricky. But she said with certainty that most of the teachers will be comfortable filling out a paper survey. I thanked the teacher for her time and participation!
183
APPENDIX E COGNITIVE INTERVIEW WITH TEACHER C
Ms. Soni (name changed) was the third teacher for the cognitive interview of the draft survey questionnaire. She was a Geography teacher of the senior secondary section in the same government school where teacher B was. Once Ms. Manisha completed her interview session, she went outside and informed Ms. Soni to go to the Vice-Principal’s office for the interview. Ms. Soni entered the office in a couple of minutes and greeted the researcher. I introduced myself and the research. Both the researcher and the teacher struck a casual conversation which helped each of them to understand their work and get comfortable in undertaking a cognitive interview process. The teacher excitedly said that the best part of technology is for the map work. ‘The way of showing map through digital content is very good. I have used it for taking a quiz in my class. Changes are good’ positively asserted the teacher. I explained to her about how to go ahead with the cognitive interview and requested her to read the survey draft loudly with pauses for questions, comments and feedbacks.
The teacher started reading the questionnaire in a timid voice. To ease her, I mentioned that lots of teachers had different kinds of queries so please feel free to let me know if anything is not clear to her.
Till item no. 5, the teacher didn’t show any point of concern or question. Listing out the response options under item no. 5, she mentioned that the terms such as simulations, hardware, and telecommunications are technical. It would be good if these could be simplified.
She continued reading the following items and stopped at item no. 11 where she read the question, ‘Do you feel your school helps you to integrate technology effectively in your curriculum?’ and said that it would be difficult for the teachers to answer these kinds of questions as no one would like to talk against the school or the Principal. She suggested that instead, the term ‘school policy’ can be used to solicit information on school support questions.
On item no. 14, the teacher asked the meaning of the term ‘competencies’ and when I asked her if ‘skills’ would be easier to understand to which she agreed. On the response option listing in the same item, the teacher asked, ‘what is blogs?’ I tried to explain the concept to her. She mentioned that she feels that these terms are still not common amongst Indian teachers. She suggested that an option of flow chart/ graph can be added in the response list.
While moving forward, the teacher suddenly stopped and asked the researcher, ‘Tell me one thing—won’t it effect the eye sight of students and teachers if they look at the screen during the block teaching class which is for one hour?” After a bit of discussion, I reminded the teacher to continue reading the survey loudly.
On item no.15, the teacher suggested instructional aid could be replaced by ‘educational’ aid. She said, ‘You see, educational aid is easy to understand.’ She continued with her opinion that teachers need to get habitual with ICT. Teaching in today’s world is so challenging.
On item no. 17, the teacher re-read the second sub-item and said, ‘time and energy commitment’ part is complicated. What do you mean by this?’ I explained about the intent of the question and the teacher requested to re-word it.
184
Coming on the third sub-item of item no. 18, the teacher shared that teachers in government schools are still not using lots of email services. But, what is being used to communicate is WhatsApp group messaging. ‘We don’t have time to open email’, said the teacher to the researcher.
On the 25th item no. which seeks information on education level of the respondents, the teacher suggested that M.Phil and NET can be added to the list. When asked about her opinion on what should be the language of the survey, the teacher mentioned that English should be fine. ‘Asking the teachers to fill out a physical copy of the survey questionnaire will be easier to get filled up response than tracking if they’ve done the survey online or not’, said the teachers. I thanked the teacher for her participation!
185
APPENDIX F COGNITIVE INTERVIEW WITH TEACHER D
Ms. Preeti (name changed) was the fourth teacher who participated in the cognitive interview. She was a Science teacher of middle section in a government school in New Delhi. I had attended her DE class session which she took with students of 7th std. before requesting her to participate in the interview. I congratulated her for conducting an excellent flipped classroom Science session using ICT. I shared my feedback on the class which she had taken. Short videos were shown to the class followed by group discussion and activity-based learning sessions. The whole class was engaged in learning and optimum utilization of ICT tools was visible. I explained to the teacher about the purpose of the cognitive interview and requested her to read aloud the survey draft and share what goes in her thoughts as she reads the survey items.
The teacher started reading the draft questionnaire. Coming on item no. 3, she pointed that one of the rating scale can include the option of ‘twice in a week’. Reading the sub-questions of item no. 3 itself, she stated that the three sub-items were sounding very similar.
On item no. 5, the teacher mentioned that all the response options which had been stated were ‘advanced’ ones. She shared that teachers have usually worked on PPT, downloading of PPT. ‘Not all teachers are computer-savvy’, said the teacher.
On item no. 8, the teacher clarified from the researcher as to what kind of technology plan is being talked about? I explained to her that it means if there’s any school technology policy.
On item number 9, the teacher shared that the question should be modified to ask about the use of ICT in ‘teaching’ instead of asking about the use of ICT in ‘classroom. ‘Classroom becomes very specific and in government schools things have to be flexible to ascertain them. To have an ICT class, we may have to go to a lab or the conference room of the school if it is free’, said the teacher.
The teacher was reading the items in a tone as if she understood the survey items or not in a situation if she has to fill out this survey. She paused on item no.15 and re-read the last sub-item which read as, ‘For my students, using ICT in the classroom is exciting’. She suggested to change the word ‘classroom’ from the sub-section to something like ‘lab’ as students mostly come to the lab room to attend classes using ICT. For item no. 17 again, the teacher reiterated not to use the word ‘classroom’.
Reaching to item no. 18, the teacher stated that item no. 3 and 18 look so similar. ‘Wasn’t this asked earlier?’ queried the teacher. Looking into the sub-items of item no. 18, the teacher mentioned that emailing is not common amongst teachers. ‘Teachers mostly uses WhatsApp, FB, messenger’, she said. Also, E-learning was something she had never heard of, stressed the teacher.
Coming to item no. 25, Ms. Preeti also stated that seeking teachers’ professional qualification in addition to their academic qualification would make sense.
She suggested that ‘bilingual’ can be stated as an option under item no. 29 which asks about the primary language that a teacher teaches in.
I asked the teacher about her views whether the form should be in English as is or should also be interpreted in Hindi. To this, the teacher mentioned that it would be better if the survey is in both Hindi and English. I thanked the teacher for the participation!
186
APPENDIX G COGNITIVE INTERVIEW WITH TEACHER E
Ms. Resham Bhargava (name changed) was the fifth teacher for the cognitive interview. She was a math teacher of the middle and secondary sections in a New Delhi government school. I attended her DE class on a Math topic with 8 std. students. Due to some technical challenges, the PowerPoint which had the e-content and videos related to the class topic could not be pulled up. The teacher still went ahead with taking the class covering other aspects of the DE model i.e., project-based learning, student engagement, and reflection. After the class finished, I approached to Ms. Bhargava and explained to her about my research and need to conduct a cognitive interview. She agreed to take out some time for the interview and we sat in the empty class where she had taken her last class session. I requested the teacher to let me know a little bit about her teaching background. She informed me that she has been teaching in the education sector for the last 15 years. So far, she has worked in four schools. For the first eleven years of her teaching, she had taught mathematics in the primary section (1st to 5th std.) and for the last four years, she has been teaching math to secondary section in the present school where she is working. She mentioned that sometimes she has to take math class of middle section classes as well if the Principal of the school allots her the task. The teacher mentioned that her school has been a DE school for the last 2 years. ‘The field coordinator of AIF has taught computer operation to the teachers in this school. For the last 8 months, I have started to use AIF presentations/content’, said Ms. Bhargava. I explained to her about the process of the cognitive interview and requested her to read out aloud and share what comes in her thoughts.
The teacher started reading the survey draft with a clarity of tone and speech. She paused at item no. 2 and said that she doesn’t know what is ‘LAN’.
Coming to item no. 3, she read the sub-items and mentioned that the first and the third sub-items were sounding similar. Reading the next item, the teacher asked the researcher, ‘what does ICT mean?’ I reminded her that the definition is on the first line of the survey draft itself. She said that this term is not very common amongst teachers.
Like other teachers who had taken the cognitive interview, Ms. Bhargava also found the sub-items under item no. 5 as very technical and specifically asked, ‘what is programming?’
On item no. 7, she suggested the researcher to make the question clear by mentioning that it is asking about ICT in-service opportunities ‘in the school’. Mentioning ‘school’ will make the question clear for teachers.
She read the following items and expressed clarity of content till she reached on item on 17. Reading the first sub-item, she asked how a teacher is expected to measure ‘I know how my teaching role has changed?’ The second sub-item demanded clarity of structuring of the statement. The part on ‘time and energy commitments’ was not clear. Also, on the third sub-item, the teacher said, ‘we don’t observe other teachers…once in a month we have faculty meeting. But the 4 teachers involved in AIF’s program can only talk on broad benefit of technology. We’ve actually never talked more on each other’s content, etc.’
On item number 25, this teacher, like others, also mentioned that more response options can be added to the teacher qualification question. For e.g., she said, diploma in
187
education and an empty space for any unique qualification can be added to the response items.
When asked about her opinion about the language of the survey draft, the teacher mentioned that a Hindi translation of this survey will be better for most of the teachers in the government schools. On the mode of the survey, the teacher clearly said that paper survey is more reliable source for the researcher. The teacher frankly said, ‘Any technical thing is being hesitated. If a web link disappears then it will be a huge problem for teachers to bring it back.’ She also suggested that having both Hindi and English content in one questionnaire will make it too big. Having both Hindi and English survey separate will be a good idea. Depending on their comfort, teachers can choose which one to pick to fill it out. I thanked Ms. Bhargava for the participation and the inputs!
188
APPENDIX H COGNITIVE INTERVIEW WITH TEACHER F
The last was the sixth cognitive interview held in New Delhi which was with Mr. Arun Grover, a Social Science teacher in the middle and secondary sections of a New Delhi government school. I attended and observed his DE class which was on ‘cultures, places and people’. The teacher utilized the e-content in the AIF presentations stored in the laptop that was placed in the class. There were short videos which were played for better understanding and increased class participation. After the class, I requested Mr. Grover to participate in the cognitive interview. I explained to him about the interview and he agreed to take out time to do this. Once the teacher finished his class, he came back to the classroom where I was waiting for the interview. The teacher settled down and started reading the survey draft aloud.
On item no. 2 which seeks input on technologies available at school, the teacher suggested that I can add the option of pen drive. ‘I think teachers are getting used to using pen drives with minimum instruction these days’, said Mr. Grover.
On item no. 3, the teacher smiled and said that the answer will be 0 for all the teachers when asked if they’ve internet in school. Also, on the third sub-item, he said that the relevance of the item is less as there is very little computer-related software in schools.
Reaching on item no. 4, the teacher clearly stated that it’s getting difficult to comprehend the question in English language. He suggested that the survey should also be in Hindi.
On item no. 5, he mentioned that the response options look complicated. ‘Easy terms should be put here’, said the teacher. For example, he said, ‘troubleshooting’ word is complicated.
‘This is fine’, said the teacher, reading the 6th item. The researcher figured out that the teacher did not make the right interpretation of item no. 7 and she explained the question to him. Most of the times, the teacher was reading each item two times to understand what it meant.
On item no. 14, the teacher suggested to replace the word ‘moderate’ with ‘medium’. On the next item, he read the sub-items and mentioned that these attitude questions are also covered in the AIF feedback forms which they fill.
The second sub-item of item no. 17 which was on the time and energy commitments was not clear to the teacher.
On the frequency of use of technology question (item no. 18), the teacher mentioned, ‘At least we do use computer twice in a year for evaluation’. The teacher further said that they use google a lot and maximum people use YouTube and Wiki. On the last sub-item, the teacher asked the researcher, ‘What is moodle?’ I explained the concept of distance learning to the teacher.
Reading the question on the barriers which teachers face in using technology, the teacher stated his own barrier which he faces in his current teaching. He said, ‘Usually projector is hung up. But here the infrastructure doesn’t support it. Here, it’s on a table, you see!’
On item no. 21, which was a long statement asking about the motivating factors to use technology, the teacher suggested it to be re-constructed in a simpler manner.
189
On the teacher qualification item (item no. 25), the teacher suggested to add B.Ed, CTET (Central Teacher Eligibility Test) and TET (Teacher Eligibility Test) to the list. Also, computer education can be added to the list, said the teacher.
On the last item of the questionnaire (item no. 31) the teacher smiled and confidently said that as Delhi is divided into educational zones, some zones are much more populated than others. ‘It will be mostly having over 60 students in the North-East zone, whereas in the Central zone, the number of students will not go over 40.’
I thanked Mr. Grover for his participation and inputs!
190
APPENDIX I FINAL DRAFT (DRAFT 3) OF THE SURVEY BASED ON TEACHER REVIEW AND
DISCUSSION WITH AIF DIRECTOR
April 1, 2017 Dear Teachers, I am writing to request for your participation in this survey titled, ‘Exploring teachers’ perspectives toward technology integration in teaching’. You have been selected to participate in this survey as you have been associated with AIF’s Digital Equalizer (DE) program at your school. You are one of those teachers who have conducted classes using electronic content and have utilized features of DE’s techno-pedagogy program. In order to get a perspective of technology integration in teaching, all the teachers of different Delhi government schools who had participated in DE program in the academic year 2016-2017 have been selected to fill out this research survey. To answer the survey should only take about 10-15 minutes of your time. Your responses are voluntary and will be kept confidential. It is very important that you provide your honest and genuine opinions in the survey. If you have any questions about this study, please contact Shilpa Sahay at [email protected] or WhatsApp at +1-404-697-7640. For information regarding your rights as a research participant contact UF’s Institutional Review Board at [email protected] or 352-392-0433. By taking a few minutes to share your thoughts and opinions about your perspective on technology integration, you will be helping a great deal in exploring how Indian teachers perceive of technology in present times education. Your insight would be valuable! I hope you enjoy completing the questionnaire. Many Thanks, Shilpa Sahay PhD Candidate, University of Florida
191
Survey Instrument For the purpose of this survey, Information and Communications Technology (ICT) refers to all the digital technologies- that is, computers, laptops, projectors, printers, interactive whiteboards, software programs, etc. that teachers use for teaching purposes in schools. It will be commonly referred to as computers and computer-related technologies in this survey. Please answer all of the questions.
A. Information about computer-related technologies available for teacher use
Instruction: This section includes questions about the availability of computer-related technologies for you. Please mark the option which best answers the question for you or fill in the blank. A1) Which of these technologies do you have in your home which you use for preparing for your classes? (Circle all that apply)
□ Desktop computer □ Laptop □ Tablet □ Smart Phone
□ Printer □ VCD/DVD □ Internet □ Pen Drive
□ None □ Any other (specify):
A2) Which of these technologies do you have in your school which you use for teaching purposes? (Circle all that apply)
□ Desktop computer
□ Laptop □ Tablet □ Projector
□ Interactive White Board (Smart board)
□ Printer □ TV/VCD/DVD □ Internet
□ Pen drive □ Computer software
□ Any other (specify):
A3) Where are the computer-related technologies located in your school? (Circle all that apply)
□ In IT/ICT lab □ In classrooms □ In the library □ In staff rooms □ In CAL Lab □ Any other (specify) ____________________________________________________________
A4) How many computers are available for teaching in your school? (Circle the right answer) □ 1 computer □ 1-5 computers □ 5-10 computers □ 10-20 computers □ 20 or more computers
B. Teachers’ knowledge/skills toward use of computer-related technologies
Instruction: Please mark the option which best answers the question for you. Yes No B1) I know there are teachers in my school who are integrating
192
technology in teaching. Y N B2) DE program is working with selected teachers of my school. Y N (If yes, teachers of which subjects?) □ Science □ Math □Social Studies □English □ Hindi
□Any other specify): ____________________________ B3) DE program is working with specific classes of my school. Y N (If yes, which classes?) □ class 6 □ class 7 □ class 8 □ class 9 □ class 10 □ any other specify): ____________________________ B4) I am aware of the readiness of my school to support teachers in technology integration in teaching. Y N B5) I have received training in computer-related technologies Y N (If yes, in what?)
□ To operate a computer □ To use computer tools (e.g., MS Word, Excel, PPT) □ To create lesson plan on a computer □ To conduct the Digital Equalizer Way of Teaching (DEWoT) □ To conduct a flipped classroom □ To use educational software (e.g., English Helper, MacMillan) □ Any other (specify): ____________________________
B6) What is your skill level in the following categories? Instruction: Please rate your skill level toward each of the categories below on the rating scale of Nil skill, Low skill, Medium skill, High skill, Expert skill
Nil Low Medium High Expert
Basic computer operation skill (eg., opening pages, using pen drive)
1 2 3 4
5
Microsoft Word 1 2 3 4
5
Microsoft Excel 1 2 3 4
5
Microsoft Power Point 1 2 3 4
5
Video Editing Tool 1 2 3 4
5
Picture Editing Tool 1 2 3 4
5
Audio Editing Tool 1 2 3 4
5
Browsing the Internet 1 2 3 4
5
Downloading from Internet 1 2 3 4
5
Uploading to Internet 1 2 3 4
5
193
Use of Educational Blogs/Websites 1 2 3 4
5
Use of Open Educational Resources (eg. YouTube, Google)
1 2 3 4
5
Basic programming skills (eg. Logo, Scratch) 1 2 3 4
5
C. Teachers’ attitudes about available computer-related technologies
C1) Please rate the following items related to your attitudes about computer technologies. Instruction: Please rate your attitudes about technology practices on the rating scale of Strongly Disagree = SD Disagree = D Neither Agree/Disagree = N Agree = A Strongly Agree = SA
SD D N A SA
Working with computers make me feel tense and uncomfortable 1 2 3 4 5
I think computer-related technologies make my professional work more difficult 1 2 3 4 5
Computer-related technologies are an important part of the future for improving the quality of education 1 2 3 4 5
I have colleagues who have positive experience in teaching with computer-related technologies 1 2 3 4 5
WhatsApp groups amongst teachers are useful resources 1 2 3 4 5
Computer-related technologies are necessary tools in both educational and work settings 1 2 3 4 5
Computers can be useful educational aids in almost all subject areas 1 2 3 4 5
There are more disadvantages than advantages in teaching with technology in my situation 1 2 3 4 5
Teaching with the help of traditional chalk and board method is the only way to teach effectively 1 2 3 4 5
My school supports and encourages me to integrate technology in my teaching 1 2 3 4 5
D. Teacher self-reports of technology adoption/rejection
D1) How would you rate your decision to use computers for teaching purposes? Instruction: Please answer the below categories on the rating scale of Strongly Disagree = SD Disagree = D Neither Agree/Disagree = N Agree = A Strongly Agree = SA
SD D N A SA
194
I have tried to determine the usefulness of computers in my teaching situation 1 2 3 4 5
I plan to continue to use computer-related technologies in my teaching activity 1 2 3 4 5
I am interested in increasing my use of computer-related technologies in my teaching activity 1 2 3 4 5
I used technology in teaching for some time but then decided to stop using it anymore 1 2 3 4 5
I have never considered the integration of computers technology in my teaching 1 2 3 4 5
E. Teacher self-reports on their technology use E1) Please rate your response toward your use of computer-related technologies in teaching Instruction: Please answer the below categories on the rating scale of Strongly Disagree = SD Disagree = D Neither Agree/Disagree = N Agree = A Strongly Agree = SA
SD D N A SA
I know about the changes taking place in my teaching role when I am using computer-related technologies 1 2 3 4 5
I know that using computer-related technologies require extra time commitments 1 2 3 4 5
I consciously plan out a lesson plan when I am using technology in teaching 1 2 3 4 5
E2) How frequently do you use computer-related technologies? Instruction: Please answer the below categories on the rating scale of 1- never; 2- once in six months ; 3- monthly; 4- weekly; 5- daily
Never
Once in six months Monthly Weekly Daily
On average, how often do you use a computer for your job? 1 2 3 4 5
On average, how often do you use technologies that you have at home for schoolwork (e.g., smart phone, tablet) 1 2 3 4 5
On average, how often do you use WhatsApp to communicate with teachers? 1 2 3 4 5
On average, how often do you email to communicate with colleagues? 1 2 3 4 5
On average, how often do you print teaching materials? 1 2 3 4 5
195
On average, how often do you use computers for teaching? 1 2 3 4 5
On average, how often do you use presentation programs (e.g., PowerPoint) in classes? 1 2 3 4 5
On average, how often do you use video projectors in classes? 1 2 3 4 5
On average, how often do you ask students to consult Internet materials for your classes? 1 2 3 4 5
On average, how often do you use the Internet to prepare your classes? 1 2 3 4 5
On average, how often do you use Web 2.0 tools (e.g., Wiki, Blog, YouTube, Google, FB, Twitter) for your classes? 1 2 3 4 5
E3) Have you been able to use computers and computer-related technologies in teaching on a continuous basis in your current position? □ Yes □ No □ Any other (specify): ______________________________________________________________________ E4) Please mention what are the barriers to using technology on a regular basis (e.g., not enough computers, scheduling conflicts, power/internet access problems, lack of support/repair services, etc.). ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ E5) Please share what inspires you to use computer-related technologies in your teaching. ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
F. Teacher self-reports on confirmation of use of computer-related technologies
F1) Do you feel computers integration in your classroom teaching has been beneficial for your students? □ Yes □ No
196
□ Any other (specify): _____________________________________________________ F2) Have you been able to integrate computers use in your teaching routine? □ Yes □ No □ Any other (specify): _____________________________________________________ F3) Have you been able to promote the beneficial use of computers to your colleagues?
□ Yes □ No □ Any other (specify): _____________________________________________________ F4) Do you see any difference between girls vs. boys in using computer-related technologies in your class?
□ Yes □ No □ Any other (specify): _____________________________________________________ F5) Does your school provide the following?
Yes No Don’t Know
Professional development training in computer use for teachers
□ □ □
Maintenance of computer-related technologies in school □ □ □
Incentives/rewards for teachers to use computers in teaching
□ □ □
F6) What has been your school’s expectation toward your use of computers in teaching? Instruction: Please rate your understanding on the rating scale of Strongly Disagree = SD Disagree = D Neither Agree/Disagree = N Agree = A Strongly Agree = SA. Please mark the option which best answers the question for you.
SD D N A SA
My school expects me to have the technical skills to use technology 1 2 3 4 5
My school expects me to teach lessons that appropriately combine my course content, technologies, and teaching approaches 1 2 3 4 5
My school has no expectation from me to use computers in teaching
1 2 3 4 5
My school expects me to continue using computers in teaching even after there is no support from DE field coordinators 1 2 3 4 5
197
G. Demographic Information G1) What is the highest level of your education?
□ 12th pass □ Bachelors □ Masters □ PhD □ Any other (specify):
_____________________________________________________ G2) What are your teaching qualifications? (Circle all that apply) □ Diploma in Education
□ B. Ed □ M.Ed □ M.Phil □ Computer diploma/ certificate □ NET □ CTET □ TET □ Any other (specify): _____________________________________________________ G3) What is your gender?
□ Female □ Male
G4) What is your age? _____________________________________________________ G5) How many years have you been teaching? _____________________________________________________ G6) How many years have you been teaching with computers-related technologies? _____________________________________________________ G7) In which year did you receive your first training on teaching with computers? _____________________________________________________ G8) What is the primary language that you teach in?
□ English □ Hindi □ Other (Please specify) ________________________________________________
G9) Which subject do you primarily teach? □ Math □ Science □ English □ Social Studies □ Other __________________________________________
G10) Which school zone do you teach in?
□ North zone □ North West zone □ North East zone
□ West zone □ Central zone □ New Delhi zone
□ East zone □ South East zone □ South zone
G11) What is the average class size that you teach?
198
□ Less than 20 students □ 20-30 students □ 30-40 students □ 40-50 students □ 50-60 students □ More than 60 students
Thank you for your participation!
199
APPENDIX J GOOGLE TRANSLATION OF THE SURVEY (DRAFT 3) IN HINDI
सरे्वक्षण उपकरण
इस सरे्वक्षण के प्रयोजन के लिए, सूचना और संचार प्रौद्योलिकी (आईसीटी) सभी लिलजटि technologies- है
लक, कंपू्यटर, िैपटॉप, प्रोजेक्टर, लपं्रटर, इंटरैक्टक्टर्व whiteboards, सॉफ्टरे्वयर प्रोग्राम, आलि है लक लिक्षको ं
को सू्किो ंमें अध्यापन प्रयोजनो ंके लिए उपयोि करने के लिए संिलभित करता है। यह आमतौर पर कंपू्यटर
और इस सरे्वक्षण में कंपू्यटर से संबंलित प्रौद्योलिलकयो ंके रूप में करने के लिए भेजा जाएिा।
कृप्या सभी सर्वािो ंका जर्वाब िें।
A. कंपू्यटर से संबंधित धिक्षक उपयोग के धिए उपिब्ध तकनीको ंके बारे में जानकारी ए
लनिेि: इस अनुभाि में आप के लिए कंपू्यटर से संबंलित प्रौद्योलिलकयो ंकी उपिब्धता के बारे में सर्वाि भी
िालमि है। लर्वकल्प है जो आपके लिए सबसे अच्छा सर्वाि का जर्वाब लनिान या खािी भरें।
A1) इन प्रौद्योलिलकयो ंके जो आप अपने घर जो आप अपनी कक्षाओ ंके लिए तैयारी के लिए उपयोि में क्या
है? (सलकि ि सब िािू)
□ िेस्कटॉप कंपू्यटर □ िैपटॉप □ टैबिेट □ स्माटि फोन
□ लपं्रटर □ र्वीसीिी / िीर्वीिी □ इंटरनेट □ पेन िर ाइर्व
□ कोई भी □ लकसी भी अन्य
(लनलििष्ट):
ए2) इन प्रौद्योलिलकयो ंमें से कौन सा आप अपने सू्कि जो आप लिक्षण उदे्दश्ो ंके लिए उपयोि में क्या है?
(सलकि ि सब िािू)
□ िेस्कटॉप कंपू्यटर □ िैपटॉप □ टैबिेट □ प्रोजेक्टर
□ इंटरएक्टक्टर्व व्हाइट बोिि
(स्माटि बोिि)
□ लपं्रटर □ टीर्वी / र्वीसीिी /
िीर्वीिी
□ इंटरनेट
□ पेन िर ाइर्व □ कंपू्यटर सॉफ्टरे्वयर □ लकसी भी अन्य
(लनलििष्ट):
ए3) जहां कंपू्यटर से संबंलित प्रौद्योलिलकयो ंके अपने सू्कि में क्टथित हैं? (सलकि ि सब िािू)
□ आईटी में / आईसीटी प्रयोििािा
□ कक्षाओ ंमें
□ पुस्तकािय में
□ में कमिचाररयो ंके कमरे
□ सीएएि िैब में
□ कोई अन्य (लनलििष्ट) ____________________________________________________________
ए4) लकतने कंपू्यटर अपने सू्कि में पढाने के लिए उपिब्ध हैं? (सही जर्वाब पर घेरा बनाएं)
□ 1 कंपू्यटर
□ 1-5 कंपू्यटर
□ 5-10 कंपू्यटर
□ 10-20 कंपू्यटर
□ 20 या अलिक कंपू्यटरो ं
B. धिक्षक ज्ञान / कंपू्यटर से संबंधित प्रौद्योधगधकयो ंके इसे्तमाि की ओर कौिि
लनिेि: लर्वकल्प है जो आपके लिए सबसे अच्छा सर्वाि का जर्वाब लचलित करें।
200
हा नही
B1) मैं जानता हूँ लक मेरे सू्कि में लिक्षको ंको जो एकीकृत कर रहे है लिक्षण में प्रौद्योलिकी। हा नही
B2) िे कायिक्रम मेरे सू्कि के चयलनत लिक्षको ंके साि काम कर रहा है।
(हाूँ, तो जो लर्वषयो ंके लिक्षको?ं)
□ लर्वज्ञान □ िलणत □ सामालजक अध्ययन
□ अंगे्रजी □ लहन्दी
□ कोई अन्य लनलििष्ट): ____________________________
B3) िे कायिक्रम मेरे सू्कि के लर्वलिष्ट र्विों के साि काम कर रहा है। हा नही
(यलि हाूँ, जो कक्षाओ?ं)
□ कक्षा 6 □कक्षा 7 □ कक्षा 8
□ कक्षा 9 □ कक्षा 10
□ लकसी अन्य लनलििष्ट): ____________________________
B4) मैं अपने सू्कि की तत्परता में लिक्षको ंका समििन करने के बारे में पता कर रहा हूँ हा नही
लिक्षण में प्रौद्योलिकी के एकीकरण।
B5) मैं कंपू्यटर से संबंलित प्रौद्योलिलकयो ंर्वाई एन में प्रलिक्षण प्राप्त लकया है हा नही
(यलि हां, तो क्या?)
□ एक कंपू्यटर संचालित करने
□ कंपू्यटर उपकरणो ंका उपयोि करने के लिए (उिाहरण के लिए, एमएस र्विि , एके्सि, पीपीटी)
□ एक कंपू्यटर पर सबक योजना बनाने के लिए
□ का संचािन करने के लिए लिक्षण की लिलजटि तुल्यकारक मािि (DEWoT)
□ एक से क्टलिप कक्षा का संचािन करने के लिए
□ िैलक्षक सॉफ्टरे्वयर का उपयोि करने के लिए (उिाहरण के लिए, अंगे्रजी हेल्पर, मैकलमिन)
□ कोई अन्य (लनलििष्ट): ____________________________
B6) लनम्नलिक्टखत शे्रलणयो ंमें अपने कौिि का स्तर क्या है?
लनिेि: िून्य कौिि, कम कौिि, मध्यम कौिि, उच्च कौिि, लर्विेषज्ञ कौिि की रेलटंि पैमाने पर नीचे
शे्रलणयो ंमें से प्रते्यक की ओर अपने कौिि के स्तर कृपया िर िून्य कम मध्यम उच्च लर्विेषज्ञ
िून्य कम मध्यम उच्च लर्विेषज्ञ
बेलसक कंपू्यटर संचािन कौिि (जैसे।, पेन िर ाइर्व का
उपयोि कर पृष्ो ंखोिने)
1 2 3 4
5
माइक्रोसॉफ्ट र्विि
1 2 3 4
5
माइक्रोसॉफ्ट एके्सि
1 2 3 4
5
माइक्रोसॉफ्ट पार्वरप्वाइंट
1 2 3 4
5
र्वीलियो संपािन उपकरण
1 2 3 4
5
लचत्र संपािन उपकरण
1 2 3 4
5
ऑलियो संपािन उपकरण
1 2 3 4
5
201
इंटरनेट ब्राउंलजंि
1 2 3 4
5
इंटरनेट से िाउनिोि
1 2 3 4
5
इंटरनेट से अपिोि
1 2 3 4
5
िैलक्षक ब्लॉि / रे्वबसाइटो ंके उपयोि
1 2 3 4
5
ओपन िैलक्षक संसािनो ंके उपयोि (जैसे। यूटू्यब, िूिि) 1
1 2 3 4
5
5
बेलसक प्रोग्रालमंि कौिि (जैसे। िोिो, सै्क्रच)
1 2 3 4
5
C. उपलब्ध कंपू्यटर से संबंधित तकनीक ंके बारे में सी धिक्षक नजररए
C1) कंपू्यटर तकनीक ंके बारे में अपने दृधिक ण से संबंधित धनम्नधलखित मद ंक रेट करें।
धनदेि: ज रदार की रेधटंग पैमाने पर प्रौद्य धगकी के व्यवहार के बारे में अपने दृधिक ण कृपया दर असहमत
= एसडी असहमत = डी न सहमत / असहमत = एन सहमत = एक ज रदार सहमत = एसए
एसिी िी एन ए एसए
कंपू्यटर के साथ काम मेरे तनाव और असहज
महसूस करते हैं 1 2 3 4 5
मुझे लगता है धक कंपू्यटर से संबंधित
प्रौद्य धगधकय ंके अपने पेिेवर काम और अधिक
कधिन बना 1 2 3 4 5
कंपू्यटर से संबंधित प्रौद्य धगधकय ंधिक्षा की
गुणवत्ता में सुिार के धलए भधवष्य का एक
महत्वपूणण धहस्सा हैं 1 2 3 4 5
मैं उनके सहय धगय ंने ज कंपू्यटर से संबंधित
प्रौद्य धगधकय ंके साथ धिक्षण में सकारात्मक
अनुभव है 1 2 3 4 5
धिक्षक ंके बीच WhatsApp समूह ंउपय गी
संसािन हैं 1 2 3 4 5
कंपू्यटर से संबंधित प्रौद्य धगधकय ंद न ंिैधक्षक
और काम सेधटंग्स में आवश्यक उपकरण हैं
1 2 3 4 5
कंपू्यटर लगभग सभी धवषय के्षत् ंमें उपय गी
िैधक्षक एड्स ह सकता है
1 2 3 4 5
वहााँ मेरी खथथधत में प्रौद्य धगकी के साथ धिक्षण में
लाभ की तुलना में अधिक नुकसान कर रहे हैं
1 2 3 4 5
पारंपररक चाक और ब डण धवधि की मदद से
धिक्षण क प्रभावी ढंग से पढाने के धलए एक ही
रास्ता है
1 2 3 4 5
202
मेरे सू्कल का समथणन करता है और मेरी धिक्षण
में प्रौद्य धगकी क एकीकृत करने के धलए मुझे
प्र त्साधहत करती है
1 2 3 4 5
D. धिक्षक प्रौद्योधगकी अपनाने / अस्वीकृधत के स्व-ररपोटों
D1) आप कैसे प्रयोजनो ंके लिक्षण के लिए कंपू्यटर का उपयोि करने के लिए अपने लनणिय िर होिा?
लनिेि: जोरिार की रेलटंि पैमाने पर नीचे शे्रलणयो ंकृपया उत्तर असहमत = एसिी असहमत = िी न सहमत
/ असहमत = एन सहमत = एक जोरिार सहमत = एसए
एसिी िी एन ए एसए
मैं अपने लिक्षण की क्टथिलत में कंपू्यटर की
उपयोलिता का लनिािरण करने की कोलिि की है 1 2 3 4 5
मैं अपने लिक्षण िलतलर्वलि में कंपू्यटर से संबंलित
प्रौद्योलिलकयो ंका उपयोि करने के लिए जारी
करने की योजना 1 2 3 4 5
मैं अपने लिक्षण िलतलर्वलि में कंपू्यटर से संबंलित
प्रौद्योलिलकयो ंके अपने उपयोि को बढाने में
लििचस्पी रहा हूँ 1 2 3 4 5
मैं कुछ समय के लिए अध्यापन में तकनीक का
इसे्तमाि लकया िेलकन तब यह अब और का
उपयोि कर बंि करने का फैसिा 1 2 3 4 5
मैं अपने लिक्षण में कंपू्यटर प्रौद्योलिकी के
एकीकरण कभी नही ंमाना जाता है 1 2 3 4 5
E. उनकी तकनीक के उपय ग पर ई धिक्षक स्व-ररप टों
E1) धिक्षण में कंपू्यटर से संबंधित प्रौद्य धगधकय ंके अपने उपय ग की ओर आपकी प्रधतधिया की दर से
करें
धनदेि: ज रदार की रेधटंग पैमाने पर नीचे शे्रधणय ंकृपया उत्तर असहमत = एसडी असहमत = डी न सहमत
/ असहमत = एन सहमत = एक ज रदार सहमत = एसए
एसिी िी एन ए एसए
मैं अपने धिक्षण भूधमका में ह रही है जब मैं कंपू्यटर से
संबंधित प्रौद्य धगधकय ंका उपय ग कर रहा पररवतणन के
बारे में पता 1 2 3 4 5
मुझे पता है धक कंपू्यटर से संबंधित प्रौद्य धगधकय ंका
उपय ग अधतररक्त समय प्रधतबद्धताओ ंकी आवश्यकता
ह ती है 1 2 3 4 5
मैं ह ि में एक सबक य जना की य जना है जब मैं
धिक्षण में प्रौद्य धगकी का उपय ग कर रहा 1 2 3 4 5
E2) आप कंपू्यटर से संबंधित प्रौद्य धगधकय ंधकतनी बार प्रय ग करते हैं?
धनदेि: 1- कभी नही ंकी रेधटंग पैमाने पर नीचे शे्रधणय ंका उत्तर दें; 2- छह महीने में एक बार; 3 माधसक; 4
साप्ताधहक; 5 दैधनक
203
कभी
नही ं
छह
महीने में
एक बार माधसक साप्ताधहक दैधनक
औसत पर, धकतनी बार आप अपने काम के
धलए एक कंपू्यटर का उपय ग करें? 1 2 3 4 5
औसत पर, धकतनी बार आप आप सू्कल के
धलए घर पर है धक प्रौद्य धगकी का उपय ग
करते हैं (उदाहरण के धलए, स्माटण फ न,
टैबलेट) 1 2 3 4 5
औसत पर, धकतनी बार आप धिक्षक ंके साथ
संवाद करने के धलए WhatsApp का उपय ग
करें? 1 2 3 4 5
औसत पर, धकतनी बार आप सहय धगय ंके
साथ संवाद करने के धलए ईमेल है? 1 2 3 4 5
औसत पर, धकतनी बार आप धिक्षण सामग्री
मुधित? 1 2 3 4 5
औसत पर, धकतनी बार आप धिक्षण के धलए
कंपू्यटर का इसे्तमाल करते हैं? 1 2 3 4 5
औसत पर, धकतनी बार आप कक्षाओ ंमें
प्रसु्तधत प्र ग्राम (जैसे, PowerPoint) का
उपय ग करें? 1 2 3 4 5
औसत पर, धकतनी बार आप कक्षाओ ंमें
वीधडय प्र जेक्टर प्रय ग करते हैं? 1 2 3 4 5
औसत पर, धकतनी बार आप अपने वगों के
धलए इंटरनेट सामग्री से परामिण करने के धलए
छात् ंपूछ रहे ह ? 1 2 3 4 5
औसत पर, धकतनी बार आप इंटरनेट का
उपय ग अपनी कक्षाओ ंतैयार करने के धलए
है? 1 2 3 4 5
औसत पर, धकतनी बार आप अपने वगों के
धलए वेब 2.0 उपकरण (उदाहरण के धलए,
धवकी, ब्लॉग, यूटू्यब, गूगल, एफबी, धिटर) का
उपय ग करें? 1 2 3 4 5
E3) आप अपने वतणमान खथथधत में एक सतत आिार पर धिक्षण में कंपू्यटर और कंपू्यटर से संबंधित
प्रौद्य धगधकय ंका उपय ग करने में सक्षम है?
□ हााँ
□ नही ं
□ क ई अन्य (धनधदणि): ____________________________
204
E4) कृपया क्या एक धनयधमत आिार पर प्रौद्य धगकी का उपय ग करने के धलए अवर ि कर रहे हैं उले्लि
है (जैसे, पयाणप्त नही ंकंपू्यटर, समयबद्धन संघषण, िखक्त / इंटरनेट का उपय ग समस्याओ,ं समथणन /
मरम्मत सेवाओ ंकी कमी, आधद)।
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________
E5) कृपया धहस्सा क्या आप अपने धिक्षण में कंपू्यटर से संबंधित प्रौद्य धगधकय ंका उपय ग करने के धलए
पे्रररत करती है।
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________
F. एफ धिक्षक कंपू्यटर से संबंधित प्रौद्य धगधकय ंके इसे्तमाल की पुधि पर स्व-ररप टों
F1) आप अपनी कक्षा धिक्षण में कंपू्यटर एकीकरण महसूस करते हैं अपने छात् ंके धलए फायदेमंद रहा
है?
□ हााँ
□ नही ं
□ क ई अन्य (धनधदणि): _____________________________________________________
F2) आप क एकीकृत करने के धलए कंपू्यटर अपने धिक्षण धदनचयाण में उपय ग में सक्षम है?
□ हााँ
□ नही ं
□ क ई अन्य (धनधदणि): _____________________________________________________
F3) यधद आप अपने सहय धगय ंके धलए कंपू्यटर के लाभप्रद उपय ग क बढावा देने के धलए सक्षम है?
□ हााँ
□ नही ं
□ क ई अन्य (धनधदणि): _____________________________________________________
F4) आप अपने वगण में कंपू्यटर से संबंधित प्रौद्य धगकी का उपय ग कर में लड़धकय ंबनाम लड़क ंके बीच
क ई अंतर देिते हैं?
□ हााँ
□ नही ं
□ क ई अन्य (धनधदणि): _____________________________________________________
F5) अपने सू्कल के बाद प्रदान करते हैं?
हां नही ं पता नही ं
मेरे सू्कल में मुझे उम्मीद है प्रौद्य धगकी का उपय ग करने के धलए
तकनीकी कौिल के धलए
□ □ □
सू्कल में कंपू्यटर से संबंधित प्रौद्य धगधकय ंका रिरिाव □ □ □
205
प्र त्साहन / धिक्षक ंके धलए पुरस्कार धिक्षण में कंपू्यटर का उपय ग
करने के धलए
□ □ □
F6) क्या धिक्षण में कंपू्यटर के उपय ग की ओर अपने अपने सू्कल की अपेक्षा की गई है?
धनदेि: की रेधटंग पैमाने पर अपनी समझ कृपया दर असहमत = एसडी असहमत = डी न सहमत /
असहमत = एन सहमत = एक ज रदार सहमत = एसए। धवकल्प है ज आपके धलए सबसे अच्छा सवाल
का जवाब धचधित करें।
एसिी िी एन ए एसए
मेरे सू्कल में मुझे उम्मीद है प्रौद्य धगकी का
उपय ग करने के धलए तकनीकी कौिल के धलए 1 2 3 4 5
मेरे सू्कल में मुझे सबक है धक उधचत रूप से
अपने पाठ्यिम सामग्री गिबंिन, प्रौद्य धगकी,
और धिक्षण दृधिक ण क पढाने के धलए उम्मीद 1 2 3 4 5
मेरे सू्कल मुझ से क ई उम्मीद धिक्षण में कंपू्यटर
का उपय ग करने के धलए है 1 2 3 4 5
मेरे सू्कल में मेरे धिक्षण में कंपू्यटर का उपय ग
करने के बाद भी डे के्षत् समन्वयक ंसे क ई
समथणन नही ंहै वहााँ जारी रिने की उम्मीद 1 2 3 4 5
G. जनसांखिकीय जानकारी
G1) अपनी धिक्षा के उच्चतम स्तर क्या है?
□ 12 वी ंपास
□ स्नातक
□ मास्टसण
□ पीएचडी
□ क ई अन्य (धनधदणि): _____________________________________________________
G2) अपने धिक्षण य ग्यता क्या हैं? (सधकण ल सब लागू)
□ धिक्षा में धडप्ल मा
□ बी.एड.
□ M.Ed
□ एम.धफल
□ कम्प्पू्यटर धडप्ल मा / सधटण धफकेट
□ नेट
□ CTET
□ TET
□ क ई अन्य (धनधदणि): _____________________________________________________
G3) अपने धलंग क्या है?
□ मधहला
□ नर
G4) तुम्हारी उम्र क्या है? __________________________________________________________
206
G5) आप धकतने साल अध्यापन धकया गया है? _______________________________________
G6) धकतने साल आप कंपू्यटर से संबंधित प्रौद्य धगधकय ंके साथ अध्यापन धकया गया है? __________
G7) ज वषण में आप कंपू्यटर के साथ धिक्षण पर अपना पहला प्रधिक्षण प्राप्त धकया था? ____________
G8) प्राथधमक भाषा है धक आप में पढाने क्या है?
□ अंगे्रजी
□ धहन्दी
□ अन्य (कृपया बताएं) _________________________________________________
G9) ज धवषय आप मुि रूप से धसिाते हैं?
□ गधणत
□ धवज्ञान
□ अंगे्रजी
□ सामाधजक अध्ययन
□ अन्य ________________________________________________________________
G10) कौन सा सू्कल ज न आप में धसिाते हैं?
□ उत्तर के्षत् □ उत्तर-पधिम के्षत् □ नॉथण ईस्ट ज न
□ वेस्ट ज न □ मध्य के्षत् □ नई धदल्ली ज न
□ ईस्ट ज न □ दधक्षण पूवण के्षत् □ साउथ ज न
G11) औसत दजे का आकार है धक आप धसिा क्या है?
□ कम से कम 20 छात् ं
□ 20-30 छात् ं
□ 30-40 छात् ं
□ 40-50 छात् ं
□ 50-60 छात् ं
□ 60 से अधिक छात् ंक
आपकी भागीदारी के धलए िन्यवाद!
207
APPENDIX K INSTRUCTION FOR FIELD COORDINATORS ON SURVEY COLLECTION
This survey is to be filled out by all the teachers of Delhi government schools
who had participated in the DE program in the academic year 2016-2017.
Please get the survey filled out from the DE teachers of the schools you had
visited in 2016-17. For example, if you had visited 5 schools and had worked with
4 teachers in each school, then, please collect the survey from the 20 teachers
with whom you had worked.
To fill out the survey should not take more than 10-15 minutes for a teacher.
Please inform the teachers who would be the participants of this survey that all
the information they share and any of their personal information will remain
confidential.
If a teacher wishes to know from you what this survey is about, then, you may
inform her/him that it is for a research purpose on what teachers perceive about
technology integration in teaching in Delhi government schools.
Please encourage the participants to provide their honest and genuine opinions
in the survey. When teachers will share what they truly believe then it would be
easier for the research to bring out the right picture of teachers’ perspectives on
technology integration in teaching. That way, this research will be a true
contribution to the literature present on this topic. Also, the result of this research
can be used as recommendations to the educational policy-making bodies.
All the Field Coordinators are requested to collect their copies of survey from AIF
office on March 30th, 2017.
There will be four weeks for you to get the survey filled out by your teachers.
Please start the survey collection from the 1st week of April, 2017. A good
strategy to get a high response rate is to hand-deliver the survey to the teacher
and request her/him to spare out 10 minutes then itself to fill out the survey and
return it back to you.
If a teacher takes the survey questionnaire to fill out later, then please let her/him
know that you would like to collect it back during your visit to the school next
week. Please send a reminder to the teacher a day before to get the filled out
survey to school so that you can collect the survey on time.
Please collect all your filled surveys by the last week of April and pass them all
together to Ritu Maurya or Sona Grover at AIF office during the last Thursday
meeting (April 27th, 2017).
208
Your contribution to getting the survey filled out is highly appreciable and will be
acknowledged in the research document.
If you have any doubt or question, then please email me at
209
APPENDIX L CODING SCHEME ON THE SURVEY ITEMS
ITEM NAME SCORE
BI. Information on other teachers integrating technology in teaching yes (1)
no (0)
B2. Subject teachers with whom DE program works yes (1)
no (0)
B3. Classes in which DE program runs yes (1)
no (0)
B4. Awareness about school support yes (1)
no (0)
B5. Computer-related technologies' trainings received yes (1)
no (0)
B6. Your skill level Nil (0)
Low (1)
Medium (2)
High (3)
Expert (4)
C1. Rate your attitudes toward computers and computer-related technologies SD (0)
D (1)
N (2)
A (3) SA (4)
D1. Rate your decision to use computers-related technologies SD (0)
D (1)
N (2)
A (3)
SA (4)
E1. Rate your use of computers-related technologies SD (0)
D (1)
N (2)
A (3)
SA (4)
E2. Frequency of use Never (0)
Once in six months (1)
Monthly (2)
Weekly (3)
Daily (4)
210
E3. Use of computers on continuous basis yes (1)
no (0)
E4. Barriers to use Themes
E5. Inspiration to use Themes
F1. Benefits for students yes (1)
no (0)
F2. Integration of computers in teaching routine yes (1)
no (0)
F3. Promotion of benefits of computers-related technologies yes (1)
no (0)
F4. Difference in girls and boys in computer use yes (1)
no (0)
F5. School’s technology provisions yes (1)
no (0)
F6. School’s expectations toward your use of technology SD (0)
D (1)
N (2)
A (3)
SA (4)
211
APPENDIX M THE SURVEY CODEBOOK
A survey on:
‘Exploring teachers’ perspectives toward technology integration in teaching.’
A research study conducted by: Shilpa Sahay
PhD Candidate, University of Florida In association with:
American India Foundation, New Delhi Unique ID#---
212
April 6, 2017 Dear Teachers, I am writing to request for your participation in this survey titled, ‘Exploring teachers’ perspectives toward technology integration in teaching’. You have been selected to participate in this survey as you have been associated with AIF’s Digital Equalizer (DE) program at your school. You are one of those teachers who have conducted classes using electronic content and have utilized features of DE’s techno-pedagogy program. In order to get a perspective of technology integration in teaching, all the teachers of different Delhi government schools who had participated in DE program in the academic year 2016-2017 have been selected to fill out this research survey. To answer the survey should only take about 20-30 minutes of your time. Your responses will not be connected with your name, and so will be anonymous. Your responses are voluntary and you can skip any question that you don’t want to answer. It is very important that you provide your honest and genuine opinions in the survey. Your filling out this survey is taken as your consent of participation in this research. There are no direct benefits, risks, or compensation for participating in the study. If you have any questions about this study, please contact Shilpa Sahay at [email protected] or WhatsApp at +1-404-697-7640 or Dr. Kara Dawson at [email protected] or call at +1-352-273-4177. For information regarding your rights as a research participant contact UF’s Institutional Review Board at [email protected] or +1-352-392-0433. By taking a few minutes to share your thoughts and opinions about your perspective on technology integration, you will be helping a great deal in exploring how Indian teachers perceive of technology in present times education. Your insight would be valuable! I hope you enjoy completing the questionnaire. Many Thanks, Shilpa Sahay PhD Candidate, University of Florida
213
Survey Instrument
For the purpose of this survey, Information and Communications Technology (ICT) refers to all the digital technologies- that is, computers, laptops, projectors, printers, interactive whiteboards, software programs, etc. that teachers use for teaching purposes in schools. It will be commonly referred to as computers and computer-related technologies in this survey. Please answer all of the questions.
F. Information about computer-related technologies available for teacher use
Instruction: This section includes questions about the availability of computer-related technologies for you. Please mark the option which best answers the question for you or fill in the blank. A1) Which of these technologies do you have in your home which you use for preparing for your classes? (Circle all that apply) (To mark as 1 if selected or else mark it as 0)
□ Desktop computer A1_DC
□ Laptop A1_Lap □ Tablet A1_TAB
□ Smart Phone A1_SP
□ Printer A1_Prin □ VCD/DVD A1_VCD □ Internet A1_Int
□ Pen Drive A1_PD
□ None A1_None □ Any other (specify): A1_Other
A2) Which of these technologies do you have in your school which you use for teaching purposes? (Circle all that apply) (To mark as 1 if selected or else mark it as 0)
□ Desktop computer A2_DC
□ Laptop A2_Lap □ Tablet A2_TAB □ Projector A2_Proj
□ Interactive White Board (Smart board) A2_IWB
□ Printer A2_Prin □ TV/VCD/DVD A2_TVVCD
□ Internet A2_Int
□ Pen drive A2_PD □ Computer software A2_CS
□ Any other (specify): A2_Other
A3) Where are the computer-related technologies located in your school? (Circle all that apply) (To mark as 1 if selected or else mark it as 0)
□ In IT/ICT lab A3_IT □ In classrooms A3_class □ In the library A3_Lib □ In staff rooms A3_Staff
214
□ In CAL Lab A3_Cal □ Any other (specify) A3_Other
____________________________________________________________ A4) How many computers are available for teaching in your school? (Circle the right answer) □ 1 computer 1 □ 1-5 computers 2 □ 5-10 computers 3 □ 10-20 computers 4 □ 20 or more computers 5
G. Teachers’ knowledge/skills toward use of computer-related technologies
Instruction: Please mark the option which best answers the question for you.
Yes(Y) 1 No(N) 0
B1) I know there are teachers in my school who are integrating technology in teaching. Y N B2) DE program is working with selected teachers of my school. Y N (If yes, teachers of which subjects?) (To mark as 1 if selected or else mark it as 0)
□ Science B2_Sci □ Math B2_Math □Social Studies B2_ssc □English B2_Eng □ Hindi B2_Hin □Any other specify): B2_Other____________________________
B3) DE program is working with specific classes of my school. Y N (If yes, which classes?) (To mark as 1 if selected or else mark it as 0)
□ class 6 B3_cl6 □ class 7 b3_cl7 □ class 8 B3_cl8 □ class 9 B3_cl9 □ class 10 B3_cl10 □ any other specify): B3_other ____________________________ B4) I am aware of the readiness of my school to support teachers in technology integration in teaching. Y N B5) I have received training in computer-related technologies Y N (If yes, in what?) (To mark as 1 if selected or else mark it as 0)
□ To operate a computer B5_operate
215
□ To use computer tools (e.g., MS Word, Excel, PPT) B5_use □ To create lesson plan on a computer B5_create LP □ To conduct the Digital Equalizer Way of Teaching (DEWoT) B5_DEWoT □ To conduct a flipped classroom B5_FC □ To use educational software (e.g., English Helper, MacMillan) B5_software □ Any other (specify):
B5_other__________________________________________ B6) What is your skill level in the following categories? Instruction: Please rate your skill level toward each of the categories below on the rating scale of Nil skill, Low skill, Medium skill, High skill, Expert skill
Nil 1
Low 2 Medium 3 High4
Expert5
a) Basic computer operation skill (eg.,
opening pages, using pen drive)
1 2 3 4
5
b) Microsoft Word 1 2 3 4
5
c) Microsoft Excel 1 2 3 4
5
d) Microsoft Power Point 1 2 3 4
5
e) Video Editing Tool 1 2 3 4
5
f) Picture Editing Tool 1 2 3 4
5
g) Audio Editing Tool 1 2 3 4
5
h) Browsing the Internet 1 2 3 4
5
i) Downloading from Internet 1 2 3 4
5
j) Uploading to Internet 1 2 3 4
5
k) Use of Educational Blogs/Websites 1 2 3 4
5
l) Use of Open Educational Resources
(eg. YouTube, Google)
1 2 3 4
5
m) Basic programming skills (eg. Logo,
Scratch)
1 2 3 4
5
H. Teachers’ attitudes about available computer-related technologies
C1) Please rate the following items related to your attitudes about computer technologies.
216
Instruction: Please rate your attitudes about technology practices on the rating scale of Strongly Disagree = SD Disagree = D Neither Agree/Disagree = N Agree = A Strongly Agree = SA
SD 1 D 2 N 3 A 4 SA 5
a) Working with computers make
me feel tense and uncomfortable 1 2 3 4 5
b) I think computer-related
technologies make my
professional work more difficult 1 2 3 4 5
c) Computer-related technologies
are an important part of the future
for improving the quality of
education 1 2 3 4 5
d) I have colleagues who have
positive experience in teaching
with computer-related
technologies 1 2 3 4 5
e) WhatsApp groups amongst
teachers are useful resources 1 2 3 4 5
f) Computer-related technologies
are necessary tools in both
educational and work settings 1 2 3 4 5
g) Computers can be useful
educational aids in almost all
subject areas 1 2 3 4 5
h) There are more disadvantages
than advantages in teaching with
technology in my situation 1 2 3 4 5
i) Teaching with the help of
traditional chalk and board
method is the only way to teach
effectively 1 2 3 4 5
j) My school supports and
encourages me to integrate
technology in my teaching 1 2 3 4 5
217
I. Teacher self-reports of technology adoption/rejection D1) How would you rate your decision to use computers for teaching purposes? Instruction: Please answer the below categories on the rating scale of Strongly Disagree = SD Disagree = D Neither Agree/Disagree = N Agree = A Strongly Agree = SA
SD 1 D 2 N 3 A 4 SA 5
a) I have tried to determine the
usefulness of computers in my
teaching situation 1 2 3 4 5
b) I plan to continue to use computer-
related technologies in my teaching
activity 1 2 3 4 5
c) I am interested in increasing my use
of computer-related technologies in
my teaching activity 1 2 3 4 5
d) I used technology in teaching for
some time but then decided to stop
using it anymore 1 2 3 4 5
e) I have never considered the
integration of computers technology in
my teaching 1 2 3 4 5
E. Teacher self-reports on their technology use
E1) Please rate your response toward your use of computer-related technologies in teaching Instruction: Please answer the below categories on the rating scale of Strongly Disagree = SD Disagree = D Neither Agree/Disagree = N Agree = A Strongly Agree = SA
SD 1 D 2 N 3 A 4 SA 5
a) I know about the changes taking place
in my teaching role when I am using
computer-related technologies 1 2 3 4 5
b) I know that using computer-related
technologies require extra time
commitments 1 2 3 4 5
c) I consciously plan out a lesson plan
when I am using technology in
teaching 1 2 3 4 5
218
E2) How frequently do you use computer-related technologies? Instruction: Please answer the below categories on the rating scale of 1- never; 2- once in six months ; 3- monthly; 4- weekly; 5- daily
Never 1
Once in six months 2
Monthly 3
Weekly 4
Daily 5
a) On average, how often do you
use a computer for your job? 1 2 3 4 5
b) On average, how often do you
use technologies that you have
at home for schoolwork (e.g.,
smart phone, tablet)? 1 2 3 4 5
c) On average, how often do you
use WhatsApp to communicate
with teachers? 1 2 3 4 5
d) On average, how often do you
email to communicate with
colleagues? 1 2 3 4 5
e) On average, how often do you
print teaching materials? 1 2 3 4 5
f) On average, how often do you
use computers for teaching? 1 2 3 4 5
g) On average, how often do you
use presentation programs (e.g.,
PowerPoint) in classes? 1 2 3 4 5
h) On average, how often do you
use video projectors in classes? 1 2 3 4 5
i) On average, how often do you
ask students to consult Internet
materials for your classes? 1 2 3 4 5
j) On average, how often do you
use the Internet to prepare your
classes? 1 2 3 4 5
k) On average, how often do you
use Web 2.0 tools (e.g., Wiki,
Blog, YouTube, Google, FB,
Twitter) for your classes? 1 2 3 4 5
E3) Have you been able to use computers and computer-related technologies in teaching on a continuous basis in your current position?
219
□ Yes 1 □ No 0 □ Any other (specify): (Write the answer)__________________________________________________ E4) Please mention what are the barriers to using technology on a regular basis (e.g., not enough computers, scheduling conflicts, power/internet access problems, lack of support/repair services, etc.). (Write the answer)_______________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ E5) Please share what inspires you to use computer-related technologies in your teaching. (Write the answer)_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
F. Teacher self-reports on confirmation of use of computer-related technologies F1) Do you feel computers integration in your classroom teaching has been beneficial for your students?
220
□ Yes 1 □ No 0 □ Any other (specify): (Write the answer)__________________________________________________ F2) Have you been able to integrate computers use in your teaching routine? □ Yes 1 □ No 0 □ Any other (specify): (Write the answer) _________________________________________________ F3) Have you been able to promote the beneficial use of computers to your colleagues?
□ Yes 1 □ No 0 □ Any other (specify): (Write the answer)
_________________________________________________ F4) Do you see any difference between girls vs. boys in using computer-related technologies in your class?
□ Yes 1 □ No 0 □ Any other (specify): (Write the answer)
_________________________________________________ F5) Does your school provide the following?
Yes 1 No 0 Any other (specify): (Write the answer)
a) Professional development training in
computer use for teachers □ □
b) Maintenance of computer-related
technologies in school □ □
c) Incentives/rewards for teachers to use
computers in teaching □ □
F6) What has been your school’s expectation toward your use of computers in teaching? Instruction: Please rate your understanding on the rating scale of Strongly Disagree = SD Disagree = D Neither Agree/Disagree = N Agree = A Strongly Agree = SA. Please mark the option which best answers the question for you.
221
SD 1 D 2 N 3 A 4 SA 5
a) My school expects me to have
the technical skills to use
technology 1 2 3 4 5
b) My school expects me to teach
lessons that appropriately
combine my course content,
technologies, and teaching
approaches 1 2 3 4 5
c) My school has no expectation
from me to use computers in
teaching 1 2 3 4 5
d) My school expects me to continue
using computers in teaching even
after there is no support from DE
field coordinators 1 2 3 4 5
G. Demographic Information
G1) What is the highest level of your education?
□ 12th pass 1 □ Bachelors 2 □ Masters 3 □ PhD 4 □ Any other (specify): (Write the answer)
_________________________________________________ G2) What are your teaching qualifications? (Circle all that apply) (To mark as 1 if selected or else mark it as 0)
□ Diploma in Education G2_dip □ B. Ed G2_B.Ed
□ M.Ed G2_M.Ed □ M.Phil G2_M.Phil □ Computer diploma/ certificate G2_Comp □ NET G2_NET □ CTET G2_CTET □ TET G2_TET □ Any other (specify): G2_other
_____________________________________________________ G3) What is your gender?
□ Female 1 □ Male 2
G4) What is your age? (Write the answer) ________________________________________________________
222
G5) How many years have you been teaching? (Write the answer) ______________________________ G6) How many years have you been teaching with computers-related technologies? (Write the answer) __________
G7) In which year did you receive your first training on teaching with computers? (Write the answer) ______________ G8) What is the primary language that you teach in?
□ English 1 □ Hindi 2 □ Other (Please specify) (Write the answer) _______________________________________________
G9) Which subject do you primarily teach?
□ Math 1 □ Science 2 □ English 3 □ Social Studies 4 □ Other (Write the answer)
_______________________________________________________________ G10) Which school zone do you teach in?
□ North zone 1 □ North West zone 2 □ North East zone 3
□ West zone 4 □ Central zone 5 □ New Delhi zone 6
□ East zone 7 □ South East zone 8 □ South zone 9
G11) What is the average class size that you teach?
□ Less than 20 students 1 □ 20-30 students 2 □ 30-40 students 3 □ 40-50 students 4 □ 50-60 students 5 □ More than 60 students 6
Thank you for your participation!
223
APPENDIX N CORRELATION MATRICES
Table B6- Correlation matrix for teachers’ knowledge (skill level) categories
Table C1- Correlation matrix for teachers’ attitudes categories
Table D1- Correlation matrix for teachers’ decision categories
Table E2 and F6- Correlation matrix for teachers’ implementation and confirmation (use) categories
224
Table B6+C1+D1+E2+F6- Correlation matrix for all the IDP domains (knowledge, attitude, decision and practice (implementation + confirmation))
Inter-Item Correlation Matrix
E2_a E2_b E2_c E2_d E2_e E2_f E2_g E2_h E2_i E2_k F6_a F6_b
F6_c_rev F6_d B6_a B6_b B6_c B6_d B6_e B6_f B6_g B6_h B6_i
B6_j B6_k B6_l B6_m C1_a_rev C1_b_rev C1_c C1_d C1_e C1_f
C1_g C1_h_rev C1_i_rev C1_j D1_a D1_b D1_c D1_d_rev
D1_e_rev
E2_a 1.000 .530 .342 .304 .425 .605 .521 .647 .316 .384 .108 .232
.093 .137 .232 .204 .198 .164 .243 .252 .307 .175 .264 .338
.304 .295 .221 .182 .244 .108 .208 .158 .080 .102 .235 .066
.256 .400 .455 .431 .258 .170
E2_b .530 1.000 .494 .386 .438 .452 .345 .430 .299 .392 .253 .260
.073 .074 .111 .109 .110 .111 .213 .255 .276 .132 .217 .305
.241 .229 .178 .068 .186 .049 .132 .225 .102 .071 .128 .082
.265 .349 .401 .373 .123 .155
E2_c .342 .494 1.000 .275 .219 .223 .251 .342 .378 .360 .164 .218
.058 .138 .026 .065 .035 .094 .123 .178 .160 .170 .231 .254
.131 .210 .124 .162 .222 .171 .291 .379 .189 .173 .106 -.034
.291 .240 .262 .316 .062 -.076
E2_d .304 .386 .275 1.000 .361 .263 .317 .285 .344 .474 .293 .226
-.154 .196 .133 .223 .245 .238 .313 .317 .323 .095 .134 .250
.063 .086 .108 -.037 .093 .040 .159 .070 .004 .021 -.014 -.214
.081 .258 .380 .324 .019 -.066
E2_e .425 .438 .219 .361 1.000 .459 .344 .417 .130 .369 .184 .210
.293 .119 .088 .123 .048 .051 .069 .190 .111 .097 .215 .333
225
.249 .258 .076 .207 .255 .064 .175 .144 .024 .083 .274 .098
.187 .282 .483 .358 .168 .305
E2_f .605 .452 .223 .263 .459 1.000 .647 .708 .300 .495 .130 .422
.032 .192 .222 .113 .170 .116 .306 .303 .389 .168 .233 .382
.335 .220 .260 .151 .194 .111 .267 .173 .093 .135 .123 .118
.303 .421 .474 .376 .118 .193
E2_g .521 .345 .251 .317 .344 .647 1.000 .697 .310 .488 .145 .320
.029 .224 .167 .100 .225 .155 .187 .128 .219 .030 .162 .302
.253 .200 .230 .047 .139 .066 .167 .027 -.006 -.019 .086 -.005
.260 .350 .357 .259 .044 .050
E2_h .647 .430 .342 .285 .417 .708 .697 1.000 .387 .492 .166 .340
.123 .211 .114 .064 .146 .065 .170 .168 .237 .043 .192 .305
.247 .194 .139 .121 .128 .067 .192 .171 .072 .060 .140 .041
.289 .352 .395 .317 .192 .117
E2_i .316 .299 .378 .344 .130 .300 .310 .387 1.000 .555 .248 .121
-.138 .137 .029 .103 .051 .143 .017 .057 .123 .047 .088 .146
.006 .023 .128 .018 .064 -.049 .108 .038 -.039 .015 -.039 -.161
.143 .164 .200 .284 .033 -.100
E2_k .384 .392 .360 .474 .369 .495 .488 .492 .555 1.000 .285 .285
-.022 .227 .197 .173 .149 .217 .110 .186 .182 .055 .144 .205
.135 .136 .101 .130 .166 .182 .248 .181 .119 .138 -.054 -.243
.236 .317 .383 .409 .087 -.031
F6_a .108 .253 .164 .293 .184 .130 .145 .166 .248 .285 1.000 .444
.244 .205 .152 .058 .039 .178 .085 .168 .158 .161 .205 .264
.156 .194 .092 .158 .249 .035 .262 .170 .211 .132 .125 -.172
.273 .183 .313 .207 .095 .092
F6_b .232 .260 .218 .226 .210 .422 .320 .340 .121 .285 .444 1.000
.377 .346 .116 .046 .042 .084 .123 .154 .153 .163 .200 .267
.290 .204 .045 .157 .247 .258 .386 .223 .276 .202 .157 .008
.364 .377 .483 .372 .217 .292
F6_c_rev .093 .073 .058 -.154 .293 .032 .029 .123 -.138 -.022 .244
.377 1.000 .108 .195 .070 -.022 .063 -.040 .061 .033 .326 .365
.317 .396 .437 .003 .254 .345 .348 .329 .296 .362 .382 .426
.286 .333 .198 .161 .100 .408 .597
F6_d .137 .074 .138 .196 .119 .192 .224 .211 .137 .227 .205 .346
.108 1.000 .170 .126 .104 .091 .094 .076 .087 .210 .155 .162
.116 .117 -.038 .038 .002 .047 .057 .053 .050 .051 -.021 -.060
.046 .256 .239 .295 .013 .092
B6_a .232 .111 .026 .133 .088 .222 .167 .114 .029 .197 .152 .116
.195 .170 1.000 .778 .696 .708 .554 .631 .531 .650 .652 .581
.577 .651 .434 .360 .250 .376 .262 .239 .349 .366 .143 .056
.306 .281 .234 .243 .214 .360
B6_b .204 .109 .065 .223 .123 .113 .100 .064 .103 .173 .058 .046
.070 .126 .778 1.000 .862 .784 .561 .629 .510 .670 .626 .559
.513 .528 .396 .223 .130 .310 .206 .159 .271 .342 .057 .060
.219 .171 .148 .133 .175 .249
226
B6_c .198 .110 .035 .245 .048 .170 .225 .146 .051 .149 .039 .042
-.022 .104 .696 .862 1.000 .844 .575 .599 .541 .600 .561 .543
.534 .479 .386 .142 .030 .263 .162 .158 .231 .245 -.020 .022
.212 .136 .126 .066 .088 .143
B6_d .164 .111 .094 .238 .051 .116 .155 .065 .143 .217 .178 .084
.063 .091 .708 .784 .844 1.000 .523 .605 .519 .594 .577 .510
.492 .501 .361 .214 .104 .276 .191 .169 .251 .235 -.019 -.034
.224 .139 .149 .155 .141 .135
B6_e .243 .213 .123 .313 .069 .306 .187 .170 .017 .110 .085 .123
-.040 .094 .554 .561 .575 .523 1.000 .809 .858 .419 .390 .502
.395 .391 .596 .068 .094 .170 .239 .250 .207 .266 -.007 .076
.183 .162 .185 .192 .031 .137
B6_f .252 .255 .178 .317 .190 .303 .128 .168 .057 .186 .168 .154
.061 .076 .631 .629 .599 .605 .809 1.000 .789 .500 .464 .495
.426 .502 .515 .219 .181 .258 .326 .321 .307 .289 .095 .036
.233 .276 .247 .269 .158 .288
B6_g .307 .276 .160 .323 .111 .389 .219 .237 .123 .182 .158 .153
.033 .087 .531 .510 .541 .519 .858 .789 1.000 .437 .405 .539
.428 .429 .638 .048 .048 .200 .289 .297 .263 .306 .088 .105
.206 .218 .182 .159 .077 .164
B6_h .175 .132 .170 .095 .097 .168 .030 .043 .047 .055 .161 .163
.326 .210 .650 .670 .600 .594 .419 .500 .437 1.000 .814 .661
.684 .707 .243 .286 .260 .355 .224 .249 .333 .358 .185 .226
.274 .270 .182 .144 .212 .378
B6_i .264 .217 .231 .134 .215 .233 .162 .192 .088 .144 .205 .200
.365 .155 .652 .626 .561 .577 .390 .464 .405 .814 1.000 .836
.767 .738 .294 .329 .337 .375 .276 .318 .381 .392 .199 .229
.253 .333 .260 .162 .271 .414
B6_j .338 .305 .254 .250 .333 .382 .302 .305 .146 .205 .264 .267
.317 .162 .581 .559 .543 .510 .502 .495 .539 .661 .836 1.000
.772 .665 .409 .271 .278 .332 .379 .344 .351 .391 .223 .180
.325 .363 .374 .280 .207 .374
B6_k .304 .241 .131 .063 .249 .335 .253 .247 .006 .135 .156 .290
.396 .116 .577 .513 .534 .492 .395 .426 .428 .684 .767 .772
1.000 .761 .322 .295 .278 .356 .365 .295 .344 .358 .204 .143
.311 .356 .307 .180 .231 .392
B6_l .295 .229 .210 .086 .258 .220 .200 .194 .023 .136 .194 .204
.437 .117 .651 .528 .479 .501 .391 .502 .429 .707 .738 .665
.761 1.000 .335 .377 .327 .410 .348 .353 .374 .400 .256 .187
.383 .364 .273 .272 .251 .418
B6_m .221 .178 .124 .108 .076 .260 .230 .139 .128 .101 .092 .045
.003 -.038 .434 .396 .386 .361 .596 .515 .638 .243 .294 .409
.322 .335 1.000 .106 .062 .029 .146 .133 .089 .159 .036 .104
.132 .102 -.013 .035 -.064 .089
C1_a_rev .182 .068 .162 -.037 .207 .151 .047 .121 .018 .130 .158
.157 .254 .038 .360 .223 .142 .214 .068 .219 .048 .286 .329
227
.271 .295 .377 .106 1.000 .667 .262 .205 .132 .281 .271 .497
.232 .106 .299 .249 .281 .393 .385
C1_b_rev .244 .186 .222 .093 .255 .194 .139 .128 .064 .166 .249
.247 .345 .002 .250 .130 .030 .104 .094 .181 .048 .260 .337
.278 .278 .327 .062 .667 1.000 .369 .249 .196 .311 .318 .568
.343 .269 .413 .382 .343 .406 .426
C1_c .108 .049 .171 .040 .064 .111 .066 .067 -.049 .182 .035 .258
.348 .047 .376 .310 .263 .276 .170 .258 .200 .355 .375 .332
.356 .410 .029 .262 .369 1.000 .643 .671 .758 .715 .238 .106
.530 .343 .301 .307 .429 .443
C1_d .208 .132 .291 .159 .175 .267 .167 .192 .108 .248 .262 .386
.329 .057 .262 .206 .162 .191 .239 .326 .289 .224 .276 .379
.365 .348 .146 .205 .249 .643 1.000 .615 .621 .581 .162 -.112
.544 .374 .396 .379 .315 .356
C1_e .158 .225 .379 .070 .144 .173 .027 .171 .038 .181 .170 .223
.296 .053 .239 .159 .158 .169 .250 .321 .297 .249 .318 .344
.295 .353 .133 .132 .196 .671 .615 1.000 .754 .584 .101 -.037
.590 .325 .371 .325 .305 .273
C1_f .080 .102 .189 .004 .024 .093 -.006 .072 -.039 .119 .211 .276
.362 .050 .349 .271 .231 .251 .207 .307 .263 .333 .381 .351
.344 .374 .089 .281 .311 .758 .621 .754 1.000 .784 .215 .005
.541 .305 .299 .331 .390 .421
C1_g .102 .071 .173 .021 .083 .135 -.019 .060 .015 .138 .132 .202
.382 .051 .366 .342 .245 .235 .266 .289 .306 .358 .392 .391
.358 .400 .159 .271 .318 .715 .581 .584 .784 1.000 .231 .081
.497 .255 .224 .297 .363 .369
C1_h_rev .235 .128 .106 -.014 .274 .123 .086 .140 -.039 -.054 .125
.157 .426 -.021 .143 .057 -.020 -.019 -.007 .095 .088 .185 .199
.223 .204 .256 .036 .497 .568 .238 .162 .101 .215 .231 1.000
.498 .137 .183 .244 .239 .451 .524
C1_i_rev .066 .082 -.034 -.214 .098 .118 -.005 .041 -.161 -.243 -.172
.008 .286 -.060 .056 .060 .022 -.034 .076 .036 .105 .226 .229
.180 .143 .187 .104 .232 .343 .106 -.112 -.037 .005 .081 .498
1.000 .028 .116 -.057 -.029 .230 .386
C1_j .256 .265 .291 .081 .187 .303 .260 .289 .143 .236 .273 .364
.333 .046 .306 .219 .212 .224 .183 .233 .206 .274 .253 .325
.311 .383 .132 .106 .269 .530 .544 .590 .541 .497 .137 .028
1.000 .400 .419 .428 .259 .281
D1_a .400 .349 .240 .258 .282 .421 .350 .352 .164 .317 .183 .377
.198 .256 .281 .171 .136 .139 .162 .276 .218 .270 .333 .363
.356 .364 .102 .299 .413 .343 .374 .325 .305 .255 .183 .116
.400 1.000 .604 .482 .226 .313
D1_b .455 .401 .262 .380 .483 .474 .357 .395 .200 .383 .313 .483
.161 .239 .234 .148 .126 .149 .185 .247 .182 .182 .260 .374
.307 .273 -.013 .249 .382 .301 .396 .371 .299 .224 .244 -.057
.419 .604 1.000 .685 .281 .203
228
D1_c .431 .373 .316 .324 .358 .376 .259 .317 .284 .409 .207 .372
.100 .295 .243 .133 .066 .155 .192 .269 .159 .144 .162 .280
.180 .272 .035 .281 .343 .307 .379 .325 .331 .297 .239 -.029
.428 .482 .685 1.000 .237 .246
D1_d_rev .258 .123 .062 .019 .168 .118 .044 .192 .033 .087 .095
.217 .408 .013 .214 .175 .088 .141 .031 .158 .077 .212 .271
.207 .231 .251 -.064 .393 .406 .429 .315 .305 .390 .363 .451
.230 .259 .226 .281 .237 1.000 .547
D1_e_rev .170 .155 -.076 -.066 .305 .193 .050 .117 -.100 -.031 .092
.292 .597 .092 .360 .249 .143 .135 .137 .288 .164 .378 .414
.374 .392 .418 .089 .385 .426 .443 .356 .273 .421 .369 .524
.386 .281 .313 .203 .246 .547 1.000
229
APPENDIX O SPEARMAN’S CORRELATION COEFFICIENT
230
LIST OF REFERENCES
Acharyya, K. (2016, November 25). Delhi government’s attempts at improving literacy are failing, but were expectations too unrealistic? Firstpost. Retrieved from https://www.firstpost.com/india/delhi-govts-attempts-at-improving-literacy-are-failing-but-were-expectations-too-unrealistic-3124614.html
Adiga, A. (2008). The white tiger: A novel (1st Free Press hardcover ed.). New York: Free Press.
Adiseshiah, M. S. (1981). Adult education faces inequalities. Sangam Publishers.
Aggarwal, V. (2010). Dell takes aim at education segment with connected classroom. InformationWeek India. Retrieved from: http://www.informationweek.in/informationweek/news-analysis/175031/dell-takes-aimeducation-segment-partnering-educomp
Agrawal, B. C. (2005). Educational media in India. In U. V. Reddi & S. Mishra (Eds.), Perspectives on distance education: educational media in Asia. Vancouver, B.C.: Commonwealth of Learning.
Albion, P.R. (1999). Self-Efficacy beliefs as an indicator of teachers’ preparedness for teaching with technology. Computers in the Social Studies, 7(4).
Allender, T. (2009). Learning abroad: The colonial educational experiment in India, 1813-1919. Paedagogica Historica, 45(6), 727-741.
Allinder, R.M. (1994). The relationships between efficacy and the instructional practices of special education teachers and consultants. Teacher Education and Special Education, 17, 86-95.
Anderson, R. E., Hansen, T., Johnson, D. C., & Klassen, D. L. (1979). Instructional computing: Acceptance and rejection by secondary school teachers. Sociology of Work and Occupations, 6(2), 227-250.
Angelaina, S., & Jimoyiannis, A. (2012). Analysing students’ engagement and learning presence in an educational blog community. Educational Media International, 49(3), 183-200.
Archambault, L., & Crippen, K. (2009). Examining TPACK among K-12 online distance educators in the United States. Contemporary issues in technology and teacher education, 9(1), 71-88.
Arnove, R. F., & Graff, H. J. (1987). National literacy campaigns: Historical and comparative perspectives. Springer Science & Business Media.
Arora, L. G., & Pandey, S. (1998). Teachers' continuing education: Shifting focus on distance mode. Indian Journal of Open Learning, 7(3), 255-265.
231
Arora, P. (2007). The ICT Laboratory: An Analysis of Computers in Government Schools in Rural India. AACE journal, 15(1), 57-72.
Arulchelvan, S. (2012). The effectiveness of E-LMS on performance of Indian rural schools: A case from a developing country. Contemporary Educational Technology, 3(1).
Babbie, E. (1990). Survey research methods. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Google Scholar.
Bakir, N. (2015). An exploration of contemporary realities of technology and teacher education: Lessons learned. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 31(3), 117-130.
Bakir, N. n. (2016). Technology and Teacher Education: A Brief Glimpse of the Research and Practice that Have Shaped the Field. Techtrends: Linking Research & Practice to Improve Learning, 60(1), 21-29. doi:10.1007/s11528-015-0013-4.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. Macmillan.
Bandyopadhyay, A. (2013). Technology integration before student outcomes: Factors affecting teacher adoption of technology in India Available from Social Science Premium Collection. (1773212865; ED559552). Retrieved from https://login.lp.hscl.ufl.edu/login?URL=http://search.proquest.com/accountid=10920?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1773212865?accountid=10920
Banerjee, A., Banerji, R., Berry, J., Duflo, E., Kannan, H., Mukherji, S., & Walton, M. (2015). Teaching at the right level: Evidence from randomized evaluations in India. NBER Working Paper, (22746).
Banerji, R., Bhattacharjea, S., & Wadhwa, W. (2013). The annual status of education report (ASER). Research in Comparative and International Education, 8(3), 387-396.Ashrafzadeh, A., & Sayadian, S. (2015). University instructors’ concerns and perceptions of technology integration. Computers in Human Behavior, 49, 62-73.
Bauer, J., & Kenton, J. (2005). Toward technology integration in the schools: Why it isn’t happening. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 14(4), 519–541.
Bebell, D., & Kay, R. (2010). One to one computing: A summary of the quantitative results from the Berkshire wireless Learning Initiative. The Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 9(2).
Becker, H. J. (1985). How Schools Use Microcomputers. Summary of the First National Survey.
232
Becker, H. J. (1986). Instructional uses of school computers: Reports from the 1985 national survey. Center for Social Organization of Schools, Johns Hopkins University.
Becker, H. J. (1990). Computer Use in the United States Schools, 1989: An Initial Report of US Participation in the IEA Computers in Education Survey. Center for Social Organization of Schools, the Johns Hopkins University.
Becker H.J. (2001) How Are Teachers Using Computers in Instruction? Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Researchers Association, Seattle, 10–14 April, 2001.
Becker, H. (2000). Who’s wired and who’s not: Children’s access to and use of computer technology. The Future of Children, 10(2), 486-499.
Behera, S. K. (2012). An Investigation into The Attitude Of College Teachers Towards E- Learning In Purulia District Of West Bengal, India. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 13(3).
Berard, R. (1994). Media reviews. Canadian Social Studies, 28(2), 79-81.
Beukes-Amiss, C. M., & Chiware, E. R. T. (2006). The impact of the diffusion of ICTs into educational practices, how good or how bad? A review of the Namibian situation.
Bhalla, J. (2013). Computer use by school teachers in teaching-learning process. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 1(2), 174-185.
Bharadwaj, V. (2007). ICT usage in 1000 schools of India. Digital Learning, 3(8).
Bharati, G. (2014). Development and implementation of ICT aided constructivist learning approach for the professional development of pre-service teachers.
Bhatnagar, S. (2000). Social implications of information and communication technology in developing countries: Lessons for Asian success stories. Electronic Journal on Information Systems in Developing Countries, 1, 1–9.
Bhatnagar, S. (2000). Social implications of information and communication technology in developing countries: Lessons for Asian success stories. Electronic Journal on Information Systems in Developing Countries, 1, 1–9.
Bhola, H. S. (1975). The Design of (Educational) Policy: Directing and Harnessing Social Power for Social Outcomes. Viewpoints, 51(3), 1-16.
Bhola, H. S. (1988). A Policy Analysis of Adult Literacy Education in India: Across the Two National Policy Reviews of 1968 and 1986.
233
Bigum, C., & Lankshear, C. (1998). Literacies and technologies in school settings: Findings from the field. In Proc. Joint national conference of Australian Association for the Teaching of English and the Australian Literacy Educators’ Association, Canberra.
Borko, H., & Putnam, R.T. (1996). Learning to teach. In D.C. Berliner & R.C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 673-708). New York: Macmillan.
Bose, S. (2010). Enabling Secondary Level Teachers to Integrate Technology through ICT Integrated Instructional System. Online Submission.
Bose, S. (2013). Integrated teacher education programme for open distance learning: A model for development and implementation. Open Learning, 28(2), 120-134.
Bose, S., & Sharma, P. (2010). Choice of instructional media of B.Ed. students of IGNOU from two Indian metropolises. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 11(4), 82-92.
Bransford, J. D., & Schwartz, D. L. (1999). Chapter 3: Rethinking transfer: A simple proposal with multiple implications. Review of research in education, 24(1), 61-100.
Bruder, I. (1988). Educational Computing in America: Electronic Learning's 8th Annual Survey of the States, 1988. Electronic Learning, 8(2), 38-45.
Bruder, I. (1989). Future Teachers: Are They Prepared? Electronic Learning, 8(4), 32-39.
Byker, E. (2014). ICT in India’s elementary schools: The vision and realities. International Education Journal: Comparative Perspectives, 13(2), 27-40.
Byker, E. J. (2012). The Bangalore challenge: Case studies of the social construction of technology (Doctoral dissertation, Doctoral dissertation). Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI).
Campbell, R. J., Kyriakides, L., Muijs, R. D., & Robinson, W. (2004). Differentiated teacher effectiveness: Framing the concept, assessing teacher effectiveness. Developing a Differentiated model, 3-11.
Carmines, E. G., & Zeller, R. A. (1979). Reliability and validity assessment (Vol. 17). Sage publications.
Cerisier, J. F., & Popuri, A. (2011). Computers and School: Indian and French students' discourse. European Journal of Education, 46(3), 373-387.
Chandra, P. (1986) The Implementation of Computers in a Secondary School, a Case Study of Teachers' Perceptions about Computers in Teaching within the Social
234
Organisation of a Comprehensive School. Ph.D thesis, King's College, University of London.
Chatterjee, P. and Nath, A. (2015). The future ICT Education in India – a pilot study on the vision of ubiquitous learning in higher education. International Conference on Information Systems Design and Intelligent Applications.
Chaudhary, S., & Garg, S. (2010). On using satellite-based networks for capacity building and education for all: A case study of Rajiv Gandhi project for EduSat-supported elementary education. Educational Research and Reviews, 5(4), 158-168.
Chaudhri, M. M. (1980). Educational technology and system design for the production of educational material for adult education programme--A case study. Indian Journal of Adult Education, 41(1-2), 25.
Chen, C. H. (2006). Investigating the influences of teacher belief and contextual factors on the technology integration of Taiwanese high school teachers (Doctoral dissertation).
Cheney, G. R., Ruzzi, B. B., & Muralidharan, K. (2005). A profile of the Indian education system. Prepared for the New Commission on the Skills of the American Workforce.
Christensen, R., & Knezek, G. (1996). Constructing the Teachers' Attitudes toward Computers (TAC) Questionnaire.
Christensen, R., & Knezek, G. (2000). Internal consistency reliabilities for 14 computer attitude scales. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 8(4), 327-336.
Christensen, R. W., & Knezek, G. A. (2009). Construct validity for the teachers’ attitudes toward computers questionnaire. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 25(4), 143-155.
Chu, P. C., & Spires, E. E. (1991). Validating the computer anxiety rating scale: Effects of cognitive style and computer courses on computer anxiety. Computers in Human Behavior, 7, 7–21.
Coburn, Cynthia E. (2003). Rethinking Scale: Moving beyond numbers to deep and lasting change. Educational Researcher, Volume 32, Issue 3.Pajares, F.M. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307-332.
Compeau, D. R., & Higgins, C. A. (1995). Computer self-efficacy: Development of a measure and initial test. MIS quarterly, 189-211.
Compeau, D., Higgins, C. A., & Huff, S. (1999). Social cognitive theory and individual reactions to computing technology: A longitudinal study. MIS quarterly, 145-158.
235
Condie, R., Munro, B., Muir, D. & Collins, R. (2005) The impact of ICT initiatives in Scottish schools: Phase 3 (Edinburgh, Scottish Executive Education Department).
Cox, M., Webb, M., Abbott, C., Blankely, B., Beauchamp, T., & Rhodes, V. (2004). ICT and pedagogy. Becta Report. Retrieved September 20, 2009, from http://publications.becta.org.uk/display.cfm?resID=25813
CSF Report. (2015). The Edtech promise. Catalyzing quality school education at scale.
Cuban, L. (1986) Teachers and Machines: the classroom use of technology since 1920. New York: Teachers' College Press.
Cuban, L. (2005). The blackboard and the bottom line: Why schools can’t be businesses. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Cuban, L. (2009). Oversold and underused. Harvard University Press.
Dakich, E. (2009). Teachers’ perceptions about the barriers and catalysts for effective practices with ICT in primary schools. In Education and Technology for a Better World (pp. 445-453). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
Dakich, E. (2009). Teachers’ perceptions about the barriers and catalysts for effective practices with ICT in primary schools. In Education and Technology for a Better World (pp. 445-453). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
Dash, K. N. (1997). Reactions of primary school teachers towards training through interactive television. Indian Journal of Open Learning, 6(1).
Dash, M. K. (2009). Effectiveness of EduSat for Improving Learning Achievements of Primary School Children - A Critical Study. Indian Journal Of Open Learning, 18(2), 77-85.
Dave, P.N., Gupta, D. (1988). Operation Blackboard: Essential facilities at the primary stage, Norms and Specifications. NCERT, New Delhi.
Davis, F. D. (1985). A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-user information systems: Theory and results (Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology).
Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models. Management science, 35(8), 982-1003.
Dawson, K. & Ritzhaupt, A.D. (2015). Final Report. Technology Uses and Perception Survey. Prepared for Alachua County Public Schools.
236
DEEWR, 2008 DEEWR. (2008). Success through partnership. Achieving a national vision for ICT in schools (p. 3). Retrieved September 2, 2009 from http://www.deewr.gov.au/SCHOOLING/DIGITALEDUCATIONREVOLUTION/Pages/default .aspx
Denicolo, P. M., & Kompf, M. (Eds.). (2005). Teacher thinking twenty years on: Revisiting persisting problems and advances in education. CRC Press.
Devi, S., Rizwaan, M., & Chander, S. (2012). ICT for quality of education in India. International Journal of Physical and Social Sciences, 2(6), 542.
Dillman, D. A., Smyth, J. D., & Christian, L. M. (2009). Internet, mail, and mixed-mode surveys. The tailored design method, 3.
Dossani, R., Misra, D. C., & Jhaveri, R. (2005). Enabling ICT for rural India. Asia Pacific Research Center, Stanford University and National Informatics Centre. Last Accessed July, 14, 2008.
Drier, H. (2001). Beliefs, experiences, and reflections that affect the development of techno-mathematical knowledge. In Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 1353-1358). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).
D’Souza, P. V. (1992). E-mail’s role in the learning process: A case study. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 25(2), 254-264.
Dun, A., Feldman, A., & Rearick, M. (2000). Teaching and learning with computers in schools: The development of instructional technology pedagogical content knowledge. In Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
Duncombe, R., & Heeks, R. (2002). Enterprise across the Digital Divide: Information Systems and Rural Microenterprise in Botswana. Journal of International Development, 14(1), 61 -74.
Dutta, I., & Wadhwa, S. (2017). Podcasting: A Technological Online Learning Tool for the Visually Impaired Learners. Indian Journal of Open Learning (ISSN: 0971-2690), 151-166.Edusat, ToI, 2015 Edusat goes kaput in half the schools (2015, December 5). The Times of India. Retrieved from: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/gurgaon/Edusat-goes-kaput-in-half-the-schools/articleshow/50049886.cms
Dutta, S., Geiger, T., & Lanvin, B. (2015). The global information technology report 2015. In World Economic Forum (Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. P80-85).
Ericsson Consumer Lab, (2013). Performance Shapes Smartphone Behavior: Understanding Mobile Broadband User Expectations in India. An Ericsson Consumer Insight Summary Report, July. Available at:
237
〈http://www.ericsson.com/res/docs/2014/performance-shapes-smartphone-
behavior.pdf〉
Ertmer, P. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for technology integration. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 53(4), 25-40.
Ertmer, P. A. (1999). Addressing first-and second-order barriers to change: Strategies for technology integration. Educational technology research and development, 47(4), 47-61.
Ertmer, P. A. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: the final frontier in our quest for technology integration? Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 25-39.
Ertmer, P.A (2006). Teacher pedagogical beliefs and classroom technology use: A critical link ‖, Curriculum and Instruction Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907-2098, undated, Available: http://www.edci.purdue.edu/ertmer/docs/AERA06_TchrBeliefs.pdf
Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. (2013). Removing obstacles to the pedagogical changes required by Jonassen's vision of authentic technology-enabled learning. Computers & Education, 64, 175-182.
Ertmer, P., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A., & York, C. (2007). Exemplary technology use: Teachers’ perceptions of critical factors. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 23(2) 55-61.
Ezer, J. (2006). Gandhi's third assassination: Information and communications technology education in India. Information Technology for Development, 12(3), 201-212.
Finley, L., & Hartman, D. (2004). Institutional change and resistance: Teacher preparatory faculty and technology integration. Journal of technology and teacher education, 12(3), 319.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and research.
Francis, L. J. (1993). Measuring attitude toward computers among undergraduate college students: The affective domain. Computers & Education, 20(3), 251-255.
Fullan, M. (1985) Curriculum implementation, in T. Husen & N. Postlewaithe (Eds) The International Encyclopaedia of Education, pp. 2505-2517. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
238
Gallant, G. (2000). Professional development for web-based teaching: Overcoming innocence and resistance. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 88, 69-78.
Gandhi, M.M. (2013). Information Communication Technology (ICT) integrated higher education in India. International journal of information technology & computer sciences perspectives, 2(3), 573-581.
Garba, S. A., Yusuf, B., & Busthami, A. H. (2015). Toward the Use of Technology and 21st Century Teaching-learning Approaches: The Trend of Development in Malaysian Schools within the Context of Asia Pacific. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET), 10(4), 72-79.
Gardner, D. G., Discenza, R., & Dukes, R. L. (1993). The measurement of computer attitudes: An empirical comparison of available scales. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 9(4), 487–507.
Garg, N. (2011). Low cost private education in India: Challenges and way forward (Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology).
Garland, K. J., & Noyes, J. M. (2008). Computer attitude scales: How relevant today?. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(2), 563-575.
Gerster, R., & Zimmermann, S. (2003). Information and communication technologies (ICTs) for poverty reduction. Agencia Suiza por el Desarrollo y la Cooperación. Disponible en línea:[http://www. gersterconsulting. ch/docs/ICT_for_Poverty_Reduction. pdf].
Gibson, I. W. (2001). At the intersection of technology and pedagogy: Considering styles of learning and teaching. Journal of Information Techology for Teacher Education, 10(1-2), 37-61.
Glaeser, L. l. (2016). Breaking through: Using educational technology for children with special needs. Education & Information Technologies, 21(5), 1243-1247. doi:10.1007/s10639-015-9378-4
Govmda, R., & Josephine, Y. (2005). Para-teachers in India: A review. Contemporary Education Dialogue, 2(2), 193-224. Grable, L., Osborne, J., & Corbell, K. (2006). Internal reliability and factor analysis of Performance Standards for Inservice Teachers: Assessment of teachers’ NETS-T expertise. In Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 898-903). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE)
Gupta, A., & Fisher, D. (2012). Technology-supported learning environments in science classrooms in India. Learning Environments Research, 15(2), 195-216.
239
Gupta, D., & Singh, G. (2014). Usage of E-Learning Tools: A Gap in Existing Teacher Education Curricula in India. i-Manager's Journal of Educational Technology, 11(1), 30.
Guskey, T. R. (1988). Teacher efficacy, self-concept, and attitudes toward the implementation of instructional innovation. Teaching and teacher education, 4(1), 63-69.
Hage, J. (1999). Organizational innovation and organization change. Annual Review of Sociology, 597-622.
Hahs-Vaughn, D. L., & Lomax, R. G. (2013). An introduction to statistical concepts. Routledge.
Halder, S. s., & Chaudhuri, S. (2010). Psychological Challenges Towards Implementing ICT in Teaching- Learning. Proceedings Of The European Conference On E-Learning, 140-148.
Hall, G. E., Hord, S. M., George, A. A., Stiegelbauer, S., & Dirksen, D. (2006). Measuring implementation in schools: The concerns based adoption model. Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory (SEDL).
Harré, R. (1980). Social being: A theory for social psychology. Rowman and Littlefield.
Harrison, C., Comber, C., Fisher, T., Haw, K., Lewin, C., Lunzer, E., & Watling, R. (2002). ImpaCT2: The impact of information and communication technologies on pupil learning and attainment. British Educational Communications and Technology Agency (BECTA).
Hasan, B. (2003). The influence of specific computer experiences on computer self-efficacy beliefs. Computers in human behavior, 19(4), 443-450.
Heeks, R., & Nicholson, B. (2002). Software export success factors and strategies in developing and transitional economies. In IFIP International Working Conference on Information and Communication Technologies—New opportunities, perspectives and challenges, Bangalore, India.
Hodas, S. (1996). Technology refusal and the organizational culture of schools. Computerization and Controversy. Value Conflicts and Social Choices, 197-218. Huang, H. M., & Liaw, S. S. (2005). Exploring users’ attitudes and intentions toward the Web as a survey tool. Computers in Human Behavior. 21(5), 729-743.
Hughes, M. (2005). Reach to teach ICT: Issues and compromises. Education and Information Technologies, 10(3), 263-276.
In Lloyd, L. (2014). Educational technology for the global village: Worldwide innovation and best practices.
240
Inamdar, P. (2004). Computer skills development by children using'hole in the wall'facilities in rural India. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 20(3).
Jaipal, K., & Figg, C. (2010). Unpacking the “Total PACKage”: Emergent TPACK characteristics from a study of preservice teachers teaching with technology. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 18(3), 415-441.
Jaiswal, P. (2006). Using technology to enhance the teaching learning process. Journal on School Educational Technology, 1(4), 26-30.
Jame, E., & Istance, D. (2000). Learning To Bridge the Digital Divide: Schooling for Tomorrow. Education and Skills.[National Center on Adult Literacy (NCAL)/Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Roundtable (5th, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, December 8-10, 1999)].
Jan, S. (2014). Globalization and India's ICT initiatives in education: Challenges and prospects. Educational Quest, 5(1), 27.
Johannessen, J. A. (2009). A systemic approach to innovation: the interactive innovation model. Kybernetes, 38(1/2), 158-176.
Johnson, J. (2008). Can a laptop change how the world teaches? Knowledge Quest, 36(4), 72-73.
Johnson, R. A., & Hignite, M. A. (2000). Applying the technology acceptance model to the WWW. Academy of Information and Management Sciences Journal, 3(2), 130-142.
Jonassen, D. H. (2006). Modeling with technology: Mindtools for conceptual change. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall.
Joshi, B. H. (2017). M-COMMERCE: NEW GENERATION. International Journal of Research in Management & Social Science, 58.
Kannan, K., & Narayanan, K. (2015). Synchronous Teacher Training in India: A Study of Perceptions and Satisfaction of the Participants. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 5(3), 200.
Kaur, K. (1985). Education in India, 1781-1985: Policies, Planning, and Implementation. Chandigarh, India: Centre for Research in Rural and Industrial Development.
Kay, R. H. (1993). An exploration of theoretical and practical foundations for assessing attitudes toward computers: The computer attitude measure (CAM). Computers in Human Behavior, 9, 371–386.
241
Kay, R. H. (2006). Evaluating strategies used to incorporate technology into preservice education: A review of the literature. Journal of research on technology in education, 38(4), 383-408.
Khan, S. H. (2015). “Emerging conceptions of ICT-enhanced teaching: Australian TAFE context”. Instructional Science, vol. 43, no. 6, pp.683-708.DOI 10.1007/s11251-015-9356-7
Kharade, K., & Peese, H. (2014). Problem-based learning: A promising pathway for empowering pre-service teachers for ICT-mediated language teaching. Policy Futures in Education, 12(2), 262-272.
Khirwadkar, A. (2008). Integrating multimedia package at pre-service level: A technopedagogy for Smart schools. Indian journal of open learning. Vol 17 (1). 25-33.
Kingdon, G. G. (2007). The progress of school education in India. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 23(2), 168-195.
Kiptalam, G. K., & Rodrigues, A. J. (2011). Accessibility and utilization of ICTs among secondary school teachers in Kenya. Computers and education, 246-263.
Kirkscey, R. (2012). Secondary school instructors' perspectives on the integration of information and communication technologies (ICT) with course content. American Secondary Education, 17-33.
Kleine, D. (2013). Technologies of choice?: ICTs, development, and the capabilities approach. MIT Press.
Knezek, G., Christensen, R., & Rice, D. (1997). Changes in teacher attitudes during information technology training. In Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 763-766). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).
Knezek, G., & Miyashita, K. (1993). Handbook for the young children’s computer inventory. Denton, TX: Texas Center for Educational Technology. (Supplement for CAQ available online at http://tcet.unt.edu/pubs/ attcomp.htm).
Knowledge@Wharton (2012). Retrieved from http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/indias-education-sector-moving-toward-a-digital-future/
Koehler, M. J., Mishra, P., & Yahya, K. (2007). Tracing the development of teacher knowledge in a design seminar: Integrating content, pedagogy and technology. Computers & Education, 49(3), 740-762.
Kozma, R. B. (2003). Technology and classroom practices: An international study. Journal of research on technology in education, 36(1), 1-14.
242
Kubricky, J., & Castkova, P. 2015,“Teacher's Competences for the Use of Web Pages in Teaching as a Part of Technical Education Teacher's ICT Competences”. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, vol. 174, pp.3236-3242.
Kumar, N., Rose, R. C., & D'Silva, J. L. (2008). A review on factors impinges computer usage in education. Journal of Social Sciences, 4(2), 146-157.
Kumar, P., & Kumar, A. (2003). Effect of a web-based project on preservice and inservice teachers’ attitude toward computers and their technology skills. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 19(3), 87-92.
Kumar, R. (2008). Convergence of ICT and Education. World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, 40(2008), 556-559.
Lal, C. (2014). Attitudinal study of user and non-user teachers’ towards ICT in relation to their school teaching subjects. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 2(3), 213-218.
Lei, J., & Zhao, Y. (2007). Technology uses and student achievement: A longitudinal study. Computers & Education, 49(2), 284-296.
Leinhardt, G., & Greeno, J. G. (1986). The cognitive skill of teaching. Journal of educational psychology, 78(2), 75.
Lester, N., & Onore, C. (1990). Learning change. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook.
Light, D. (2009). The role of ICT in enhancing education in developing countries: Findings from an evaluation of the Intel teach essentials course in India, Turkey, and Chile. Journal of Education for International Development, 4(2), 1-15.
Lim, C. P. (2007). Effective integration of ICT in Singapore schools: Pedagogical and policy implications. Educational Technology Research and Development, 55(1), 83-116.
Lim, C.-P., Zhao, Y., Tondeur, J., Chai, C.-S., & Tsai, C.-C. (2013). Bridging the Gap: Technology Trends and Use of Technology in Schools. Educational Technology & Society, 16 (2), 59–68.
Linden, L., Banerjee, A., & Duflo, E. (2003). Computer-assisted learning: Evidence from a randomized experiment. Poverty Action Lab Paper, 5.
Loyd, B. H., & Gressard, C. (1984). Reliability and factorial validity of computer attitude scales. Educational and Psychological measurement, 44(2), 501-505.
MacArthur, C. A. (2000). New tools for writing: Assistive technology for students with writing difficulties. Topics in language disorders, 20(4), 85-100.
243
MacArthur, C.A., & Malouf, D.B. (1991). Teacher beliefs, plan and decisions about computer-based instruction. Journal of Special Education. 25, 44-72.
Maheshwari, A. N., & Raina, V. K. (1998). Inservice training of primary teachers through interactive video technology: An Indian experience. International Review of Education, 44(1), 87-101.
Maheshwari, A.N. and Raina, V.K. (1996). ‘INSET through Interactive Video technology: An innovative Indian Experience’, Unpublished, New Delhi: NCERT.
Mama, M., & Hennessey, S. (2013). Developing a typology of teacher beliefs and practices concerning classroom use of ICT. Computers & Education, 68, 380-387.
Manzar, O (2015). ICT in schools still a distant dream. Live Mint. Retrieved from http://www.livemint.com/Opinion/x7oL14yFezaUuhE7wT3ZlI/ICT-in-schools-still-a-distant-dream.html
Margerum-Leys, J., & Marx, R. W. (2002). Teacher knowledge of educational technology: A case study of student/mentor teacher pairs. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 26(4), 427-462.
Martinez, K. (2012). Technology Implementation In K-12 Schools: A Research Study Of Perceptions And Practice.
Mathur, S. P. (2007). Indian ICT industry: A performance analysis and model for possible adoption. Munich Personal RepPEc Archive, 23(68), 1-113.
Meyer, E. e., Abrami, P. C., Wade, A., & Scherzer, R. (2011). Electronic portfolios in the classroom: factors impacting teachers' integration of new technologies and new pedagogies. Technology, Pedagogy & Education, 20(2), 191-207. doi:10.1080/1475939X.2011.588415.
Miles, S., & Singal, N. (2010). The Education for All and inclusive education debate: conflict, contradiction or opportunity. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 14(1), 1-15.
Miller, D. (1983). The correlates of entrepreneurship in three types of firms. Management science, 29(7), 770-791.
Miranda, H.P., & Russell, M. (2012). Understanding factors associated with teacher- directed student use of technology in elementary classrooms: a structural equation modeling approach. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(4), 652-666.
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2005). Educational technology by design: Results from a survey assessing its effectiveness. In Society for Information Technology &
244
Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 1511-1517). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).
Mishra, S. (2009). E-learning in India. International Journal on E-Learning, 8(4), 549-560.
Mishra, S., Sharma, M., Sharma, R. C., Singh, A., & Thakur, A. (2016). Development of a scale to measure faculty attitude towards open educational resources. Open Praxis, 8(1), 55-69.
Mitra, S. (2003). Minimally invasive education: A progress report on the "hole-in-the-wall" experiments. British Journal of Educational Technology, 34(3), 367-371.
Mitra, S. (2005). Self organising systems for mass computer literacy: Findings from the 'hole in the wall' experiments. International Journal of Development Issues, 4(1), 71-81. doi:10.1108/eb045849
Mitra, S., Dangwal, R., Chatterjee, S., Jha, S., Bisht, R. S., & Kapur, P. (2005). Acquisition of computing literacy on shared public computers: Children and the" hole in the wall". Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 21(3).
Mobile learning, Forbes India, 2015 Mobile learning: Smart education system for India (2015, June 5). Forbes India. Retrieved from: http://forbesindia.com/blog/business-strategy/mobile-learning-smart-education-system-for-india/
Moens, N. n., Broerse, J. J., Gast, L., & Bunders, J. G. (2010). A Constructive Technology Assessment Approach to ICT Planning in Developing Countries: Evaluating the First Phase, the Roundtable Workshop. Information Technology For Development, 16(1), 34-61. doi:10.1002/itdj.20130
Moon, J. W., & Kim, Y. G. (2001). Extending the TAM for a World-Wide-Web context. Information & management, 38(4), 217-230.
Morales, C. (2006). Cross-cultural validation of the will, skill, tool model of technology integration. Dentón, TX: University of North Texas. Retrieved from http:// digital. library.unt.edu/ark: /6753i/metadc5256/mi/.
Muralidharan, K., & Sundararaman, V. (2015). The aggregate effect of school choice: Evidence from a two-stage experiment in India. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 130(3), 1011-1066.
Murthy, S., Iyer, S., & Warriem, J. (2015). ET4ET: a large-scale faculty professional development program on effective integration of educational technology. Educational Technology & Society, 18(3), 16-28.
Naik, J. P., & Nurullah, S. (1974). A Student's History of Educatio Delhi.
245
Nayark, A. K., & Barker, M. (2014). Computer labs as techno-pedagogical tools for learning biology--exploring ICT practices in India. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 15(1), 19.
Nespor, J. (1987). The role of beliefs in the practice of teaching. Journal of curriculum studies, 19(4), 317-328.
NEUPA, 2015 NEUPA (2015). Department of School Education and Literacy. Ministry of Human Resource Development. GOI.
Newar, M. L. (2013). The Role of Siksha Mitras in Realizing the Objectives Of Universalization Of Elementary Education (Uee)-The Para Teachers Recruited By Sarva Siksha Abhijan Mission. International Journal of Computer Applications in Engineering Sciences, 3, 14.
Newhouse, C., & Clarkson, B. (2008). Creating Contexts for Learning With ICT in Schools.
Nie, N. H., Bent, D. H., & Hull, C. H. (1970). SPSS: Statistical package for the social sciences (No. HA29 S6). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Niederhauser, D. S., & Stoddart, T. (2001). Teachers’ instructional perspectives and use of educational software. Teaching and teacher education, 17(1), 15-31.
Niess, M. L. (2005). Preparing teachers to teach science and mathematics with technology: Developing a technology pedagogical content knowledge. Teaching and teacher education, 21(5), 509-523.
Olson, J., & Eaton, S. (1986). Case Studies of Microcomputers in the Classroom. Questions for Curriculum and Teacher Education. Education and Technology Series. Publications Sales, The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, 252 Bloor Street West, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5S 1V6.
Olson, J.K. (2003).Information Technology and Teacher Routines: Learning from the microcomputer. Teacher Thinking Twenty Years On. Swets and Zeitlinger publishers.
Oppenheimer, T. (2003). The flickering mind: The false promise of technology in the classroom, and how learning can be saved. New York: Random House.
Orlando, J. (2009). Understanding changes in teachers’ ICT practices: A longitudinal perspective. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 18(1), 33-44.
Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T., Glazewski, K. D., Newby, T. J., & Ertmer, P. A. (2010). Teacher value beliefs associated with using technology: Addressing professional and student needs. Computers & education, 55(3), 1321-1335.
246
Padmavathi, M. (2013). A survey of secondary school teachers’ perceptions, competency and use of computers. International Journal of Education and Psychological Research (IJEPR), 2(4), 7-16.
Padmavathi, M. (2015). A study of student-teachers' readiness to use computers in teaching: an empirical study. I-Manager's Journal on School Educational Technology, 11(3), 29.
Padmavathi, M. (2016). Preparing Teachers For Technology Based Teaching Learning Using TPACK. I-Manager's Journal on School Educational Technology, 12(3), 1.
Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of educational research, 62(3), 307-332.
Pal, J., Lakshmanan, M., & Toyama, K. (2009). “My child will be respected”: Parental perspectives on computers and education in Rural India. Information Systems Frontiers, 11(2), 129-144.
Pal, R. (1999). Media scripting and teacher training. Indian Journal of Open Learning, 8(2), 157-161.
Pallai, P. (2013). Use of Educational Satellite in Teacher Education. Techno Learn, 3(1), 11.
Panda, S. (2010). Research as Professional Development in Distance Education. Indian Journal of Open Learning (ISSN: 0971-2690), 14(3), 213-224.
Pearson, M., & Naylor, S. (2006). Changing contexts: Teacher professional development and ICT pedagogy. Education and Information Technologies, 11(3-4), 283-291.
Pelgrum, W. & Plomp, T. (1991) The Use of Computers Wordwide. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Pelgrum, W. J., Janssen Reinen, I. A. M., & Plomp, T. J. (1993). Schools, teachers, students and computers: A cross-national perspective. The Hague: The International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement.
Perera, K. G. S. K, Karunanayaka, S. P., & Ariyaratne, A. (2015). Modeling perspectives of secondary school teachers of sri lanka towards the integration of ICT in the instructional process. Paper presented at the 218-223. doi:10.1109/UMEDIA.2015.7297458
Ping, L. C. (2001). Object of the activity systems as a major barrier to the creative use of ICT in schools. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 17(3).
247
Potosky, D. (2002). A field study of computer efficacy beliefs as an outcome of training: the role of computer playfulness, computer knowledge, and performance during training. Computers in Human behavior, 18(3), 241-255.
Prakash, B. & Varghese, N. (1983). Planning for education and training under conditions of changing technology. Paper presented at the International Seminar on Labour Issues in the third world development, 4-7 January. New Delhi.
Presser, S., Couper, M. P., Lessler, J. T., Martin, E., Martin, J., Rothgeb, J. M., & Singer, E. (2004). Methods for testing and evaluating survey questions. Public opinion quarterly, 68(1), 109-130.
Prestridge, S. (2010). The alignment of digital pedagogy to current teacher beliefs. ACEC2010: Digital Diversity. Melbourne, Australia: Australian Council for Computers in Education. Retrieved from http://acec2010. info/proposal/252/beliefsbehind-teacher-influences-their-ict-practices.
Pringle, R. M., Dawson, K., & Ritzhaupt, A. D. (2015). Integrating science and technology: Using technological pedagogical content knowledge as a framework to study the practices of science teachers. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 24(5), 648-662.
Probe Team. (1999). Public report on basic education in India. Oxford University, New Delhi.
Rajasekhar, M., & Anitha, C. (2005). Loyalty switching from traditional to e-learning in Indian higher education: A markov chain analysis. Journal of Educational Technology, 2(3), 66-75.
Rao, D. P., & Reddy, B. S. (2002). Self-Learning through Programmed Learning in Distance Mode. Indian Journal of Open Learning, 11(2), 247-254.
Rastogi, A., & Malhotra, S. (2012). Determinants of ICT pedagogy integration. In Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 4285-4292). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).
Rastogi, A., & Malhotra, S. (2013). ICT skills and attitude as determinants of ICT pedagogy integration. European Academic Research, 1(3), 301-318.
Reddy, Y. N. (1975). Programmed learning--is it an effective technique in teaching?
Reel, P. S., & Burse, K. (2008). C2E-Learning in Technical Education: E-Readiness of India. International Journal of Learning, 14(9), 229-235.
Rehman, S. (1979). Communication technology for adult education. Indian Journal of Adult Education, 40(12), 13-18.
248
Riccobono, J. A. (1985). School Utilization Study: Availability, Use, and Support of Instructional Media. 1982-83 Final Report. Corporation for Public Broadcasting, 1111 Sixteenth Street, NW, Washington, DC 20036.
Rodriguez, F. M. M. 2012. “Evaluation of Attitudes and Interests Towards ICT: Orientation for Problem Experiences”. Problems of Education in the 21st Century, vol. 43, pp.44-47.
Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of Innovations: modifications of a model for telecommunications. In Die Diffusion von Innovationen in der Telekommunikation (pp. 25-38). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
Rogers, E. M. (2003). Elements of diffusion. Diffusion of innovations, 5(1.38).
Rogers, E. M. (2010). Diffusion of innovations. Simon and Schuster.
Ropp, M. (1999). Exploring individual characteristics associated with learning to use computers in preservice teacher preparation. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 31(4), 402-424.
Sagasti, F. R., & Aráoz, A. (1979). Science and technology for development: planning in the STPI countries. IDRC, Ottawa, ON, CA.
Sampangi, R., Viswanath, V., & Ray, A. (2010). Reaching the Unreached: A Study on Mobile Learning in India. In International Conference on e-Learning (pp. 350-357).
Sampath Kumar, B. T., & Basavaraja, M. T. (2016). Computer access and use: understanding the expectations of Indian rural students. Quality assurance in education, 24(1), 56-69.
Sandeep, P. (1981). Values for Indian adult education. Paper presented to the World Congress in Education held at Universidad Quebec a Trois R: vieres, Canada, during July 6-10, 1981.
Sandholtz, J. H., Ringstaff, C., & Dwyer, D. C. (1997). Teaching with technology: Creating student-centered classrooms. New York: Teachers College Press.
Sang, G., Valcke, M., van Braak, J., & Tondeur, J. (2009). Investigating teachers' educational beliefs in Chinese primary schools: socioeconomic and geographical perspectives. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 37(4), 363-377.
Sansanwal, D.N.: An Experimental Study in Programmed Learning for Teaching Research Methodology Course at M.Ed. Level. Ph.D. (Edu.), M.S. University of Baroda, 1978.
249
Sarsani, M. R. (2007). A Study of The Relationship Between Self-Concept and Adjustment of Secondary School Students. i-Manager's Journal on Educational Psychology, 1(2), 10.
Sathiyaraj, K., & Rajasekar, S. (2013). The Relationship between the Techno-Pedagogical Competency of Higher secondary School Teachers and their Anxiety towards the Use of Instructional Aids in Teaching. International Journal of Teacher Educational Research, 2(12), 7-14.
Sawant, D. (2015). Use of ICT in Teaching, Learning and Evaluation. Retrieved on January, 25.
Schmidt, D. A. (1991). Iowa survey of computer-related technology use by K-12 teachers.
Schmidt, D., Baran, E., Thompson, A., Koehler, M., Punya, M., & Shin, T. (2009). Examining preservice teachers' development of technological pedagogical content knowledge in an introductory instructional technology course. In Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 4145-4151). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).
Sclater, J., Sicoly, F., Abrami, P., & Wade, C. (2006). Ubiquitous technology integration in Canadian public schools: Year one study. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology/La revue canadienne de l’apprentissage et de la technologie, 32(1).
Shamsu, S. (2012). Emerging Paradigm of Information and Communication Technologies in Education: The Indian Context. Indian Journal of Open Learning (ISSN: 0971-2690), 21(3), 209-221.
Shamsu, S. (2014). Emerging Paradigm of Information and Communication Technologies in Education: The Indian Context. Indian Journal of Open Learning (ISSN: 0971-2690), 21(3), 209-221.
Sharma, R. (2001). Online Delivery of Programmes: A case study of IGNOU. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 1(2).
Sharma, S. K., Lama, V., & Goyal, N. (2016). Digital India: A Vision towards Digitally Empowered Knowledge Economy. Indian journal of applied research, 5(10).
Shattuck, D., Corbell, K. A., Osbourne, J. W., Knezek, G., Christensen, R., & Grable, L. L. (2011). Measuring teacher attitudes toward instructional technology: A confirmatory factor analysis of the TAC and TAT. Computers in the Schools, 28(4), 291-315.
Sheingold, K., Kane, H. & Endreweit, M. (1983) Microcomputer use in schools: developing a research agenda, Harvard Educational Review, 53, pp. 412432.
250
Shields, C. M. (2000). Learning from difference: Considerations for schools as communities. Curriculum Inquiry, 30(3), 275–294.
Shingi, P. M., & Mody, B. (1976). The Communication Effects Gap A Field Experiment on Television and Agricultural Ignorance in India. Communication Research, 3(2), 171-190.
Shulman, L. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Review, 15 (2), 4–14.
Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard educational review, 57(1), 1-23.
Silver, H. (1998). Re-inventing innovation. Conference paper given at the Managing Learning Innovation: The Challenges of the Changing Curriculum conference At the University of Lincolnshire and Humberside.
Simpson, M. & Payne, F. (2002) The introduction of ICT into primary and secondary schools: a comparative report from six European countries (Edinburgh, University of Edinburgh).
Singh, Termit Kaur (2013). Teachers are no longer gurus but knowledge facilitators. Digital Learning, Vol. 9, Issue 9, p-30-31.
Smeets, E. (2005). Does ICT contribute to powerful learning environments in primary education? Computers & Education, 44(3) 343-355.
Spector, J. M. (2010). An overview of progress and problems in educational technology. Interactive Educational Multimedia, 1, 27-37.
Srisa-An, W. (1997). Making distance education borderless. Indian Journal of Open Learning, 6(1).
Srivastava, R. (2005). Resource needs for universal elementary education in eight state. In: Mehrotra et al.
Srivastava, S. (2012). A study of multimedia & its impact on students' attitude. In Technology Enhanced Education (ICTEE), 2012 IEEE International Conference on (pp. 1-5). IEEE.
Suckow, M. (2010). No more boundaries: Sharing best practices in teacher training, retention, and induction in Gujarat, India. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Annual Conference, Denver, CO.
Surendra, S. (2001). Acceptance of web technology based education by professors and administrators of a college of applied arts and technology in Ontario (pp. 1-164). Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto.
251
Tavakol, M., & Dennick, R. (2011). Making sense of Cronbach's alpha. International journal of medical education, 2, 53.
Taylor, S., & Littleton, K. (2006). Biographies in talk: A narrative-discursive research approach. Qualitative Sociology Review, 2(1).
The PANdora Model, 2007 The PANdora model of collaborative distance education research. (2007). Distance Education, 28(2), 245-252.
Thirumurthy, V., & Sundaram, N. (2003). Computers for young children in India. Childhood Education, 79(5), 307-313.
Thompson, A. D., & Mishra, P. (2007). Editors' Remarks: Breaking News: TPCK Becomes TPACK!. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 24(2), 38-64.
Tondeur, J., Kershaw, L., & Vanderlinde, R. van Braak. J.(2013). Getting inside the black box of technology integration in education: Teachers’ stimulated recall of classroom observations. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 29(3), 434-449.
Tondeur, J., Van Keer, H., van Braak, J., & Valcke, M. (2008). ICT integration in the classroom: Challenging the potential of a school policy. Computers & Education, 51(1), 212-223.
Tooley, J. (2007). Educating Amaretch: private schools for the poor and the new frontier for investors. Economic Affairs, 27(2), 37-43.
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, A. W. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct. Teaching and teacher education, 17(7), 783-805.
Tyagi, S. (2012). Adoption of Web 2.0 technology in higher education: A case study of universities in National Capital Region, India. International Journal of Education and Development using Information and Communication Technology, 8(2), 28.
U-DISE. (2015). School education in India. NUEPA. New Delhi.
UNESCO Report, 1985, 1986 UNESCO, 1986. Teachers and their use of educational technology. Report of a regional training workshop. Seoul, South Korea.
UNESCO, 1986. Preparing multi-media teaching materials. A source book. APEID. UNESCO, Bangkok (Thailand).
UNESCO, 1986. Teachers and their use of educational technology. Report of a regional training workshop. Seoul, South Korea.
Upreti, M., & Surya, K. J. (2011). Attitudes and Perceived Computer Competency among Senior Secondary School Teachers. Journal of Educational Research (1027-9776), 14(1).
252
Valk, J., Rashid, A. T., & Elder, L. (2010). Using mobile phones to improve educational outcomes: An analysis of evidence from Asia. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 11(1), 117-140.
Varghese, N. V. (1986). Education, technology and development: an Indian perspective. International social science journal.
Vaughan, R. (2013). Basic $20 tablets are rolled out to Indian students. TES: Times Educational Supplement, (5056), 12.
Veen, W. (1993). How teachers use computers in instructional practice: Four case studies in a Dutch secondary school. Computers and Education, 21(1/2), 1-8.
Victor, S.R. & Swamy S.S (2011). Development of an attitude scale to measure computer application of secondary school teachers. E-Journal of All India Association for Educational Research (EJAIAER), 23(1 &2).
Vijaykumar, R. (2011). TRENDS AND CHALLENGES OF INTEGRATING ICT IN INDIAN EDUCATION: A PARADIGM SHIFT IN 21st CENTURY. (Czech). Journal on School Educational Technology, 7(2), 13-19.
Voogt, J. J. (2010). Teacher factors associated with innovative curriculum goals and pedagogical practices: Differences between extensive and non-extensive ICT-using science teachers. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(6), 453-464.
Vyas, R. V., Sharma, R. C., & Kumar, A. (2002). Educational television in India. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 3(4).
Vyasulu Reddi, U., & Sinha, V. (2003). India: ICT use in education. Meta survey on the Use of Technologies in Education in Asia and the Pacific, 245-252.
Wastiau, P., Blamire, R., Kearney, C., Quittre, V., Van de Gaer, E., & Monseur, C. (2013). The use of ICT in education: a survey of schools in Europe. European Journal of Education, 48(1), 11-27.
Wattanawaha, B. (2011). Understanding perspectives of teachers in Thailand towards information and communication technologies integration in the classroom (Doctoral dissertation).
Wetzel, K., Foulger, T. S., & Williams, M. K. (2008). The evolution of the required educational technology course. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 25(2), 67-71.
Willis, J., Thompson, A., & Sadera, W. (1999). Research on technology and teacher education: Current status and future directions. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(4), 29-45.
253
Woodrow, J. E. (1987). Educators' Attitudes and Predispositions towards Computers. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 6(3), 27-37.
Woodrow, J. R. J. (1991). A comparison of four computer attitude scales. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 7(2), 165–187.
Work harder to meet the Bangalore challenge. (2010, September 15). The Hindu. Retrieved from: http://www.thehindu.com/news/international/article666585.ece
World Bank. (1997). Primary education in India. World Bank, Washington, DC.
Wozney, L., Venkatesh, V., & Abrami, P. (2006). Implementing computer technologies: Teachers' perceptions and practices. Journal of Technology and teacher education, 14(1), 173-207.
Zhang, J., Yang, J., Chang, M., & Chang, T. (2016). Towards a Critical Understanding to the Best Practices of ICT in K-12 Education in Global Context. In ICT in education in global context (pp. 1-17). Springer Singapore.
Zhao, Y., & Frank, K. A. (2003). Factors affecting technology uses in schools: An ecological perspective. American Educational Research Journal, 40(4), 807-840.
Zimbardo, P. G., Ebbesen, E. B., & Maslach, C. (1977). Influencing attitudes and changing behavior: An introduction to method, theory and application of social control and personal power. London and Reading Mass.: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
Zyad, H. (2016). Integrating Computers in the Classroom: Barriers and Teachers' Attitudes. International Journal of Instruction, 9(1), 65-78.
254
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
Shilpa Sahay did her doctorate in Educational Technology at University of
Florida, USA in fall 2018. She was the course Instructor of EME2040 - Introduction to
Educational Technology and had taught undergraduate students at UF. Her research
has been on studying teachers’ perception towards integrating technology in
classrooms in India. She has also worked on projects involving analysis of use of iPads
and computers by children at community centers and has conducted content analysis
on mobile applications for dyslexic population. She did her master’s degree in
International Education at New York University, USA. Prior to that, she had another
master’s degree in Social Work and bachelor’s degree in Political Science from Delhi
University, India. She has over a decade of work experience with grass root NGOs, UN
bodies, research group at universities, and multinational organizations. She interned at
places like UN Headquarters for six months and aspires to work on educational projects
that can solve real-world problem of illiteracy and lack of education. She wants to
explore potentialities of digital learning narrowing the traditional North-South global
divide.