Kyungbin Kwon Zuheir Khlaif Meina Zhu Hamid Nadiruzzaman

Kyungbin Kwon, Zuheir Khlaif, Meina Zhu, Hamid Nadiruzzaman, Fatih Gok, Annisa Sari

§ The common objective of schools for using the tablet PC in education is preparing children for work and life in the 21 st century (Clarke, Svanaes, & Zimmermann, 2013). § Middle schools are spending money on learning devices for classroom activities (Carol & Santori, 2015). § Little evidence that teachers are ready to use these devices effectively for their teaching (Backer, 2010; Jones & Issroff, 2007; Pachler et al. , 2010).

§ Self-efficacy is formed in reflection of one’s image regarding a specific domain or skill (Abbitt, 2011; Bandura, 1997; Pajares, 1996; Tilton & Hartnett, 2016). § Environmental situation can affect the self-efficacy (Bandura, 1982, 1997; Holden, Groulx, Bloom, & Weinburgh, 2011; Pajares, 1996; Schunk & Meece, 2006). § Challenge could negatively affect teacher’s self-efficacy (Farah, 2011; Inal, 2015; Moore. Hayes, 2011).

§ Previous studies have suggested that teacher’s self-efficacy affects teaching practice, especially in integrating educational technology (Ertmer, 2005; Robertson & Al. Zahrani, 2012; Spaulding & Glover, 2016). § Teacher’s perceived usefulness of technology also play an important role in adopting technology in their class (Davis, 1989; Taylor & Todd, 1995; Tilton & Hartnett, 2016).

H 1: Teacher’s technical skill of using mobile device positively influences their self-efficacy toward integrating mobile device into teaching practice. H 2: Teacher’s perceived ease of use of mobile device positively influences their self-efficacy toward integrating mobile device into teaching practice. H 3: Teacher’s perceived challenges of using mobile device negatively influence their self-efficacy toward integrating mobile device into teaching practice. H 4: Teacher’s self-efficacy toward using mobile device positively influences their use of mobile device in teaching. H 5: Teacher’s perceived usefulness of using mobile device positively influences their use of mobile device in teaching.

§ Participants: 57 middle school teachers (LA, Science, Social Studies & Math) across seven midwest states § Data Collection: Online survey (26 items, 7 points Likert Scale) § Data Analysis: Descriptive analysis A path analysis

§ Teacher’s self-efficacy is the sole factor affecting the use of mobile device rather than the perceived usefulness § Teacher’s technical skills, ease of use and challenges influence on the self-efficacy § Challenges include lack of professional development, insufficient time to integrate i. Pad to lessons, and technical barriers

Abbitt, J. T. (2011). An investigation of the relationship between self-efficacy beliefs about technology integration and technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) among preservice teachers. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 27(4), 134 -143. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman. Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American psychologist, 37(2), 122. Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS quarterly, 319 -340. 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. Farah, A. C. (2011). Factors influencing teachers‘ technology self-efficacy: a case study. A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Education Liberty University Gloria, A. , & Oluwadara, A. (2016). Influence of Mobile Learning Training on Pre-Service Social Studies Teachers' Technology and Mobile Phone Self-Efficacies. Journal of Education and Practice, 7(2), 74 -79. Holden, M. E. , Groulx, J. , Bloom, M. A. , & Weinburgh, M. H. (2011). Assessing teacher self-efficacy through an outdoor professional development experience. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 15(2).

Inal, S. (2015). Identifying trainees' computer self-efficacy in relation to some variables: the case of Turkish EFL trainees. Education, 135(3), 279288. Kinash, S. , Brand, J. , & Mathew, T. (2012). Challenging mobile learning discourse through research: student perceptions of “blackboard mobile learn” and i. Pads. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 28(4), 639– 655. Minshew, L. , & Anderson, J. (2015). Teacher self-efficacy in 1: 1 i. Pad integration in middle school science and math classrooms. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 15(3), 334 -367. Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in achievement settings. Review of Educational Research, 66, 543 -578. Robertson, M. , & Al-Zahrani, A. (2012). Self-efficacy and ICT integration into initial teacher education in Saudi Arabia: Matching policy with practice. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 28(7). Schunk, D. H. , & Meece, J. L. (2006). Self-efficacy development in adolescence. Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents, 5, 71 -96. Spaulding, M. , & Glover, L. C. (2016). Preservice teachers’ self-efficacy and teacher- or student- centered orientation: effects of a technology integration course. Delta Journal of Education. 6(2). Taylor, S. , & Todd, P. A. (1995). Understanding information technology usage: A test of competing models. Information systems research, 6(2), 144 -176. Tilton, J. , & Hartnett, M. (2016). What are the influences on teacher mobile technology self-efficacy within secondary school classrooms? . Journal of Open Flexible and Distance Learning, 20(2), 79 -93. Timothy, T. E. O. (2009). Examining the relationship between student teachers' self-efficacy beliefs and their intended uses of technology for teaching: A structural equation modelling approach. TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 8(4).

Questions?

Participant: 39% male, 61% female; Science =39%, LA =23%, SS =15%, Math =8%, Others =15% Data Collection: Use of i. Pad (6 items, α=. 92), Usefulness of i. Pad (5 items, α=. 88), Ease of use, challenges to use i. Pad (6 items, α=. 63), Teacher’s technical skills (3 items, α=. 62), and Teacher’s self-efficacy toward using i. Pad for teaching practice (6 items, α=. 84).

Findings: Table 1. The average of each construct Construct Mean (SD) (. 99) Use of i. Pad Usefulness Ease of Use Self-efficacy Technical skills Challenge 5. 16 (1. 46) 5. 58 (1. 10) 5. 48 (. 97) 5. 4 (. 95) 6. 0 (. 79) 3. 48 A Pearson correlation analysis revealed that all constructs were significantly correlated. While the challenge was negatively correlated with other constructs, the five constructs were positively correlated each others (See table 2).

Table 2. Correlation coefficient of constructs 123456 1. Use of i. Pad 2. Usefulness. 338* 3. Ease of use. 614**. 744** 4. Self-efficacy. 610**. 524**. 589** 5. Technical Skills. 336*. 268*. 335*. 627** 6. Challenge -. 407** -. 437** -. 475** -. 651** -. 515** *: p <. 05, **: p <. 01