Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Exploring primary teachers' self-efficacy and technology integration in early reading instruction
(USC Thesis Other)
Exploring primary teachers' self-efficacy and technology integration in early reading instruction
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
Exploring Primary Teachers’ Self-Efficacy and Technology Integration in Early Reading
Instruction
Alia Gates
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education
August 2024
© Copyright by Alia Gates 2024
All Rights Reserved
The Committee for Alia Gates certifies the approval of this Dissertation
Cathy Krop
Clara Finneran
Ekaterina Moore, Committee Chair
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2024
iv
Abstract
Grounded in social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1986) and technological pedagogical content
knowledge or TPACK framework (Mishra & Koehler, 2006), this study investigates the general
perception of primary teachers regarding technology integration within their reading instruction
as well as their perceptions of self-efficacy with the integration of technology as a pedagogical
tool specifically to teach reading in kindergarten through second-grade learning environments.
The study also explores what factors contribute to primary teachers’ perceptions of self-efficacy
to incorporate technology as a pedagogical tool and how domain knowledge contributes to
perceptions of self-efficacy in technology integration. The research questions anchoring this
study include:
1. How do primary teachers view the role of technology integration within their reading
instruction?
2. How do primary teachers describe their self-efficacy in using technology in reading
instruction?
3. What factors do primary teachers attribute to their sense of self-efficacy to
incorporate technology within their reading instruction?
4. How does domain knowledge contribute to self-efficacy perceptions among primary
teachers when incorporating technology within reading instruction?
Using semi-structured interviews with 10 primary teachers, the analysis shows that teachers
generally have high self-efficacy with technology integration but are more inclined to use passive
versus active instruction in their integration of technology and feel that while technology could
be useful, it is secondary to the impact of human interaction. To build self-efficacy, teachers
depend almost solely on peer-to-peer interactions through vicarious learning experiences in
v
informal settings as they do not feel they are supported in building technological pedagogical
knowledge through district professional development. This suggests that to move towards active
instruction and increased teacher self-efficacy, professional development should be ongoing
rather than one-time instances and should include opportunities for teacher collaboration to
contextualize occasions to embed technology outside of solely passive instruction.
vi
Dedication
To my father-in-law, Dr. Edward Gates, and my Teta Rose (Younis), who made immense
sacrifices for their families. Your legacies live on within us, and we miss you dearly.
vii
Acknowledgements
The work that follows would not have been possible without the support of the USC
community, especially my wonderful cohort, which created a sense of friendship and
camaraderie that carried me through moments of self-doubt. Through lots of laughter and tears,
we made it through together.
To my mother-in-law, Dr. Kar-la Gates, I am deeply grateful for the constant
encouragement you provided and the support you offered in ensuring the happiness and wellbeing of the children while I was immersed in my studies. Your unwavering support and
cheerleading have been invaluable, and I will always cherish your love and guidance.
To my parents, Kazuko Iwanaga Younis and Awni Younis, words cannot express my
profound love and gratitude for everything you have sacrificed for my success. When you left
your homes in Japan and Palestine, I am not sure you ever imagined the life that your love would
create. I am so grateful for your bravery. I know it must have been hard. Your unwavering belief
in me and your support every step of the way has been a source of strength. I hope to continue
making you proud.
To my children, Dorian and Emi, thank you for your understanding. I will always treasure
the little notes and snacks that found their way to my desk on those late nights. I hope that I have
instilled in you the belief that with determination, we can overcome any challenge. Follow your
dreams and never lose sight of your goals.
Finally, to my dear husband, Sean, I can’t imagine life without you. You make everything
better. I love you.
viii
Table of Contents
Abstract.......................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication...................................................................................................................................... vi
Acknowledgements....................................................................................................................... vii
List of Tables .................................................................................................................................. x
List of Figures................................................................................................................................ xi
Chapter One: Overview of the Study.............................................................................................. 1
Background of the Problem ................................................................................................ 2
Overview of Theoretical Frameworks................................................................................ 6
Definition of Terms........................................................................................................... 10
Organization of the Study ................................................................................................. 11
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature ........................................................................................ 13
Social Cognitive Theory ................................................................................................... 13
Reading Instruction........................................................................................................... 26
Conceptual Framework..................................................................................................... 31
Summary........................................................................................................................... 34
Chapter Three: Methodology........................................................................................................ 35
Instrumentation ................................................................................................................. 36
Data Collection ................................................................................................................. 37
Data Analysis.................................................................................................................... 38
Credibility and Trustworthiness........................................................................................ 39
The Researcher.................................................................................................................. 40
Ethics................................................................................................................................. 41
ix
Chapter Four: Findings................................................................................................................. 43
Participants........................................................................................................................ 44
Results for Research Question 1....................................................................................... 45
Discussion for Research Question 1 ................................................................................. 59
Results for Research Question 2....................................................................................... 61
Discussion for Research Question 2 ................................................................................. 66
Results for Research Question 3....................................................................................... 67
Discussion for Research Question 3 ................................................................................. 75
Results for Research Question 4....................................................................................... 76
Discussion for Research Question 4 ................................................................................. 82
Summary........................................................................................................................... 83
Chapter Five: Discussion .............................................................................................................. 84
Findings............................................................................................................................. 84
Implications for Practice ................................................................................................... 92
Limitations........................................................................................................................ 97
Future Research ................................................................................................................ 99
Conclusions..................................................................................................................... 100
References................................................................................................................................... 102
Appendix A: Interview Protocol................................................................................................. 120
Appendix B: Interview Question Alignment to Conceptual Framework ................................... 123
x
List of Tables
Table 1: Participant Information and Pseudonyms 44
Table 2: Participants Quotes Aligned to Research Question 1 (Theme 1) 49
Table 3: Examples of Passive and Active Instruction in Technology Integration 51
Table 4: Participants Quotes Aligned to Research Question 1 (Theme 2) 53
Table 5: Participants Quotes Aligned Research Question 1 (Theme 3) 55
Table 6: Participants Quotes Aligned to Research Question 1 (Theme 4) 58
Table 7: Participant Self Efficacy Perceptions and Aligned Quotes 62
Table 8: Participants Quotes Aligned to Research Question 2 (Theme 2) 65
Table 9: Participants Quotes Aligned to Research Question 3 (Theme 1) 69
Table 10: Participants Quotes Aligned to Research Question 3 (Theme 2) 71
Table 11: Participants Quotes Aligned to Research Question 3 (Theme 4) 74
Table 12: Participants Quotes Aligned to Research Question 4 (Theme 2) 81
Table 13: Connection of Research Question 1 to Findings and Literature 86
Table 14: Connection of Research Question 2 to Findings and Literature 88
Table 15: Connection of Research Question 3 to Findings and Literature 89
Table 16: Connection of Research Question 4 to Findings and Literature 91
xi
List of Figures
Figure 1: TPACK Framework 23
Figure 2: Scarborough’s Reading Rope 27
Figure 3: Conceptual Framework 32
1
Chapter One: Overview of the Study
Educational policymakers have continued to include technology initiatives at the state
and national levels. Initiatives such as the National Educational Technology Plan (NETP) call for
educational leaders and practitioners to use technology to engage students in adaptive and
meaningful learning experiences (U.S. Department of Education, 2024). While the plan was
initially developed in 2017 and updated in 2024, the subsequent surge in technology in
educational spaces due to the COVID-19 pandemic fast-tracked advances in educational
technology, as outlined in the plan. Policies like the NETP encourage classroom co-learning,
just-in-time remediation through adaptive programming, and increase student agency and digital
literacy through active instruction (U.S. Department of Education, 2024).
The COVID-19 pandemic caused historic school closures across the country. During this
unprecedented time, teachers were forced to transition to distance learning and quickly shift into
technology-heavy teaching and learning models with little to no warning (Petzold et al., 2020).
Although some teachers were provided professional development to support their transition into
virtual and hybrid learning, the urgency and pace of school closures were not always conducive
to consistent, high levels of training around best practices related to technology within the
educational milieu. New and veteran teachers struggled equally with their belief that they could
effectively implement new technology, innovative approaches to pedagogy, and technological
platform integration adopted during and after pandemic teaching (Pressley, 2021).
While Trigueros et al. (2020) state that digital resources can be advantageous for
educators, those resources can present teachers with unexpected situations or what Clark-Wilson
(2014) refers to as “hiccups … which seem to make evident discontinuities in teachers’
knowledge” (p. 1398). These perceived failures generally lower self-efficacy or an individual’s
2
belief in their ability to organize and execute the necessary actions to achieve a specific goal
(Bandura, 1997). The recurrent hiccups have continued beyond school closures as educators are
asked to continue implementing educational technology tools and programs within their
pedagogy with varying levels of support accompanying adoption and implementation.
Teachers have not just been asked to integrate more technology into their instructional
practices; they have also been asked to meet the needs of students with vastly different
educational needs while also transitioning into state-legislated shifts in pedagogy towards
structured literacy which includes systematic and sequential instruction of foundational skills,
cumulative practice, ongoing review; high levels of student-teacher interaction and the use of
decodable text with prompt, corrective feedback (Spear-Swerling, 2019).This intersection
between reading research and technology integration has become more pervasive as districts
continue to increase technology spending specifically focused on foundational reading
instruction in the primary grades.
Background of the Problem
While there are large investments being made to support student growth through
educational technology and it is estimated that related spending is projected to reach $132.4
billion globally by 2032 (K12 Dive, 2024), gains in student achievement scores, as expressed
through the most recent National Assessment of Educational Progress or NAEP reading scores,
have dropped from 2019 to 2022 with only 32 % of students reaching proficiency levels
(National Center for Education Statistics, 2024). With the majority of fourth grade students
across the nation not able to read at grade level and billions of dollars being spent on educational
technology aimed at improving reading rates, there seems to be a disconnect between fund
allocations being directed towards technology and the desired effects of students increasing their
3
reading outcomes as a result. In essence, as a country we are spending money to fix a problem,
but the needle does not seem to be moving.
Moreover, legislation and educational frameworks, such as the National Education
Technology Plan (U.S. Department of Education, 2024), call on educators to increase active
integration of technology in innovative ways aligned with student achievement. However, there
is limited discussion on how educators feel about their ability to successfully respond to the
constantly changing demands associated with educational technology within the context of
reading instruction, which is also undergoing constant change as districts move away from
balanced literacy towards structured literacy practices. Technology continues to improve and
evolve as developers build off existing code and increase their understanding of innovations such
as artificial intelligence or AI and voice recognition software. As a result, the field of education is
characterized by constant dynamism as advanced technological coding capabilities drive
technology initiatives. While some educators may find this constant change exciting, others may
perceive it as challenging or intimidating, especially since effective technology implementation
depends on the interaction of pedagogical, content, and technological knowledge, which is
dynamic and constantly changing as technology and educational best practices evolve (Koehler
& Mishra, 2009).
Bandura (1997) posits that individuals with high self-efficacy are more likely to persist in
facing challenges and obstacles as they perceive setbacks as opportunities for growth and
development as learners. Moreover, individuals with established self-efficacy are better equipped
to handle stressful situations as they feel empowered to act and effect change in their lives.
Teachers with low self-efficacy are less committed to their work (Chan, 2008), avoid planning
activities, and struggle to reteach content to students (Schunk, 2020). Pas et al. (2012) also attest
4
that low teacher efficacy predicts burnout. Exploring teacher self-efficacy and technology
integration is essential for several reasons, including self-efficacy’s correlation with higher
expectations of student academic achievement and subsequent increases in student academic
performance (Anderson et al, 1988).
Furthermore, the recent surge in technology adoption driven by pandemic-induced school
closures has expedited the adoption of educational technology, thereby demanding recalibrations
in teacher-student dynamics. Elementary literacy instruction has seen an influx of adaptive
student programs and gamified learning platforms, which educators can use as resources or tools
to teach early reading skills like phonics, phonemic awareness, and comprehension strategies.
Despite the rich literature on teacher self-efficacy and its effects on pedagogical and
professional practices, limited research has examined teacher self-efficacy post-pandemic,
especially within the context of technology use in classrooms as a pedagogical strategy within
the domain of reading instruction. Thus, investigating teacher self-efficacy and integration of
educational technology could provide insight into technology-focused initiatives and teacher
experience.
Statement of the Problem
With the increased use of technology as an educational tool to teach reading increases
and districts continue to increase spending on edtech investments, there is a need to investigate
teachers’ experience in this integration as teacher self-efficacy has been shown to influence
student achievement (Bandura, 1998a). This study investigates teachers’self-efficacy and
technology usage within literacy instruction in kindergarten through second-grade classrooms.
The focus is on teachers with experience incorporating student-facing technology in their
classrooms and who are responsible for instructing students in foundational reading skills. This
5
study focuses on teachers who teach kindergarten through second grade, as these early grades,
often referred to as the primary grades, concentrate more on reading acquisition and foundational
skills than third grade and higher. Additionally, primary students often lack independence in their
technology utilization, relying significantly on teacher modeling and choice to incorporate
technology. This competence and reliance contrasts with older students, who tend to be more
proficient in technology use and may require less teacher guidance when integrating educational
technology.
Purpose of the Study
This study investigates general perceptions of primary teachers regarding technology
integration within their reading instruction as well as their perceptions of self-efficacy with the
integration of technology as a pedagogical tool to teach reading in kindergarten through second
grade learning environments.
The study explores what factors contributed to primary teachers’ perceptions of selfefficacy in incorporating technology within reading instruction and how domain knowledge
contributed to perceptions of self-efficacy in technology integration. The research questions
anchoring this study include:
1. How do primary teachers view the role of technology integration within their reading
instruction?
2. How do primary teachers describe their self-efficacy in using technology in reading
instruction?
3. What factors do primary teachers attribute to their sense of self-efficacy to incorporate
technology within their reading instruction?
6
4. How does domain knowledge contribute to self-efficacy perceptions among primary
teachers when incorporating technology within reading instruction?
Significance of the Study
The findings of this study may have implications for professional development programs
and the development of policy initiatives to support technology integration in the classroom to
improve student reading levels. Specifically, findings from this study could inform
implementation practices for stakeholders such as site administrators, district leaders, and thirdparty solution providers seeking to support teacher experience and self-efficacy. By exploring
factors that may influence self-efficacy perceptions related to technology, educational leaders
enhance their ability to evaluate literacy and technology initiatives and ensure that implementing
such initiatives aligns with teacher self-efficacy needs.
Third-party solution providers that service schools may use findings from this study to
guide the development of products through user experience explicitly designed to support teacher
self-efficacy and domain knowledge. Moreover, third-party solution partners that provide
professional development may find it helpful to integrate findings from this study to ensure that
professional learning opportunities include factors identified to increase self-efficacy and to audit
current programs to increase the effectiveness and impact of technology and literacy initiatives.
Overview of Theoretical Frameworks
According to Bandura (1986, 1997, 2001), learning depends on reciprocal interactions
between personal, behavioral, and environmental variables. Social cognitive theory (Bandura,
1986, 1997, 2001) posits that people can gain knowledge, rules, skills, strategies, beliefs, and
attitudes through observation and learning from others. These reciprocal interactions can help
individuals make informed decisions and act based on their beliefs about their capabilities and
7
the expected outcomes of their actions (Schunk, 2020). The emphasis on the social environment
within social cognitive theory underscores the tenet that learning is context-dependent and
influential on beliefs about self-efficacy or perceived capabilities to learn or perform a task
(Schunk, 2020).
Social cognitive theory emphasizes the interaction between personal factors,
environmental influences, and behavior. Also referred to as triadic reciprocity or reciprocal
determinism within social cognitive theory, there is an emphasis on the dynamic and interactive
relationship between the person, their behavior, and their environment (Bandura, 1997). In the
context of this study, social cognitive theory provides a lens to examine how teachers’selfefficacy beliefs—specifically, their beliefs in their capabilities—interact with integrating
technology for early reading instruction. Given that each teaching environment is uniquely
affected by technology integration, the focus on environmental factors and the subsequent
behavior of individuals within these milieus allowed for a reciprocal understanding of how
behavior, belief, and environment interplay. This comprehensive approach aligns with the
nuanced nature of investigating participants’ belief systems of self-efficacy and technology
integration within their early reading instruction and triadic reciprocity of personal factors such
as belief around self-efficacy, behavior, and context of the learning environment.
Ertmer et al. (2012) assert that self-efficacy may be “more important than skills and
knowledge among teachers who implement technology in their classrooms” (p. 7). Exploring
how self-efficacy perceptions among elementary school teachers intersected with integrating
technology for early reading instruction involves probing how teachers’ beliefs in their ability to
use technology effectively influence their willingness to incorporate it into their teaching
practices. Social cognitive theory suggests that teachers with higher self-efficacy in technology
8
integration are more likely to adopt and successfully implement technological tools to enhance
early reading instruction (Wozney et al., 2006). Furthermore, the factors contributing to selfefficacy perceptions among elementary teachers within the context of technology integration for
early reading instruction are examined through a social cognitive theory lens.
Self-efficacy beliefs are influenced by four primary sources of: mastery experiences,
vicarious learning experiences, social persuasion, and emotional and physiological states
(Bandura, 1986). Mastery experiences involve individuals gaining confidence through
successfully completing tasks. Examples of mastery experiences in the context of technology
integration include teachers progressively mastering new digital tools and methods through
hands-on experiences and training. Vicarious learning experiences, the second source, entail
observing others succeed in similar tasks. Virtual classrooms, online forums, and digital
platforms allow teachers to witness successful technology integration by their peers and more
experienced educators. Verbal persuasion, the third source, involves encouragement and
feedback. Peer mentoring and positive verbal reinforcement are examples of verbal persuasion
that can occur within the context of schools. Last, emotional and physiological arousal, the
fourth source, involves positive feelings or adverse anxiety and stress related to applying
technology. Delving into the exploration of these sources and their influence on teachers’selfefficacy in utilizing technology as a pedagogical tool offers valuable insight into strategies for
nurturing and augmenting their confidence within this domain.
The study is also couched by the theoretical framework of technological pedagogical
content knowledge or TPACK (Mishra & Koehler, 2006). The TPACK framework underscores
the interconnectedness of technology, pedagogy, and content within the educational space and
teacher education and experience. TPACK is poignant to this study as it provided a theoretical
9
perspective on technology-enhanced teaching and learning instead of the commonly disjointed
and trial-and-error instructional design model that technology integration often takes within
educational settings (Angeli et al., 2016). Providing theoretical anchoring to practice is
especially important to this study as technology improves and iterates rapidly, where each
iteration creates opportunities for use within education in novel ways (Koehler & Mishra, 2016).
TPACK encapsulates the tenet that educators must understand three areas of domain
knowledge in connection with one another. They are technological knowledge, pedagogical
knowledge, and content knowledge. Mishra and Koehler (2007) assert that domains must not be
isolated but integrated (Angeli et al., 2016). Additionally, the TPACK framework addresses the
context of technology integration within a situated form of knowledge of the domains in
conjunction with the complex relationships between content, pedagogy, technology, and
knowledge coupled with the surrounding educational context such as knowledge about the
students, the school, social networks, parental concerns, and the physical infrastructure (Angeli
et al., 2016).
Anchoring the study within social cognitive theory and TPACK allows for the exploration
of how teachers perceive their capability to use technology. This exploration extends beyond the
context of the antecedents and the social cognitive factors of mastery experiences, verbal
persuasion, vicarious learning experiences, and physiological arousal to self-efficacy, as
discussed by Bandura (1986). Additionally, the study considers the concept of triadic reciprocity
which emphasizes the dynamic interplay of personal factors, behavior, and the environment. It
delves into the reciprocal interactions where teachers’ beliefs influence their actions, and their
experiences, in turn, shape self-efficacy perceptions.
10
Definition of Terms
• Active instruction refers to students actively engaged in learning through participation
and interaction, often involving hands-on activities and collaborative tasks.
• Affective states refer to a concept developed by Albert Bandura, which states that
emotional states and dispositions are shaped by their beliefs, values, and experiences.
It suggests that emotions and cognitions are connected and that their behavior is
driven by how they perceive the world around them.
• Content knowledge is an educator’s expertise in their teaching subject matter.
• Educational technology also known as EdTech is the application of technology to
facilitate and enhance teaching and learning.
• Mastery experiences are the opportunities for an individual to practice, experiment,
and master a skill or task.
• Passive instruction refers to the experience of students receiving information without
active engagement, typically through one-way communication such as listening or
reading, with limited interaction or application.
• Pedagogical knowledge is the understanding of various teaching methods, strategies,
and approaches that effectively convey information and facilitate learning.
• Physiological states refer to the four mental states of an individual: cognitive,
emotional, physiological, and behavioral.
• Reciprocal determinism is a concept developed by Albert Bandura which states that
behavior is determined by the interactions between their environment, their behavior,
and their characteristics. It suggests that these three components of a person’s life
11
cyclically influence one another, determining the behavior a person is likely to
exhibit.
• Self-efficacy is the belief in one’s ability to succeed in specific situations or
accomplish a task. It is a personal judgment of “I can” or “I can’t” and is a critical
factor in self-motivation, performance, and achievement.
• Technological knowledge is the understanding of the available technologies and how
to use them effectively in educational settings.
• Verbal persuasion is a form of communication that uses verbal cues to influence a
person’s behavior or thinking.
• Vicarious learning experiences refers to the concept that an individual can learn by
observing the behaviors, outcomes, and consequences of others.
Organization of the Study
The dissertation is organized into five distinct chapters, collectively contributing to a
comprehensive exploration of the intersection between teacher self-efficacy and the strategic
integration of technology for early reading instruction. The introductory chapter establishes the
foundation by highlighting the significance of the research topic and framing the research
questions. In the subsequent literature review, a thorough analysis of existing research, theories,
and concepts unfolds, focusing on social cognitive theory as the theoretical underpinning for
developing the conceptual framework at the chapter’s culmination.
Chapter 3 provides transparency into methodology by outlining the research design, data
collection methods, and the rationale guiding the chosen qualitative approach. Chapter 4 reviews
the results of the study through data analysis. Extending from the results, Chapter 5 will
contextualize the findings within the broader educational landscape and discuss implications,
12
practical applications, and avenues for future research. Moreover, Chapter 5 synthesizes critical
findings, explores their broader significance, and offers recommendations for educational
practices and policies. The dissertation concludes with a references and appendices section that
acknowledges the sources informing or developed through the study.
13
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature
In the ever-evolving field of education, technological advancements and the growing
research on impactful teaching methodologies are propelling dynamic transformations in districts
nationwide. Seeking to understand the context of this dynamic milieu better, the literature review
is theoretically grounded in Bandura’s social cognitive theory (1982, 1986, 2001), which
discusses the intricate interplay between individuals, their experiences, and their behavior as well
as the TPACK model of technology integration (Harris et al., 2009). Furthermore, a
comprehensive review of the literature into the well-established body of research underpinning
the foundational tenets of literacy and accompanying pedagogical best practice adds further
context to the content knowledge of reading instruction. Reviewing the literature within the three
domains of social cognitive theory, technology integration, and foundational research on reading
instruction, a conceptual framework was developed, which underpins the methodology of the
study design in the subsequent chapter and outlines the potential interplay between self-efficacy
and technology integration.
Social Cognitive Theory
Social cognitive theory focuses on the interplay between a person’s experiences,
environment, and behavior. At the core of this theory is the triadic reciprocality model of
causality which suggests that behaviors, knowledge, and attitudes influence one’s self-efficacy
beliefs, which in turn cyclically impact environmental factors (Bandura, 1982, 1986, 2001). Selfefficacy is a person’s belief that they can plan and do what is needed to achieve a goal (Bandura,
1997). This concept is essential as it shapes how people make choices and act. Self-efficacy
directly affects perseverance levels, adversity responses, and overall achievement (Bandura,
14
1997). Individuals with high self-efficacy are more likely to persist in the face of challenges and
setbacks, viewing them as opportunities for growth and learning.
According to Bandura (1998a), the relationship between self-efficacy and outcome
expectancies is not solely dependent on external motivations, such as rewards or punishments.
However, it is influenced by various physical, social, and self-evaluative factors. It is essential to
contextualize outcomes within the sphere of performance, which can be classified as an
accomplishment. In this context, outcomes can be interpreted as the subsequent results following
a performance. Within the specific domain of technology integration, an illustrative example of
performance could be the successful implementation of voice recognition assessments, allowing
students to recount story elements through an alternate modality other than print. The desired
outcomes in this scenario would be students demonstrating improved reading comprehension
skills, enabling the teacher to gain better insights into individual student needs. Bandura (1998b)
states that efficacy beliefs can affect direction of thought processes, which are essential
contributors to the types of performances realized.
Social cognitive theory emphasizes the importance of control beliefs in comprehending
human behavior (Bandura, 1998b). Skinner (1995) also underscores the role of effort,
differentiates between an individual’s potential capabilities and actions, and recognizes the
impact of external forces on human behavior. According to Bandura (1998b), effective control
requires integrating knowledge, skills, and resources to navigate complex and ever-changing
situations. Being in control means using what we know and can do to manage complicated
situations.
The outcomes individuals attain depend on their adept utilization of available means and
the usefulness of those means, or more simply, the results depend on how well we use what we
15
have. Individuals with similar means may exhibit performance variations when faced with
stressful circumstances. This variability can be attributed to the influence of self-efficacy beliefs
which shape individual’s perceptions of their capabilities and affect their utilization of available
means (Bandura, 1990).
In an educational context, teacher self-efficacy refers to teachers’ belief that they can
engage and enact learning outcomes within various contexts and for different student profiles
(Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001; Bandura, 1997). Teacher self-efficacy is linked to teacher
actions such as persistence, commitment, and instructional decision-making and directly to
students’ academic achievement (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001). Teachers with higher levels of
self-efficacy are more open to engaging in new methodologies that better meet the diverse needs
of their students (Fuchs et al., 1992; Guskey, 1988; Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001) and higher
levels enable them to have a heightened exhibition of enthusiasm for teaching in general
(Guskey, 1988). Teachers with low self-efficacy may need more commitment, avoid planning
activities, and struggle to reteach content to students (Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2007; Chan, 2008;
Schunk, 2020). It has also been shown that teacher efficacy predicts levels of burnout (Pas et al.,
2012; Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2007, 2010).
Bandura (1997) posits that self-efficacy is influenced by four main antecedents: mastery
experiences, vicarious learning, verbal persuasion, and emotional and physiological states. These
antecedents collaboratively shape an individual’s self-efficacy beliefs, influencing their
motivation, decision-making processes, and subsequent actions. These factors are not mutually
exclusive and exhibit intricate interconnections that contribute to establishing and perpetuating
self-efficacy beliefs.
16
Mastery Experiences
Among the four main antecedents, mastery experiences play a crucial role, involving
engaging in deliberate practice, experimenting, and ultimately mastering a particular skill or task
(Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998). Teachers with more experience tend to exhibit higher levels of
self-efficacy (Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998). However, the relationship between experience and
teacher self-efficacy may be more complex than previously assumed, particularly given the
challenges educators faced during the COVID-19 pandemic (Presley, 2021).
Despite their years of experience, many teachers needed support when adapting to sudden
shifts toward virtual and hybrid teaching models, significantly disrupting traditional teaching
practices. As a result, opportunities for mastery and vicarious experiences were limited because
they did not exist or were being developed in real time as teachers encountered new and
unfamiliar obstacles. These circumstances indicate that the connection between experience and
teacher self-efficacy may be more nuanced than previously thought. While experience can
undoubtedly contribute to self-efficacy, it may not guarantee high levels of self-efficacy in novel
or unprecedented situations. Within novel experiences such as the COVID-19 pandemic, even
experienced teachers may require additional resources, training, and support to navigate and
adapt to unforeseen challenges. Acknowledging these complexities allows a more comprehensive
understanding of how self-efficacy operates in teaching, especially during significant change and
disruption (Pressley, 2021).
Verbal Persuasion
Verbal persuasion is considered an influential factor in shaping self-efficacy beliefs,
encompassing the feedback and assessments teachers receive from significant individuals such as
administrators, colleagues, parents, and community members (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2007).
17
However, verbal persuasion’s long-term impact on perceived efficacy can be limited. While it
has the potential to initiate self-change, the effectiveness of persuasive efficacy appraisals relies
on their credibility and believability. Discussions about teachers’ abilities should refrain from
exaggeration or hyperbole if intended to influence self-efficacy beliefs genuinely and enduringly.
The findings presented by Schunk (1982) shed light on the impact of evaluative feedback
on self-efficacy beliefs. Schunk (1982) states that emphasizing a person’s capabilities in
evaluative feedback can positively affect self-efficacy. Conversely, attributing success solely to
effort may limit self-efficacy in the long run, implying that progress primarily results from hard
work rather than inherent capability (Schunk, 1983). This insight may be particularly relevant to
teachers adapting to new technologies. Teachers often receive praise for their diligent efforts in
learning and integrating technology into their teaching practices. While such recognition may
initially be perceived as positive, it is important to consider the potential unintended
consequences. Suppose the emphasis is solely on the teacher’s hard work without acknowledging
their inherent capabilities within the content and pedagogical knowledge. In that case, it may
inadvertently undermine their confidence in effectively utilizing technology over time.
Therefore, it may be crucial to recognize and validate teachers’ inherent capabilities alongside
their efforts to foster sustainable and empowering self-efficacy beliefs in technology integration
(Schunk, 1982; Schunk, 1983).
Vicarious Experiences
Vicarious experiences involve the observation of others who successfully perform tasks
or achieve desired outcomes, often through the accomplishments of role models or peers
(Schunk, 2020). This form of learning plays a significant role in developing self-efficacy beliefs
by providing models of specific behaviors to emulate. It allows individuals to witness successful
18
demonstrations and learn from the experiences of others (Schunk, 2020). Social cognitive theory
(Bandura, 1986,1997, 2001) posits that modeling is critical in establishing self-efficacy (Schunk,
2020). Depending on the type and quality of professional development provided to teachers and
specific opportunities to engage in enactive and vicarious learning models (Schunk, 2012), there
may be a direct impact on levels of self-efficacy. Professional development opportunities that
provide positive models of exemplary teaching practices related to the application of technology
increase teacher or instructional self-efficacy (Schunk & DiBenedetto, 2016), whereas those that
do not may be perceived as barriers to positive feelings of self-efficacy (Schunk, 2020).
However, it is crucial to acknowledge that individuals must align their capabilities with
the observed success of others. Simply witnessing someone use Google Classroom with their
students, for example, does not automatically increase the observer’s self-efficacy to use the
technology if they lack proficiency or understanding of how and why they would make that
decision to use that tool. Realistic comparisons between oneself and others are necessary when
creating opportunities for shadowing or modeling (Weinberg et al., 1979). It is also worth noting
that while surpassing peers or competitors can enhance self-efficacy, consistently outperforming
others may harm self-efficacy beliefs (Weinberg et al., 1979).
Self-modeling has also been demonstrated to enhance self-efficacy beliefs (Schunk &
Hanson, 1989). Self-modeling involves individuals observing their successful performances
under specific conditions designed to promote success. This self-referential learning process
enables individuals to witness their capabilities and achievements, reinforcing their belief in their
efficacy (Schunk & Hanson, 1989).
Observational or vicarious learning is guided by four subfunctions: attention, retention,
production, and motivation processes (Bandura, 1989). Firstly, the observer must pay attention to
19
the actions and outcomes of others. They need to focus on the behaviors being displayed.
Secondly, they must retain or remember what they have observed. Thirdly, they must possess the
ability to reproduce or imitate the desired behaviors and outcomes. Finally, the observer must be
motivated to imitate the observed actions, and this motivation can be enhanced by rewards or
praise for the desired behavior. Positive modeling experiences that consist of the above
subfunctions provide clear pathways to best-performing skills and strengthen the belief in their
capabilities.
Physiological and Emotional Arousal
Lastly, psychological and emotional arousal plays a significant role in self-efficacy
beliefs. Positive emotional states, such as joy or happiness from engaging in a behavior, can
enhance self-efficacy. Conversely, negative emotional states or heightened physiological arousal,
such as stress or anxiety, can have an adverse effect on self-efficacy beliefs (Tschannen-Moran &
Hoy, 2007). It is important to note that even identical sources of physiological arousal can be
interpreted and processed differently based on the emotional responses of others in the same
situation (Mandler, 1975; Schachter & Singer, 1962).
How individuals perceive and respond to their physiological arousal or physical response
can be influenced by the emotions and reactions of those around them. This observation
underscores the social nature of emotional experiences. It implies that having supportive and
encouraging individuals around can alleviate the potential adverse effects of stress or anxiety on
self-efficacy beliefs. These findings have important implications for technology integration in the
post-pandemic era. The COVID-19 pandemic presented challenges related to technology
integration in classrooms and imposed additional personal stress on teachers. The demands of
20
remote or hybrid teaching, concerns about health and safety, and the need to adapt to rapidly
changing circumstances all contributed to heightened stress and anxiety among educators.
Measurements of Self-Efficacy
As teacher self-efficacy has been proven to correlate with educational outcomes
(Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001), it is imperative to have robust reporting measures to identify
levels of self-efficacy. Current metrics have shown shortcomings in measuring the feelings of
teachers’self-efficacy (Dellinger et al., 2008). Specifically, there is a lack of consistency in the
definitions and operational frameworks used in metrics and tools to measure self-efficacy. This
inconsistency often leads to confusion with more stable self-constructs such as self-esteem, locus
of control, self-concept, and outcome expectancy (Denzine et al., 2005; Pajares, 1992; Tschannen
Moran et al., 1998). Additionally, these current metrics often overlook the context-specific nature
of efficacy beliefs, as pointed out by Deemer and Minke (1999), Goddard et al. (2000), and
Pajares (1992). Moreover, these metrics fail to adequately conceptualize, measure, and analyze
teacher self-efficacy with the diverse and multidimensional task requirements inherent in
teaching, as Bandura (1993, 1997) and Tschannen-Moran and Hoy (2001) emphasize. An
instrumental tool frequently used for gauging teacher self-efficacy is the Teacher Sense of SelfEfficacy Scale (TSES) developed by Tschannen‐Moran and Hoy (2001), which encompasses
critical tasks integral to effective teaching. Examples of these tasks include classroom
management, individualized instruction, curriculum design, assessment strategies, and the
fostering of student engagement.
External Context
External control or environment is an input into the triadic reciprocality model of
causality that can affect a person’s behavior and general belief of self-efficacy. In the context of
21
the educational milieu, external control factors for teachers include, but are not limited to,
evaluative judgments of others as they relate to the job of teaching (Weiss, 2002), student’s
ability and home environment (Ho & Hau, 2004), feelings of autonomy (Deci & Ryan 1985,
2000), positive relations with parents, time pressures, and emotional stressors (Slaavik &
Slaavik, 2007). Teachers with low perceptions of control demonstrate passivity when they
believe their control is limited (Schunk, 2020). This passivity, in turn, influences their belief
systems and behavior, ultimately affecting the environment, as outlined by the triadic
reciprocality model of causality (Bandura, 1986, 1997, 2001).
Caprara et al. (2003) assert that feelings related to others in their environments strongly
influence feelings of self-efficacy and, in turn, influence overall job satisfaction (Collie et al.,
2012; Caprara et al., 2003). Moreover, this connection to overall job satisfaction can be
correlated with developing positive classroom environments that support student achievement. It
has been shown that teachers’ efficacy attitudes are influenced more by environmental conditions
than the stable traits of the educators (Webb & Ashton, 1986).
Schunk (2020) places heightened importance on collective self-efficacy, or ‘when a group
believes they can work together effectively to achieve goals” (p.158). Schunk (2020) goes on to
state that “as collective teacher efficacy is strengthened; teachers continue to improve
opportunities for students” (p. 158). Chan (2008) asserts that self-efficacy is also strongly
associated with organizational politics, which, when negative, can affect teacher commitment
and feelings of self-efficacy. These adverse effects can impact a solid commitment to teachers’
work, which is important to note considering most schools’ highly contentious political
landscape during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, the integration of technology,
22
pedagogy, and content knowledge into teaching may be influenced by various factors, such as
school culture, class level, and physical infrastructure (Olofson et al., 2016)
Teacher Self-Efficacy Post-COVID
The outbreak of COVID-19 and subsequent school closures and the increase of
technology-driven instructional models have impacted teacher self-efficacy in various ways. One
significant factor contributing to this is the mental health challenges faced by teachers during the
pandemic, specifically related to having to balance their own children’s virtual learning, teaching
in unfamiliar environments and contexts, and the negative media coverage of the teaching
profession (Bintliff et al. 2020; Goldstein & Shapiro, 2020). However, in some cases, online
professional development is an effective strategy for mitigating lowered teacher self-efficacy
(Yoo, 2016). The findings of Yoo (2016) support the notion that external contexts can influence
educators’self-efficacy, even when facing adversity and navigating novel settings such as virtual
learning spaces. This observation aligns with the concepts outlined by Bandura (1986), which
propose that teacher self-efficacy is cultivated through vicarious learning, verbal persuasion, and
monitoring of the teacher’s physiological states—even in a virtual setting.
Technological, Pedagogical and Content Knowledge Framework (TPACK)
A validated link exists between teacher self-efficacy and their inclination to adopt and
employ technology in their instructional methods (Anderson et al., 2011). Harris et al.’s (2009)
TPACK further explains the factors that support technology’s full integration within classrooms.
It posits that teachers must possess technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge to fully
integrate technology in a meaningful way that supports student achievement.
23
Figure 1, produced by Harris et al. (2009), summarizes the interconnectedness of the
three knowledge domains of TPACK and how they interact to create planes of knowledge in
varying contexts.
Figure 1
TPACK Framework
Note. Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) for educators (Koehler & Mishra,
2016).
24
Harris et al. (2009) state that TPACK and its indicators significantly predict technology
integration self-efficacy and attitudes toward technology in general and assert that full
integration of technology depends on proficiency in technological and pedagogical best practices
and content knowledge (Dockstader, 1999; Harris et al., 2009). The framework requires that
pedagogical strategies and content knowledge work in tandem to create effective teaching and
learning opportunities for students (Mishra & Koehler, 2006) and considers self-efficacy as a
dependent factor in technology integration (Koh et al., 2014; Wang et al., 2004).
Teachers’self-efficacy strongly influences technology integration into classroom
routines. Self-efficacy is a reliable indicator of instructional efficacy and the ability to manage
the classroom environment (Sadaf et al., 2016). Wozney et al. (2006) frame self-efficacy and
technology integration within the expectancy-value model. Specifically, teachers’ expectancy of
success in correlation to the perceived value of using the technology and the perception of time,
effort, and frustration can affect educators’ behavior toward integrating technology within their
classroom environments (Paulus et al., 2020).
Furthermore, Joo et al. (2018) proposes, through their conceptual framework rooted in
the Davis (1989) teacher acceptance model, that the adoption of the TPACK framework is
intricately linked to teacher self-efficacy, the perceived usefulness of technology, and the
perceived ease of use. Joo et al. (2018) research was conducted in Korean elementary schools
and may have been influenced by cultural factors distinct from those in American schools.
Recognizing and acknowledging cultural nuances, particularly in comparison with American
schools and teacher experiences, is imperative for a comprehensive interpretation of outcomes.
This understanding underscores the significance of cultural variations as a contextual factor that
may influence teacher self-efficacy.
25
Pedagogical and Content Knowledge Development
Pajares (1992) states that “knowledge and beliefs are inextricably intertwined” (p. 325)
and “beliefs are instrumental in defining tasks and selecting the cognitive tools with which to
interpret, plan, and make decisions regarding such tasks” (p. 325). Abbitt (2011), using a singlegroup pre-test-posttest design to assess the correlation between self-efficacy beliefs towards
technology integration and the perceived knowledge in the domains of technological pedagogical
content knowledge or TPACK, found that possessing specific knowledge about the intersections
between technology and the other two knowledge domains enhances self-efficacy beliefs in
technology integration
In developing pedagogical and content knowledge as outlined in TPACK, key
methodologies and concepts have proven effective in supporting teacher capacity. These include
relationship building between instructional coaches and educational practitioners. Robertson et
al. (2020) discuss going beyond superficial relationships in professional development and
instead, suggest building spaces to co-construct knowledge and expertise between the two
stakeholders. This contrasts with the traditional workshop model that presents content to passive
learners (Tam, 2015) and often leaves teachers with professional development that is
decontextualized and leaves questions around situated application into their daily lives (Brown et
al., 1989).
Building on the power of relationship building and co-construction to further develop
pedagogical and content knowledge in educators, professional learning communities (PLC) have
also proven effective. PLCs are communities of practice (Lave & Wenger, 1991) often facilitated
by exemplary teachers and leaders within the organization and can be performed in person,
online, or hybrid settings (Strahan, 2003). Instructional coaching, which is categorized as
26
effective job-embedded professional learning (Darling-Hammond et al., 2009, 2017), also has
shown potential to influence teacher practice, and according to Kraft and Blazar (2018), “Teacher
coaching has large positive effects on both instructional practice and student achievement” (p.
71).
Technological Knowledge Development
Technological knowledge development is rooted in teacher self-efficacy, like pedagogical
and content knowledge development. In the context of the use of technology, there is a variance
in confidence levels depending on the type of technology and its technical purposes. For
example, teachers have shown high self-efficacy in using tech for tactical purposes such as
attendance but lower self-efficacy between pedagogical beliefs and integrating technology into
their instructional practices (Ertmer et al., 2012). Moreover, teachers with lower self-efficacy
specifically related to technological knowledge are less likely to attempt to use technology with
students overall (Hall & Trespalacios, 2019).
Reading Instruction
Scarborough’s reading rope (2001) provides a comprehensive framework for
understanding reading by delineating two main domains: language comprehension and word
recognition. In the language comprehension domain, Scarborough et al. (2001) identifies skilled
reading as reliant on subdomains such as background knowledge, vocabulary, language
structures, verbal reasoning, and literacy knowledge, encompassing aspects like print concepts
and genre understanding. In the word recognition domain, skilled reading hinges on the
interaction of subdomains: phonological awareness, decoding skills, and sight recognition of
familiar words.
27
Figure 2
Scarborough’s Reading Rope
Note. This model was created by Scarborough et al. in 2001, illustrating the relationship between
language comprehension and word recognition. From Connecting early language and literacy to
later reading (dis)abilities: Evidence, theory and practice, by H. S. Scarborough, 2001, Guilford
Press.
Reinforcing the notion that reading comprehension is an intricate interplay between code
and meaning instruction (Connor et al., 2009), the simple view of reading posits that reading
comprehension is expressed as the product of word recognition multiplied by language
comprehension or word recognition x language comprehension = reading comprehension (Gough
& Tunmer, 1986). In tandem with this perspective, the active view of reading contends that
reading is an active, dynamic process. In this view, readers actively interact with and construct
28
meaning from the text, highlighting the integral role of harmonizing decoding and
comprehension skills (Duke & Cartwright, 2021). Together, these views underscore the
multifaceted nature of reading, emphasizing the intertwined contributions of decoding and
comprehension to overall reading proficiency.
Effective Reading Instruction in Practice
Effective reading instruction has received decades of research and is commonly called the
science of reading. This body of knowledge identifies key elements as integral to the
instructional strategies needed for student content acquisition. These include balancing codefocused instruction with meaning-focused instruction and teacher-directed and student-supported
instruction within varying amounts of time dependent on student need and grade equivalency.
(Connor et al., 2009; Taylor et al., 2000). The science of reading places an emphasis on brain
science and the tenet that students must be taught how to read, and exposure is not enough to
develop reading skills in the same way that oral language is developed (Eimas,1985; Hruby &
Goswami, 2011). Effective reading instruction acknowledges these differences and addresses
them through strategies such as the activation of student self-regulation that is tied to motivation
and engagement (Morris et al., 2017).
As reading is connected to brain science and discrete skills that must be explicitly taught,
there are areas of study aligned with Scarborough’s rope (2009) and the active view of reading
(Duke & Cartwright, 2021) that must be systematically taught to students. These include
phonemic awareness or the tenet that words are comprised of smaller speech sounds (Shanahan
et al., 2010), phonics (Castles et al., 2018), fluency (Hudson et al., 2005), vocabulary
development (Duke & Cartwright, 2021) and comprehension.
29
Scaffolding support for students is a strategy highlighted as integral for student outcomes.
Scaffolding references increasing support for students as they work towards independence
(Duke, 2021). Aligned with the concept of scaffolding is the larger student support strategy of
differentiated instruction (Bogner et al., 2002). Students in whole class and small group settings
receive individualized instruction as well as assessment used strategically to identify groupings
for types and content of differentiated instruction.
Active student engagement has also been shown as a pedagogical practice that
encourages student achievement (Allington & Johnston, 2002; Guthrie et al., 2004; Taylor, 2003,
2005) as well as matching instructional purpose to student needs (Guthrie et al., 2004) and
appropriate pacing and challenge level of student activities (Pressley, 2001; Taylor, 2003).
It is important to note that these strategies are not an exhaustive list but a sample
representing key findings in the field. For more exhaustive strategies of instructional strategies,
the International Literacy Association (https://www.literacyworldwide.org/) is a seminal resource
to stay abreast of the newest research around literacy instruction.
Emerging Technology and Reading Instruction
The International Society of Technology in Education (ISTE) calls for technology as a
conduit of developing and facilitating creativity and innovation, research and information
fluency, critical thinking, problem-solving, and decision-making within classroom settings
(2007). Consequently, state and national policies have followed suggestions from organizations
such as ISTE. This is displayed by the Common Core Standards for English Language Arts,
which reference the use of digital texts as early as Grade 2 (CCSS; National Governors
Association Center for Best Practice & Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010).
30
When used as intended, technology can enhance reading instruction and learning by
serving as a tool for delivering literacy, as a platform for interaction around texts, and a medium
for creating meaning (Kinzer & Leu, 1997). According to the International Multisensory
Structured English Education Journal (2020), technology can complement literacy instruction by
providing opportunities for repetition and extension activities as well as, allowing for
differentiation through adaptive programming (Vasquez & Straub, 2012). Additionally,
technology can motivate students and increase efficiency and individualization (Boyle et al.,
2016). Considering the low reading rates of students according to the NAEP, all gains in student
achievement must be encouraged and pursued. Technology use has been associated with small to
moderate effect ranges in literacy outcomes (Cheung & Slavin, 2012) when it is implemented as
a supplemental resource to high quality teacher led instruction that is displayed through teacher
provided feedback on data, opportunities for strategic practice and increased learner engagement
(Dahl-Leonard et al, 2024). However, when technology is used in sub-optimal ways, such as
having students passively read or listen to text digitally, there is an association with reduced
reading frequency among students (Merga & Mat Roni, 2017).
Even the term literacy historically has always been associated with accessing the written
word. However, as Lankshear and Knobel (2003) state, literacy must also include technology
use, as people increasingly digest content from varied digital sources rather than solely from
books. As students are expected to process information through technology, there is a need not
only to integrate technology for its ability to differentiate content and motivate students but also
for the functional purpose of preparing students to use technology in their daily lives and future
careers.
31
The most pervasive technology to have recently emerged is the integration of artificial
intelligence (AI) within instructional environments for educators and students (Devi et al., 2022).
According to Yang (2022), artificial intelligence is ‘the science and engineering of problemsolving with technological innovations such as machine learning and neural networks’ (p. 1).
Research on the role of AI within the early grades is limited, given its emergent and dynamic
nature, coupled with the fact that most AI integration in education is oriented toward older grades
(Yang, 2022). From an equity perspective, there is a growing concern about the increasing digital
divide that AI may exacerbate, particularly with children from less advantaged backgrounds who
are not guaranteed equal opportunities to interact with AI technologies (Druga et al., 2019).
Conceptual Framework
Through the literature review, a conceptual framework anchors the study and highlights
the potential interconnectedness of self-efficacy and technology integration within the
elementary classroom and reading instruction. The conceptual framework is illustrated in Figure
3.
32
Figure 3
Conceptual Framework
Incorporating Bandura’s (1986) social cognitive theory into the conceptual framework
highlights the role of external factors, such as vicarious experiences, physiological arousal,
mastery experiences, and verbal persuasion, in shaping teachers’self-efficacy beliefs.
The conceptual framework of this study positions the technological pedagogical and content
knowledge or TPACK model in an interdependent relationship with teacher self-efficacy, shaped
by established antecedents: mastery experiences, vicarious experiences, physiological arousal,
33
and verbal persuasion. This relationship may inform technology integration framed within
technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge. Furthermore, the levels of competence in the
three highlighted areas within the TPACK model cyclically shape and contribute to self-efficacy
within the triadic reciprocality model that affects a person’s behavior and general belief of selfefficacy. While the triadic reciprocality model is not directly represented in the conceptual
framework, the cyclical nature is expressed in the conceptual frameworks, emphasizing the
interplay between context, behavior, and personal knowledge.
These factors can impact teachers’ perceptions of their ability to effectively integrate
technology into their instruction, subsequently influencing their willingness to engage in such
practices. The TPACK model posits that effective technology integration in education requires
the intersection of three key knowledge domains: technological knowledge, pedagogical
knowledge, and content knowledge. Within this conceptual framework, TPACK accompanies
Social cognitive theory to examine educational technology integration and self-efficacy among
elementary school teachers. By situating TPACK within the antecedents to teachers’selfefficacy, as discussed by Bandura (1986,1997, 2001), and the varying contexts of teacher
assignments and experiences, the conceptual framework seeks to examine the cyclical nature of
antecedents to self-efficacy and domain knowledge.
An added element of context will contribute to the conceptual framework as it relates to
teacher self-efficacy and the TPACK framework. The term ‘context’ in this framework refers to
teacher pedagogical beliefs. According to Hermans et al. (2008), “Belief systems consist of an
eclectic mix of rules of thumb, generalizations, opinions, values, and expectations grouped in a
more or less structured way” (p. 1500). Considering pedagogical beliefs in the context of
technology integration is essential, as evidenced by Judson’s (2006) findings. The research
34
suggests that teachers with more traditional beliefs will likely incorporate conventional or lowlevel technology uses.
In contrast, those with more constructivist beliefs tend to engage in student-centered or
high-level technology applications. Additionally, the term context encompasses culture as a
variable. Within the school setting, technology innovation has been found to be less likely to be
adopted if implementation deviates from the current beliefs and practices of the staff, and
iteration in belief about technology use occurs with less resistance when peers socialize as they
seek to explore technology integration (Zhao & Frank, 2003).
Summary
Grounded in Bandura’s social cognitive theory and TPACK framework, the literature
review explores the interplay between individuals, experiences, behaviors, and belief systems
within the educational context. Bandura highlights the significance of self-efficacy, emphasizing
how beliefs in one’s capabilities influence choices, actions, and, ultimately, achievement. This is
particularly relevant in teacher self-efficacy, where beliefs impact instructional decision-making,
commitment, and student outcomes. The TPACK framework further enriches the discussion,
emphasizing the integration of technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge for effective
teaching. The conceptual framework aligns these theories, examining how teachers’self-efficacy
and TPACK intersect, shaping and being shaped by various antecedents within the educational
environment. The review also underscores the impact of external factors such as mastery and
vicarious experiences, verbal persuasion, and physiological arousal, on self-efficacy beliefs,
offering a comprehensive foundation for understanding the complex relationships in education,
especially regarding technology integration and reading instruction.
35
Chapter Three: Methodology
This chapter outlines the qualitative research methodology used to examine the teacher’s
sense of self-efficacy and the utilization of technology as an instructional tool for teaching
reading in elementary grades. The chapter begins by presenting an overview of the chosen
methodology and describing the participants involved in the study. Detailed discussion of the
strategies employed for instrumentation and data collection procedures follow. Subsequently, the
methods used for data analysis are elucidated, and attention is given to establishing the
credibility and trustworthiness of the study’s findings. The chapter addresses ethical
considerations and the researcher’s positionality, offering insights into the inherent limitations
and delimitations of the study’s scope.
The following research questions guided the study in exploring primary teachers’selfefficacy to use educational technology within their instructional practice to teach literacy:
1. How do primary teachers view the role of technology integration within their reading
instruction?
2. How do primary teachers describe their self-efficacy in using technology in reading
instruction?
3. What factors do primary teachers attribute to their sense of self-efficacy to
incorporate technology within their reading instruction?
4. How does domain knowledge contribute to self-efficacy perceptions among primary
teachers when incorporating technology within reading instruction?
The study explores participants’ experiences, perspectives, and beliefs related to selfefficacy through the qualitative method of semi-structured interviews and the interview protocol.
Given that the research questions focus on examining self-efficacy perceptions and the factors
36
contributing to them, interviews provided an opportunity to gather detailed, context-rich
narratives that offered insights beyond what quantitative methods might capture. Interviews are
the primary data source as they allow for the flexibility to explore teachers’sense of self-efficacy,
technology integration, and reading instruction. The open-ended interview questions are
anchored in the conceptual framework outlined in Chapter Two.
Sample and Population
The study enlisted public elementary grade teachers in kindergarten through second grade
from diverse regions across California and Washington State who possess practical experience
and agency in utilizing student-facing technology within their reading instruction. The objective
was to secure participation from teachers from multiple districts through established connections
with school and district administrators to interview 10 participants. To ensure that 10 participants
were secured, snowball and convenience sampling was used. Due to past teaching assignments,
many of my personal teaching contacts resided in California which increased participant
representation within the state. The primary emphasis was on securing a representation of
primary teachers with the shared characteristic of having access to technology for instructional
purposes.
Instrumentation
Semi-structured interviews comprehensively examined participants’ experiences,
perspectives, and beliefs, essential for gaining insight into the intricate interplay between selfefficacy beliefs and their antecedents. The interview’s flexible structure enabled the
documentation of participants’ thoughts and insights, capturing rich, context-specific narratives
related to teaching environments, self-efficacy beliefs, and domain knowledge expertise. The
semi-structured interview protocol allowed the researcher to “adapt to the situation at hand,
37
respond to the emerging worldview of the respondent, and explore new ideas on the topic”
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2015, p. 111). This adaptability ensured that the interview process was
responsive to each participant’s unique perspectives and experiences, fostering a more thorough
and nuanced understanding of the complex interactions between teachers’sense of self-efficacy
to use technology and its influencing factors.
The interview protocol (see Appendix A) comprised of semi-structured questions with
follow-up questions and probes which investigated participants’ beliefs, experiences, and
perspectives regarding self-efficacy, antecedents to self-efficacy to use technology and domain
competencies. The protocol was organized into three primary areas of focus: general beliefs
about the role of technology in reading instruction, self-efficacy, antecedents to self-efficacy, and
domain knowledge.
Data Collection
The interview protocol allocated one hour for each interview session. Utilizing the
transcription feature available on Zoom and Microsoft Teams, all notes were transcribed and
securely stored within a password-encrypted folder on the computer’s hard drive. There was no
need for translation services.
Participants received a scheduling link tailored to their availability to maximize
participant convenience. This approach allowed participants to choose time slots that least
disrupted their schedules. Upon confirmation of the interview time, a follow-up email from a
university email was sent. This email served as a reminder of the interview’s date, time, and
duration, an overview of the interview’s focus, and a statement that participation was voluntary.
Specifically, participants were also reminded of their option to withdraw from the study for any
reason at any time and reaffirm the informed consent process.
38
The interviews were conducted within the researcher’s home to ensure privacy and
prevent unintentional eavesdropping. This setting also ensured a controlled environment,
minimizing background noise or distractions for participants and the researcher. Before the
interview, participants received a copy of the informed consent form, fostering transparency and
emphasizing consent through all interview stages. Participants’ responses remained confidential
and were not shared among other participants.
Data Analysis
The recorded interviews were transcribed verbatim using transcription tools to ensure the
text data was immediately available for analysis. Additionally, I manually checked the generated
transcripts for accuracy to guarantee the reliability of the transcribed content. Through analysis
of transcripts, the identification of commonly used keywords in responses was used to code
responses (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). The coding process commenced with open coding which
involved breaking the transcribed data into smaller, meaningful segments, each assigned a
specific code. At this stage, the goal was not to quantify responses but to identify key concepts,
ideas, and statements related to self-efficacy, technology integration, and reading instruction.
Subsequently, axial coding, or grouping data into categories, was conducted to organize the
initial codes into themes based on the relationships between them. These categories represented
broader themes which encapsulated the coded data segments.
In comparative analysis to discern commonalities, differences, or response variations
across different interviews, a priori coding is used. Specifically, this strategy establishes a
predetermined set of codes before engaging with the data (Gibbs, 2018; Spencer et al., 2014).
These predefined codes are derived from existing theories around social cognitive theory,
TPACK, and research questions, allowing for a concept-driven analysis. This approach allows
39
for analysis to filter through a targeted lens through which to examine the data, facilitating the
identification of thematic trends and enabling a more focused exploration of teacher self-efficacy
and technology use in early reading instruction.
Credibility and Trustworthiness
My experiences as an educator and now as a director within a well-known provider of
educational resources and services had potential to influence my interpretation of teacher
responses and place emphasis on the identification of themes within responses that aligned with
my own beliefs and stance on the use of technology as well as themes that could benefit the
strategic plan of my organization.
My time as a teacher within Silicon Valley afforded me access to cutting-edge technology
and training. Additionally, my time working as a leader within an assessment-heavy educational
technology start-up shaped my beliefs on how teachers should integrate technology within their
literacy instruction. Following interview protocol and consistently reflecting on my positionality,
biases, and preconceptions after each interview allowed for a consistent review of the potential
influence of my background during the research process (Barclay et al. 2002).
Acknowledging the critical role of self-reflection in maintaining research credibility and
trustworthiness is essential to recognize the inherent limitations of self-assessment due to
potential blind spots. To address this, I organized regular meetings with a designated peer
knowledgeable about bias risks within the research. These meetings functioned as external
validation and introduced an additional layer of scrutiny in my attempts to mitigate bias (Lincoln
& Guba, 1985).
A significant consideration in this study is its restricted generalization capacity. The small
sample size of participants encompasses elementary educators from various districts and multiple
40
states. However, careful consideration is necessary before extending the findings to different
populations or educational contexts. Furthermore, the study’s exploration of the interplay
between self-efficacy and technology integration in reading instruction only captures a portion of
the broader array of influential factors. Contextual variables such as classroom dynamics,
administrative support, or even students’ familiarity with technology could have contributed
significantly to the outcomes observed in literacy instruction.
The study includes a relatively small sample size. Although smaller sample sizes are not
uncommon in qualitative research, caution is exercised when attempting to extend the
conclusions from this study to other contexts or populations. Moreover, the utilization of
convenience sampling, chosen for its practicality, brings the potential for selection bias.
Participants may not have provided a comprehensive representation of the broader population. It
was crucial to acknowledge this limitation as it may have impacted the study’s capacity to
capture the full spectrum of perspectives within the larger population.
The Researcher
While I am no longer an active teacher within a school district, I am familiar with the
educational milieu from 18 years of teaching and coaching experience within the public-school
systems. My current role within my organization involves aligning product development and
overall strategy with teachers’ professional development needs while ensuring the profitability of
our products and services. This position requires close collaboration across departments to
synchronize schedules, product roadmaps, and budgeting.
In considering the potential intersectionality of teacher self-efficacy and technology
integration as a pedagogical tool for teaching literacy, I recognize the possibility of biases, which
had potential to influence participant responses or interpretations and potentially align them with
41
established organizational goals. Additionally, my historical decision-making regarding
technology use in the literacy classroom also had potential to influence my biases.
Acknowledging and navigating these potential influences is crucial in ensuring an unbiased
exploration of participants’ perspectives. My experiences and beliefs on best practices needed to
be consistently examined to mitigate bias within the interview process, as the semi-structured
format may allow more time to be spent on specific questions and follow-up.
Additionally, my understanding of technology within education had potential to influence
assumptions of participant knowledge around terms, programs, and initiatives that they may need
to be made aware of. To support the anti-bias interpretation of data and research practices, I
followed the interview protocol and used peer debriefing consistently throughout the research
process to maintain accountability in checking assumptions and to not lead participants in
questioning or interpreting responses during the analysis stage.
Ethics
My position as a member of a for-profit partner with school districts introduced potential
influences on how participants may have chosen to report information. Specifically, participants
may have felt reluctant to self-report low self-efficacy or disclose their technology usage in
teaching due to concerns about potential repercussions from district leadership or my
organization as a trusted partner. Furthermore, snowballing and convenience sampling may have
exerted unwarranted pressure on individuals I recruited, leading them to participate in the study
as a courtesy to a peer. To address these concerns, it was imperative to uphold participant
anonymity in reporting (Glesne, 2016). This commitment to anonymity in reporting was
emphasized in the interview protocol language and included explicit explanations of the
42
measures implemented to maintain participant confidentiality through robust data security and
recording procedures.
43
Chapter Four: Findings
Grounded in social cognitive theory and the TPACK framework, this study investigates
primary teachers’ perspectives and self-efficacy on technology integration within their reading
instruction, addressing the following research questions:
1. How do primary teachers view the role of technology integration within their reading
instruction?
2. How do primary teachers describe their self-efficacy in using technology in reading
instruction?
3. What factors do primary teachers attribute to their sense of self-efficacy to
incorporate technology within their reading instruction?
4. How does domain knowledge contribute to self-efficacy perceptions among primary
teachers when incorporating technology within reading instruction?
The research aimed to explore how teachers perceived the role of technology in reading
instruction, described their self-efficacy in using technology, identified factors influencing their
self-efficacy, and assessed the perceived impact of domain knowledge on their self-efficacy
perceptions.
After conducting semi-structured interviews with all participants via Zoom, themes were
identified from the analysis using a combination of a priori coding and emergent coding from the
interviews. These themes were tracked using transcription software and visualized using AI
technology that monitored coding of transcripts as designated by the researcher.
This chapter presents an overview of the participants, followed by findings for individual
research questions organized by main themes identified in the analysis. A synthesized discussion
on the findings and themes follows, culminating in a summary at the end of the chapter.
44
Participants
This study includes 10 participants, each selected based on the specified criteria relevant
to the research objectives and through convenience sampling. All participants had extensive
experience in education, each with over 10 years of teaching experience and half with over 20
years. Notably, all participants had taught both before and after the school closures induced by
the COVID-19 pandemic, providing valuable insight into the impact of these disruptions on their
instructional practices. Additionally, as part of the outreach design, all participants had access to
technology for facilitating reading instruction in their respective teaching contexts. Table 1
highlights relevant information for participants including pseudonyms, grade level and school
location by county.
Table 1
Participant Information and Pseudonyms
Interview Pseudonym Grade level
1 Alice Kindergarten
2 Barbara First grade
3 Chloe Kindergarten
4 Donna Second grade
5 Eleanor Kindergarten
6 Francis First grade
7 Georgia First grade
8 Helen Second grade
9 Irene Second grade
10 Julia First grade
45
Results for Research Question 1
According to the NETP, (U.S. Department of Education, 2024), a key area of focus for
schools across the country is addressing the digital divide in the inequitable implementation of
instructional tasks facilitated by educational technology among students. The plan delineates a
dichotomy in experiences through passive and active technology use. Specifically, the National
Educational Technology Plan (U.S. Department of Education, 2024) refers to active
implementation of the use of technology to “analyze, build, produce and create using digital
tools” (p. 9). Conversely, other students interact with technology as passive users engaging in
“digital worksheets, point and click assessments, locked down devices, and penalties for
organized collaboration” (U.S. Department of Education, 2024, p. 13). Often, this digital divide
occurs with students from historically marginalized backgrounds experiencing the latter with
underserved students often using technology at a low cognitive level that is drill and practice or
remediation (Warschauer & Ware, 2014).
There is a displayed variance among participants in how technology was used within
their classrooms with a preference to integrate technology in more passive than active ways.
Specifically, most participants highlighted positive sentiment around technology serving as a tool
for classroom management to keep students engaged while small groups were conducted.
Consequently, while the use of small groups to deliver differentiated content aligns with effective
reading instruction (Day et al., 2015), the role of technology within that context of differentiation
appears to be more about managing student behavior rather than enriching pedagogy or
encouraging meaningful learning through the technology.
Of the 10 participants, only three participants explicitly stated that technology is meant to
be a tool for enhancing instruction and not meant to be used as a passive experience for students.
46
In these classrooms, technology was being used as a tool to engage students or allow them to
access or demonstrate knowledge in alternative ways that may be conducive to better student
learning. This was contextualized within the statement made by Barbara where she stated that the
role of technology and the teacher is to
Support all students and all the different ways they learn and the different things that
work for different students to remove the barriers that are there for some when it comes
to certain traditional methods. Technology is a tool in the arsenal of thinking about, how
do we provide as many options as possible, or as many ways as possible for students to
learn materials, so they [students] can pick the one that works best for them.
While all participants stated they did use technology in some capacity within their reading
instruction, 100% of participants also expressed some level of concern there was an overuse of
technology with young children. Eleanor explained, “On one hand, there’s so much that we can
do with technology that helps the kids with reading, but on the other hand, there’s the whole
addiction to screens.”
Regarding concern of developmental appropriateness of technology in the primary
grades, there is a parallel concern expressed by five participants that innovative use of
technology is sometimes hindered by the age of the students and their ability to self-regulate
when left alone on devices. Specifically, they shared their frustration with the management of
students’ logistical needs to navigate technology independently, with a focus on logging in to
applications and staying on task once logged in. Chloe highlighted this sentiment when
describing using more open-ended activities with her students, “I definitely tried different things,
but I felt like with the age group it is a lot of work. It is a lot of management. I don’t think it was
worth it. The juice isn’t worth the squeeze.”
47
Nine participants stated that they used online assessments in their classrooms with seven
participants stating that online assessments helped to streamline their workflows and improve
time management, as they felt they no longer needed to manually grade individual student
responses and could immediately access the data.
Despite, positive feelings around the use of technology as a method to engage students
and support classroom management, an overall trend across all interviews was that technology,
while impactful in some cases, is not a replacement for tactile interaction with books and pencils
and paper and that the interface between student and screen is no replacement for the impact
between teacher and student interaction.
Theme 1: Developmental Concerns for Younger Students
Among participants, there was an aligned tension between leveraging technology to
engage students while also ensuring exposure to non-technical tools deemed developmentally
appropriate by the teachers. This sentiment was expressed by 100% of participants. While
excessive screen time can adversely affect children’s physical and mental health with “the
average rates of school-aged children, who had screen time within the range of ≥ 2 [hour] per
day at 41.3% and 59.4% respectively before and after January 2020” (Qi et al., 2023, p. 12),
participants who expressed concern over the use of technology did not cite concern for an exact
amount of time on devices but referenced it with anecdotally based concern that the kids are
“addicted” to screens or have attention issues because of needing to be constantly stimulated.
The impact of student self-regulation on primary teachers’ decisions regarding when and
how to incorporate technology is substantial. Eight participants specifically mentioned that they
see it as their responsibility to limit screen time for their students to mitigate overuse of
technology inside and outside of the classroom setting. However, of those who stated this, none
48
mentioned that they had explicitly asked families about technology use or stated they knew the
amount of technology students were using outside of the classroom. Rather, teachers expressed
identifying technology use at home from student descriptions or inference as shown in Helen’s
statement:
Hearing students in my classrooms tell me how much time they spent watching YouTube
over the weekend or played a game for two hours last night, or whatever it is, knowing
that they are getting a lot of that screen time outside of school. I’ve been more conscious
about trying to eliminate it [technology] within the classroom because it’s not necessary
for us to get those learning points across.
To further support the findings and illuminate the theme identified in our research question, the
following table presents direct quotes from participants that underscore their experiences and
perspectives as it relates to Theme 1. See Table 2.
49
Table 2
Participants Quotes Aligned to Research Question 1 (Theme 1)
Name Quote
Alice We live in an environment where kids are on technology for hours a day. I
sometimes worry that maybe we are just over doing it and maybe the
better thing for the kids is to force them to interact with each other or
play outside or build something in real life—not just virtually.
Barbara Sometimes we lean a little heavily on some of the programs and apps. Sure,
Lexia could be helpful, but I’m nervous to make it a daily thing, because
how helpful is it really? Are the things more valuable for kids’ time?
Chloe I don’t think computers can replace a book in a child’s hand and turning the
pages and be able to point and look over the page for more details.
I think with the age level I teach [kindergarten and first grade], there’s a real
push to get them off technology because they are on so much technology
and I agree with that.
Donna They always want to be stimulated. So, I feel like behavior is a huge thing.
Now, it’s not enough to just sit and be engaged. Technology has made it
so that the kids can’t just be in class. I think maybe we have overdone it
in many ways, and now we can’t reel it back in.
Eleanor I don’t believe that we should be using it exclusively just to deliver a
concept. We should be teaching a concept and then using technology to
enhance it. They get enough technology everywhere else, so it’s always
a balance and must be strategic.
Francis I have a hesitation with using it more to teach because of how I feel about
kids in front of a screen even with my own children. I listen to other
parents that I talked to in [parent teacher] conferences and they’re asking
me how often or how much time my child is spending in front of a
screen every day? And I don’t want to tell them that it’s a lot because I
don’t think that it’s necessarily good for kids.
Georgia It is all about balance—and for some kids there is none.
Helen As a teacher, I prefer to just stick with analog and then I can suggest
materials like that for kids to follow up with at home, you know, if their
families want them to. In the classroom … I think technology is not for
beginning readers.
Irene A lot of the scheduling is decided for me. If it was just me, I am not certain
I would plan so much [technology]. Sometimes it feels like overkill.
Julia All they’re doing is sitting in a chair and all they’re doing is interacting
through devices, and kids are starting to lose how to deal with each
other.
But for our kids in our community, they’re on devices all day long. So, in
the classroom, they do not want to be on the apps that I had for reading
or for spelling words
50
Theme 2: Educational Technology As Passive and Active Student Experiences
Across interviews, there is a variance in how participants view the role of technology,
which mirrors the digital divide outlined within the NETP. Three of the participants stated that
technology’s role was to enhance learning and allow students to express their learning in novel
and engaging ways, referencing their commitment to universal design for learning (UDL) or
inquiry-based learning. For example, when asked what she considered when integrating
technology, Barbara stated:
Is the technology piece going to make it more effective than doing it without, in a
different way? How am I going to use this? And how am I going to know, kind of
thinking through those like PLC questions—how am I going to know it’s working? How
am I going to know if it’s supporting their learning? … But I think initially, the
backwards plan of what’s the end goal, is this going to help them reach that end goal and
then how along the way am I going to evaluate whether it is helping us towards that goal?
By incorporating methods for processing information and fostering deeper content
comprehension, alongside utilizing executive functioning and organizational skills, monitoring
progress, actively engaging in the learning environment, and implementing strategies for selfassessment and self-reflection, UDL prioritizes the differentiation and accessibility of content for
all students (Shultz, 2023). Barbara stated that technology is “a different way of engagement for
students, and maybe a way for them to show their learning differently as well,” and Eleanor
stated they “feel like technology should be to take a concept and allow kids to apply open-ended
thinking to expand that learning as opposed to a drill and kill or as a babysitter.”
Juxtaposed to this sentiment, the remaining seven teachers expressed that they were using
technology in more passive ways with students, such as having them watch videos, play online
51
or web-based games, or watch presentations on Google Slides or PowerPoint. For example,
Donna shared that technology integration was mostly limited to static slide decks that were
presented to the students. “For phonics or the phonics program … we’ve put all the phonics on
slides, and we bought some Teachers Pay Teachers to do the phonics lessons. … It’s basically
like a PowerPoint. They just read it. They don’t interact with it.” Table 3 highlights the types of
technology, passive or active, as described by the participants.
Table 3
Examples of Passive and Active Instruction in Technology Integration
Participant Passive technology use Active technology use
Alice Adaptive learning platforms
Digital books
Educational videos
Digital storytelling
Student led research
Barbara Educational apps
Digital books
Online assessments
Digital storytelling
Video conferencing
Collaborative word processing
Student led research
Chloe Adaptive learning platforms
Educational apps
Digital books
Educational websites
Slideshows
None
Donna Digital books
Slideshows
Online assessments
None
Eleanor Bilingual digital books Digital storytelling
Video conferencing
Collaborative word processing
Student led research
Student created podcasts
Student created slide presentations
Francis Adaptive learning platforms
Digital books
Educational videos
Digital flashcards
Slideshows
None
52
Participant Passive technology use Active technology use
Georgia Adaptive learning platforms
Educational apps
Digital books
Educational Websites
Slideshows
Online assessments
Digital storytelling
Student led research
Helen Online assessments None
Irene Adaptive learning platforms
Educational apps
Digital books
Educational websites
Slideshows
Online assessments
Collaborative word processing
Student led research
Student created slide presentations
Julia Educational videos
Online assessments
Digital books
None
Table 4 details a compilation of participant quotes, which further validate the strategic
use of active instruction of technology discussed in the interviews and outlined in the previous
table.
53
Table 4
Participants Quotes Aligned to Research Question 1 (Theme 2)
Name Quote
Alice We also did storytelling apps on where they could do a retelling of books
that they were looking at in the center prior. They really loved recording
themselves and replaying what they did.
Barbara I feel like it [technology] provides another avenue and different ways of
accessing the learning for different methods that students learn by and a
different way of engagement for students, and maybe a way for them to
show their learning as well.
Eleanor I won’t put them on some website or some apps where they just click on the
answer and get a coin. I totally understand how, for management,
sometimes that helps. I do my best to find open and creative ways for
kids to apply their learning—a lot of Google, Canva is our favorite, and
then the green screen is right up there. So, lots of fun!
Georgia One program allows you to assign books and then the kids read the book,
and it records them. Now, you have the recording, and you can go back
and listen to it—really listen to it. I can go back and ask them questions
on mistakes I heard or assign comprehension questions that are specific
to the kid. It allows us to differentiate in a way that I wouldn’t be able to
fit in during the regular day.
Irene I really like using it for inquiry-based projects. For instance, we have a unit
on animals and the kids choose an animal to research and then they can
use Google Docs to create their projects. They can present what they
learned to the class in really creative ways, and they love it.
Theme 3: Reliance and Resistance to Adaptive and Online Assessments
An additional trend that emerges within the 10 interviews is the use of online
assessments, either in the form of state testing or gamified learning platforms with embedded
adaptive assessment, to identify discrete phonics or comprehension skills of students. All
teachers were mandated by their district to use these types of assessments in some form, with
only one actively protesting and not using the assessments as directed by their district due to
concerns about the usefulness of the assessments and validity of data. Of the remaining nine
participants using the online assessments, six felt that students taking online assessments instead
54
of traditional pencil and paper assessments allowed them, on varying levels, to more accurately
and effectively understand the needs of their students and assess more frequently. Georgia stated
that the online assessment mandated by the district “provide[s] information to the teacher, that’s
novel and interesting … things that I wouldn’t have noticed just by myself,” but also
emphasized, “you still have to balance it with what your observations are, what your
assessments, whether formal and informal, are.”
This principle of balancing online assessments with formal and informal assessments is
also a common theme among the nine participants who used online assessments to support their
understanding of student needs, with six of those nine participants expressing reservations about
fully trusting online assessments. This sentiment was exemplified by Donna’s frustration with
their mandated assessments, “I actually don’t like the reading assessments that we do. I would
say I don’t love those because, you know, you can tell that some of the kids are just guessing.”
This feeling of not trusting online assessments is primarily attributed to not being able to
watch the students as they take tests and check for focus of the students or their understanding on
how to use the technology. When describing her trust in the online assessments, Julia stated, “It’s
not helpful to me at all. When parents come to me and say, ‘why?’ I can’t answer them.” The
four participants that did not like to use assessments data to support their understanding of
student need on any level, felt that they were better served to use more traditional means of
assessments such as running records or one-on-one observation of students reading or discussing
text.
The subsequent table showcases firsthand quotes from participants, highlighting their
responses as they relate to online assessments. See Table 5.
55
Table 5
Participants Quotes Aligned Research Question 1 (Theme 3)
Name Quote
Alice I am not sure that I trust online assessments that much in kindergarten
because the kids don’t even know what they are clicking on. I feel better
if I am sitting right there beside them, but at that point, why don’t I just
give them the assessment myself?
Barbara So much Lexia [adaptive program with assessment]. Seriously, they want
the kids on there so much. I just don’t think it tells the whole story of
what a kid can do. I use that data because it’s really interesting, but I use
lots of other data points too.
Chloe We use online assessments, which I’m still hot and cold on. I don’t think it
is the best way to assess them but that’s because I’m old school and I
know I can learn a lot more from reading with a kid that I can from
listening to it on the computer
Donna There are so many assessments that use technology that are good compared
to what we’ve done beyond the readers workshop assessments that
aren’t just running records, but overall, I don’t like the reading
assessments we do. I would say I don’t love those because you can tell
that some of the kids are just guessing. They’re in second grade too, so
it’s hard for them. I feel this every time we do the Fast Bridge
assessment. There are all these glitches.
Eleanor I’m the only teacher that does not have online assessment data. I’m just not
going to play that game.
Francis There’s a new assessment the district is saying we should probably use to
record our kids’ assessment data but there is no training on it
whatsoever. I don’t even know what that is. How can I know what to do
with the info, if I don’t even know what the kids are being asked to do?
Georgia I’m thinking of students that have IEPs or are on a watchlist for things. For
those kids, I’m not sure it’s the most useful because they just click
56
Name Quote
through—they don’t have the maturity. It’s too much for them to hold
and maintain their focus and use it well. So, then their scores come back,
and you feel disappointed. You still have to balance it with what your
observations are, what your assessments—formal and informal—are.
Helen I do what the district asks me to do, but I wouldn’t otherwise.
Irene I-Ready [assessment] gives me lots of info but it’s so time consuming and
that’s a negative. Literally days to administer! I don’t mind giving the
assessments, but you can’t just use that data because you can’t go
months without assessing kids.
Julia The tests are fast and that is helpful, but honestly, I could tell you in the first
two weeks of school who’s going to need extra support. I don’t really
need that data to tell me that and some kids don’t test well on computers.
They’re sitting with a stranger they don’t know, and they’re asked to do
something on the screen. And, you know, it could be something that
they’re not comfortable with.
Theme 4: Technology As Secondary to Teacher Student Interaction
Another major trend that emerged in the data analysis of the interviews is the sentiment
technology use in the classroom is secondary to teacher and student interaction and is not a
replacement for the teaching that comes from that human-to-human interaction. While five
participants described only passive technology usage in their classrooms, with students
consuming information rather than demonstrating learning or analyzing information, the goal of
the technology within those participants’ classrooms was to allow them to work with smaller
groups of students in differentiated reading instruction. In this sense, participants were more
concerned with maintaining order within their small group time using technology as an
57
engagement tool during child-managed instruction. Donna spoke of this strategy when she stated,
“There’s something to be said about just sitting and reading a book, but then there’s also
something about them all silent. I feel like it’s so hard to figure out the balance, and I feel like
teachers are trying to figure out the balance.” Balancing technology with analog instruction is a
central theme among interviews as expressed in Donna’s additional statement which highlighted
struggles with balance not just from a theoretical perspective but also a logistical and scheduling
balance:
I always go back and forth. They’re so engaged in [online] reading but it’s screen time
and I feel like we go back and forth like should we let them read on Epic [online reading
platform] every day? Or should we just do it twice a week? Should we do it 2 days in a
row?
While human interaction in learning almost always is a better choice than purely digital
instruction (Heissel, 2016), there seemed to be a conflation among some participants with
technology use only meaning passive use with students working in isolation. Only three
participants mentioned using collaborative word processing, such as Google Documents, to
interact with the students or allow them to collaborate to provide or receive feedback from other
students. Eleanor, who used this type of instruction to increase interaction between teacher and
student, stated:
We have conversations within the chat, and I’ll highlight something, and I’ll say you have
a capitalization error, or you have a spelling error, or you have punctuation errors, and
then they know to go back and fix it and instead of them writing a paragraph and being
passive learners waiting for me to fix it for them and give them a grade. I want them
interacting and being an active participant in the editing process.
58
All participants, regardless of their level of use of active versus passive technology
integration, placed emphasis on the importance of the teacher knowing how to engage the
students and power of human interaction. However, the disparity between the two groups—those
that use active use of technology versus those that do not—was the belief that technology could
be a way to engage students through collaboration and creation, while the others felt it was a way
to engage them for classroom management. Both groups shared that interaction between student
and teacher was the main goal but how that goal was achieved was expressed in different ways
across participant responses. In Table 6, direct quotes from participants are shared to further
demonstrate thematic findings related to Research Question 1 and the overall feeling of teachers
as it relates to technology integration within their instruction.
Table 6
Participants Quotes Aligned to Research Question 1 (Theme 4)
Name Quote
Alice I like to have students working on technology during small group time
because I know they are being kept busy, and I can go back and see what
they did because the tech is recording their work. But sometimes, it’s a
disaster because they get into the strangest things on their devices, and I
have to step away from the teacher table to help. In that way, tech can be
a hindrance to learning because I’m trying to differentiate in small
groups, and I can’t. To me, that time is precious.
Barbara To me, it’s all about really knowing your kids. I think about how to support
all students and all the different ways they learn and the different things
that work for different students and you know, an effort to remove the
barriers that are there for some when it comes to like certain methods or
traditional methods, kind of adding it as a tool in the arsenal thinking
about like, how do we provide as many options as possible, or as many
ways as possible for students to learn materials, so they can kind of pick
the one that works best for them.
Chloe Small groups are really important to me. I usually put the kids on computers
or online books during that time and it lets me work with the other kids.
When you work in a small group, you’re reaching each child and
working with them in a more intense setting.
59
Name Quote
Donna We have so many behaviors now and that’s a huge thing for me. I need time
to do my small groups. I need time to read with them and if I can get the
behavior down in them to be quiet then I feel like I’ve done my job.
Eleanor I’m transparent with them [students] and my thought process with them. I
give them my overall goal, like okay, friends, I really want to see your
creativity and I really want to know what you learned and how this
learning made you feel so I need you to pick something that’s going to
best exemplify your learning. Part of my decision making is thinking
about what’s going to work for each kid and let them choose the route
that showcases their learning.
Francis I feel that the teacher should be the leader of the reading instruction. I don’t
expect any technology at this point to really teach students much more
recording and feeding back to the teacher.
Georgia Technology is to help the teacher. I’ve actually seen interesting development
for most kids, I would say, for most kids, the program [I-Ready] is good,
it’s adaptive, and they are getting needs and things met, and it gives
information to the teacher, that’s actually novel and interesting things
that I would haven’t noticed just by myself, for some kids, probably a
few. But it’s not the literacy block. It is part of it.
Helen We do stuff that’s hands on and tangible so they’re writing on whiteboards,
and they’re using magnetic letters to form words and sure there is an app
to do that, but I prefer to have them actually touching things and
interacting with friends and me.
Irene I use it mostly to enhance the kids’ reading skills. If a student is struggling
with reading, I use a lot of phonetic programs to help them and for
students who are reading at grade level I use reading comprehension
programs to increase their reading comprehension, but I also make sure
that I am helping them too in small groups. It’s never a replacement.
Julia Technology should be to enhance the program a teacher is doing. It
shouldn’t take the place of a teacher teaching students. It shouldn’t take
place of the interaction between a teacher and a student.
Discussion for Research Question 1
Data analysis reveals several key themes concerning primary teachers’ view of the role of
technology within their literacy instruction. One theme was the existence of a significant digital
divide in how technology was implemented among students and the underlying beliefs that led to
these binary experiences. While some students engaged in passive instruction such as completing
60
digital worksheets or watching slide shows, others experienced more active forms of technology
use, which involved creation, collaboration, and analysis. Participants’ perspectives on
technology in literacy instruction varied considerably. While some viewed technology as a
valuable tool for enhancing instruction and providing diverse learning opportunities, others
primarily employed it for classroom management purposes. For those who viewed technology as
a management tool, there was an increased use of passive instruction versus those who perceived
technology to enhance learning.
Concerns were raised about the over-reliance on technology and its potential negative
effects on student independence, physical health, and mental well-being, particularly among
younger children. Participants emphasized the importance of striking a balance between
technology use and tactile experiences, such as reading physical books, to ensure holistic learning
experiences for students. Additionally, the use of online assessments was recognized as beneficial
for identifying students’ needs more accurately and frequently. However, some participants
expressed strong reservations about fully trusting online assessment data due to ongoing concerns
about younger students’ focus and comprehension of the technology needed to administer the
assessments.
Despite acknowledging the potential benefits of technology integration, a prevailing
sentiment among participants was that technology should always complement rather than fully
replace human interaction in the classroom. Across all interviews, teacher-student engagement
was emphasized as a priority for participants, highlighting the importance the teachers placed on
maintaining meaningful interpersonal connections within educational settings and how some felt
that technology was incongruent to these types of connections.
61
Results for Research Question 2
All but one participant expressed moderate to high confidence in integrating technology
within their literacy instruction. However, there was a notable variance among participants in
how this confidence translated into the innovative or strategic use of technology. While nine out
of 10 participants expressed confidence in using technology within their literacy block, only five
of those nine expressed the use of technology in active ways that align with the National
Educational Technology Plan (U.S. Department of Education, 2024), with three stating this was a
conscious decision they made within their instruction as a commitment to use inquiry-based
learning or UDL. Of the six who did not state this, their high self-efficacy was in the use of
technology they were familiar with rather than in looking ahead or seeking to integrate more
innovative uses of technology in their reading instruction. The sentiment to avoid actively
seeking out new and innovative technology for their reading instruction was attributed to
multiple factors outside of self-efficacy, including response to the overuse of technology during
the COVID-19 pandemic, lack of stability in their teaching assignment due to impending layoffs,
and general malaise to try something new this late in their career.
Theme 1: Moderate to High Teacher Self Efficacy in Technology Integration Self Efficacy
During and After the COVID-19 Pandemic
Table 7 highlights relevant information related to participants self-efficacy perceptions as
shared through the interview process.
62
Table 7
Participant Self Efficacy Perceptions and Aligned Quotes
Participant Self-efficacy in
technology
Quote
Alice Moderate I feel fairly confident. I think that as technology is changing, I
am losing that confidence just because it’s moving at a
pace that’s very, very quick.
Barbara High I think I am above average, but I don’t know if I feel above
average, I wish I had more knowledge. I wish I had a
bigger repertoire of tools that aren’t just like apps or things,
but like how else I can bring it in. But once I’ve figured out
or want to try something I feel competent in bringing it in
and using it.
Chloe High I’m very confident. I mean, it’s easy once the routine is set.
Donna Low There’s so much I don’t know and could be using that I’m not
using.
Eleanor High I feel confident … especially last year, when I did a lot of this
and started my work with my kids, their motivation and
engagement was so off the charts that that was enough for
me. I feel like when I see that and when I see student
engagement and I see intrinsic motivation, that helps build
my confidence.
Francis Moderate I am not the best, but I am not the worst.
Georgia High I feel very confident. I think a lot of it just comes with
experience, like, you know, from years of seeing things in
action and trusting that trying something new, or doing
something a little different, is not going to hurt anybody.
It’s not going to hurt the kids, but it also might not be the
best fit for all kids.
Helen High I am very confident. I’m not afraid of trying new stuff. I’m
totally open to trying things and I know I could if I wanted
to.
Irene High I am confident that the kids have independence and I think
that they know how to successfully interact with the
programs and navigate the tools that are available to them.
Julia High I’m going to be nice to myself and I am going to say I’m
pretty confident if somebody sits with me and shows me. If
something is brought into my room or somebody from the
district says you need to do this, I will panic and I will
probably complain. But if somebody sits with me, I get it.
And these kids, let me tell you - these kids can teach me. If
I make a mistake, they tell me how to fix it. So, it’s such a
lovely marriage between technology and these 6 and 7 year
olds, who are not afraid of it.
63
For the majority of the group, the COVID-19 pandemic was a time when self-efficacy
was built, with eight participants referencing their experience with the novel teaching and
learning environment during distance learning as building their self-efficacy with technology
integration as a “trial by fire” situation that forced them out of their comfort zones. However,
there was also an expressed lack of transfer of skills acquired distance learning from some
participants. Georgia expressed this in her statement:
We used digital storytelling a ton during COVID, almost to the point of burnout, right?
We were sick of it. It’s interesting because the kids were so good at it and now that we’re
back in school, we forget that they can do the activities and stuff we made during the
lockdown.
While the majority of participants described the pandemic as a time of trial and error that built
self-efficacy around technology integration within the literacy block, Julia expressed low selfefficacy during distance learning stating:
COVID was a whole different ballgame for many teachers because we were asked to do
things like Google Classroom and slides and things I never even heard of before. And we
had to do Breakout Rooms. I didn’t know how to do a breakout room. And so, I felt less
of a teacher. I mean, I got to know it. I got to get a little better at it. But I never felt like I
was a good teacher then.
Despite nine participants identifying themselves as having high self-efficacy with the use
of technology during and after the pandemic, there was a feeling of resistance to the integration
of technology post-remote learning, with 100% of participants stating they were concerned with
the overprescription of screen time with young students. Interestingly, Julia also stated that there
was resistance to technology not just from her as the teacher but also from the students directly
64
after the school closures, stating:
I noticed that the kids were starved to come back and talk to me. In fact, the moments that
we were asked to use our devices, they did not want to use them. So, I had a real lesson in
what was important to my first graders and what was not, and devices just were not as
important as people thought that they were.
Theme 2: Self Efficacy and Passive Application Versus Active Application of Technology
Passive use of technology typically involves activities where students consume content
without engaging in meaningful interaction or creation, such as watching videos or reading
digital texts. In contrast, active use of technology involves students actively engaging with digital
tools to create, collaborate, problem-solve, or apply knowledge through activities like student-led
research projects or collaborative online discussions. Of the five teachers who shared that they
use active student engagement with technology, three of them expressed that their commitment to
active use of technology was something that they were explicitly trained in. One of the three
stated they learned about the importance of innovative methods of technology integration during
their national board certification, and the other two stated they took courses during their graduate
studies specifically related to technology integration as a means to promote equity and enhance
student learning. The three participants who said they were explicitly trained in the use of
technology to enhance instruction through active integration, stated additional training supported
their self-efficacy beliefs because they knew they were “aligned to research” and trained on
“what’s new.”
An interesting finding related to the use of active versus passive instruction outside of
self-efficacy perceptions is the influence of teaching context in how teachers opted to integrate
technology. For example, Helen stated, “Because my position is continuously bouncing around
65
from year to year or at least for these last couple of years, it also plays a role in how much am I
investing myself into where I am if I don’t know what’s going to happen next.” In her context,
specifically, the uncertainty of her future teaching position lowered her motivation to spend time
learning and implementing a new tool regardless of the potential impact during her current
teaching assignment.
Table 8 highlights the responses of the participants trained in active instruction.
Table 8
Participants Quotes Aligned to Research Question 2 (Theme 2)
Name Quote
Barbara My confidence comes from having to develop so much more knowledge
about skill progression, and what are all the components to teach reading.
I’m having to really get to know a reader because their needs are so wide
and also how to support that reader. So, I feel just like so much more
knowledgeable in what goes into all of that, because I’ve kind of been
forced to grow that knowledge not only from my National Board
Certification but because the kids really need me to know what I am doing.
Eleanor I feel fairly confident. I think it’s a lot of work and it’s a lot of time, but it is
an area of that I’m also working on my for my own studies, so I feel like
I’m reading the research and so, you know, I am not letting negative
attitudes impact me or affect the work I do with my students.
Irene During my National Board, we did a lot of work around inquiry projects, and
once I saw that the kids were successful with it, it made me know how
capable they are. Sometimes you think, oh, they can’t do that, but really,
they can. They’re like sponges. You show them once and they know more
than I do now. So just seeing them teach each other and learn from the
experience makes it more worthwhile.
66
Discussion for Research Question 2
The data analysis uncovered several themes related to primary teachers’ perceived selfefficacy of technology integration within their reading instruction. The majority of participants
expressed moderate to high confidence in incorporating technology into literacy teaching.
However, this confidence did not consistently translate into innovative or strategic technology
use. Despite perceived high self-efficacy, only half of the participants strategically aligned their
technology integration practices with the National Educational Technology Plan (U.S.
Department of Education, 2024) guidelines aimed at narrowing the digital divide through active
instruction.
Additionally, analysis shows that among participants, the COVID-19 pandemic played a
role in boosting teachers’self-efficacy using technology, with almost all participants reporting
increased confidence using technology during distance learning over time. However, participants
also expressed that after distance learning, there was not an immediate and lasting continuation
of technology integration as teachers felt that the need for technology had decreased. Despite the
increased self-efficacy and integration of technology during distance learning, within the data
analysis, resistance to technology post-pandemic emerged, particularly due to teachers’ concerns
about excessive screen time, especially among young learners. From the perspective of some
participants, resistance was observed among teachers and students. While the pandemic-induced
school closures occurred almost three years ago, the lasting impact on participant beliefs and
subsequent behavior persists. This is especially interesting, as the majority of students the
participants currently teach were babies or very young children during the pandemic and may not
have experienced the overuse of technology constantly referenced as a concern among study
participants.
67
Among the teachers who embraced active instruction within their technology integration,
there is a commonality all had recently participated in professional development focused on
innovative technology integration methods with an emphasis on promoting educational equity.
This underscores the importance of continuous support and training to foster effective technology
integration practices among educators.
Results for Research Question 3
The integration of technology into literacy instruction represents a significant challenge
for many primary teachers, particularly in the context of limited support and resources provided
by school districts. Through analysis of interviews with the 10 primary teachers, four key themes
shed light on the influence of antecedents to self-efficacy in technology integration: vicarious
learning experiences, mastery experiences, verbal persuasion, and physiological states. The
findings highlight the pivotal role of peer-based learning and support networks in building
teachers’ confidence in using technology, as well as the importance of hands-on experience and
validation from qualified trainers. Moreover, interviews highlight how physiological arousal and
stress levels impact teacher self-efficacy beliefs, underscoring the need for supportive
environments and opportunities for skill development.
Theme 1: Vicarious Experiences and Peer Based Learning Builds Self Efficacy
All participants conveyed their districts offered limited support in terms of technology
training. They shared a collective sentiment that while some efforts were made to train teachers
in new technology, there simply was not sufficient time to acquire all the necessary technological
skills for effective implementation and instruction. There was a lack of support in enhancing
pedagogical knowledge regarding the rationale behind using specific technologies in instruction.
68
Julia articulated this sentiment, “I don’t believe that our district truly is as supportive as they
would they have it on paper. It should be different. I get all my support from my other peers.”
Furthermore, 100% of the teachers emphasized their heavy reliance on vicarious
experiences from peers to develop both technological and pedagogical knowledge. They
expressed the need to actively seek support from colleagues since there was limited to no time
provided by the districts to observe successful technology integration. Teachers typically
collaborated within their grade level groups, utilizing planning sessions and after-school time to
initiate inquiries into technology integration. Additionally, these vicarious learning experiences
were often informal visits to peer’s classrooms outside of the bell schedule. This is seen in Julia’s
comment:
I watched them and once I can see those steps, then I know how to go forward.
Sometimes, it’s after school where it’s just a simple, “I don’t know how to log on. I don’t
know how to get to this website. I don’t know how to, you know, calculate the
percentages on this computer thing.” And then they’ll walk me through it.
Participants’ learning journey often began with acquiring operational technological skills,
such as navigating platforms or accessing data, before progressing to more nuanced discussions
on pedagogical strategies. Francis added that specifically working with peers was more common
than using online resources stating, “Because honestly, most of the things that I’ve learned about,
it’s been through another teacher, right? It’s not like I’m going on the internet and like looking
for things. … I’m talking to my friends that work at other schools.”
In Table 9, direct quotes from participants are shared to further demonstrate thematic
findings related to Research Question 3 and the overall feeling of teachers as it relates to
vicarious experiences.
69
Table 9
Participants Quotes Aligned to Research Question 3 (Theme 1)
Name Quote
Alice Usually, there would be a quick training, if at all, but mostly, the support came
from peers who were more knowledgeable or had practiced it or were more
excited to use certain tools and would put the time in on their own. So, it was
somewhat of like a mentor, but very informally.
Barbara I feel like seeing other people doing similar work can be kind of motivating too.
It’s cool that we are living in an age where you can have people to follow all
over the country. But you have to be very careful, right? Who you’re listening
to, and what are you consuming? But when you need more information or
want to know why something isn’t working or how do I do it better … there’s
a community that you can find and curate from other educators, even if
they’re not physically near you.
Chloe At the beginning we were kind of introduced to it [I-Ready]. They showed us
how we could throw out this lesson or this lesson, but it takes so long to set up
a lesson that it’s not worth it at this level because it takes me 20 minutes to set
it up and it takes them five minutes to do it. I worked with the grade level to
figure out how to do it faster and we borrowed lessons from each other
because no one has time to do the research on their own.
Donna I love seeing it [new technology] but sometimes we will be going through a
training with our computer and the presenter will say, ‘Oh, you’re going to get
trained, but it’s not on your computers yet.’ The worst. We end up just
figuring it out as a grade level after the training because during the training,
we didn’t have access to the program, and we didn’t even know the questions
to ask because we didn’t know enough at the time.
Eleanor I felt confident having someone to work with that … so when we came up with
this idea of doing a podcast, she [colleague] was like, okay, we can do it this
way. We would brainstorm together. We started doing those projects with my
kindergarteners and they just loved it. It was amazing.
Francis Well, my colleague will sometimes jump into it with me and will literally tell me
how to do it. We ask each other and bounce ideas off each other. I do it with
help from others. And if people are working on it too, then I’ll ask them
questions and they’ll ask me questions.
Georgia I like when you’re in a room with other teachers and people and you’re a little
more bought in. An example would be a staff development time when I’m
with my grade level, and since a lot of us are like minded, we can work
together to figure it out and I can see how my friends would use whatever it is
they are trying to teach us.
Helen I like having a thought partner or someone nudging me saying that I missed that
or this or what are we supposed to be doing. Having that person next to you is
helpful and then seeing them do it is a huge motivator.
70
Name Quote
Irene A lot of it is just learning on my own. I know they have like a help button you
can click and ask for help but who does that? We’re all kind of self-taught.
My colleagues and I taught ourselves how to use it and then shared it with
each other.
Julia I reach out to the younger teachers and staff because they know it. I don’t
believe that our district truly is as supportive as they would they have it on
paper. I don’t get my support through any site support of technology. It comes
from my peers and my teacher friends who have either understood it, have
done it and then they taught me.
Theme 2: Mastery Experiences Build Self Efficacy
Mastery experiences, while expressed as valuable by participants in supporting teacher
self-efficacy, did not always result in increased utilization of technology within literacy
instruction but did increase self-efficacy. Despite teachers’ reported mastery experiences during
the pandemic, participants expressed a limited transfer of technology integration post-COVID-19
despite having acquired proficiency in certain technology tools and platforms. However, three
participants did share some technology integration continued after distance learning as teachers
felt integration was successful. For example, Georgia said, “Because once you train the kids how
to use it and they use it successfully. It’s like that aha moment of this is working!”
A subset of teachers expressed their seniority within the teaching profession contributed
to their self-efficacy, both in literacy instruction and technology integration. They attributed their
confidence to years of teaching experience, which provided them with a strong foundation in
pedagogy and how to manage classrooms. However, it is noteworthy while these teachers
possessed mastery experiences and expressed confidence and strong technological, pedagogical
and content knowledge, much of their technological integration within their instruction was
characterized by passive utilization rather than innovative and active application. This was
71
contextualized when Donna shared confidence using slides to teach phonics, “We’ve done it for
like five years, and I know what the mini lesson is. I know what we have posted on there, and so I
feel really confident.”
In Table 10, direct quotes from participants are shared to further demonstrate thematic
findings related to Research Question 3 and the overall feeling of teachers as it relates to mastery
experiences specifically during the context of COVID-19 related school closures.
Table 10
Participants Quotes Aligned to Research Question 3 (Theme 2)
Name Quote
Francis With language arts, during COVID, we used it [technology] a lot. We took
pictures of books, and we would have them use it as another chance to read
since we weren’t next to them. We figured so many things out and realized
we could be creative.
Helen I did a lot of research on my own and during that COVID year and it was
effective, and they learned. They learned that year as readers, and it was
cool to see that happen, and I think it was good for me to practice those
skills because I hadn’t needed to use them ever in my career. Who had?
Georgia COVID was really a wild time for many teachers because we were asked to do
things we had never been asked to do before. But then we just figured it out.
We did it and over time it was something to be proud of. Not at the
beginning though. It felt awful in the beginning.
72
Theme 3: Verbal Persuasion from Qualified Trainers Builds Self-Efficacy
In comparison to mastery experiences and vicarious experiences, verbal persuasion
emerges less frequently as a cited antecedent to self-efficacy concerning technology integration
among the participants. Of the 10 individuals interviewed, only two indicated that verbal
persuasion played a role in bolstering their self-efficacy or confidence. For these two participants,
verbal persuasion primarily served as a source of validation, reassuring them that they were
employing technology effectively. This validation often stemmed from interactions with district
trainers or professors associated with relevant courses, who were perceived as experts or highly
knowledgeable individuals in the field. For example, Francis stated, “Having somebody sit with
us and guide us makes sure we’re on task, saying, ‘Good job,’ making sure we’re doing what we
need to be doing. It’s so much more helpful than just like, okay, everybody, you go off and you
do it alone.”
Additionally, in the case of Eleanor, who demonstrated a strong commitment to actively
integrating technology, her innovative approach sometimes led to isolation from peers less
inclined toward innovation. However, Eleanor found affirmation and validation in the supportive
language used by her professor regarding her teaching practices. Eleanor stated:
So, I feel like because I may do things a little nontraditionally, that I get judged. So, I feel
like that can deter people. It’s not deterring me though because I have a professor who
comes to campus and says, “She’s awesome,” and she’s constantly saying that what I’m
doing follows the research.
This external reinforcement from a respected authority figure contributed significantly to
Eleanor’s ability to sustain her self-efficacy, particularly during moments of uncertainty or doubt.
Overall, while verbal persuasion was not expressed as playing a major role compared to
73
other factors such as mastery and vicarious experiences, its impact on self-efficacy in technology
integration is notable in providing validation and reassurance to educators, especially in contexts
where innovative practices may face resistance or skepticism from peers.
Theme 4: Physiological States and Minimization of Stress Builds Self Efficacy
Physiological arousal around technology integration is associated often with the stress
related to trying new things in front of students and peers and having others watch them struggle
with the new technology. For example, Julia stated:
It’s like the olden days when you’re taking a test, and somebody says I’m done and you’re
on question one. There’s nothing scarier than sitting here at your iPad and being taught
and everybody looks like they’re doing it. And you have no idea and it’s going too fast.
Four of the 10 participants mentioned they felt this stress acutely during integration with new
technology such as Smartboards or logging in to new platforms like I-ready.
Georgia shared this sentiment, “And so, I think like when you’re trying new things, and
you want it to be successful, you can be a little, you know, nervous about how’s it going to go,
but having a person there really helped.” Of these four participants, two expressed, through
vicarious experiences with peers who were more comfortable with technology, they were able to
mitigate the stress associated with technology integration. Additionally, as these teachers
experienced mastery experiences themselves, they were able to limit stress and fear related to
technology integration. This aligned with Bandura’s social cognitive theory and the triadic
reciprocity model as it illustrated how individuals’ beliefs, behaviors, and environments interact
to shape their experiences and self-efficacy regarding technology integration. Specifically, the
physiological arousal experienced by teachers when trying new technology in front of students
reflected their beliefs about their own capabilities or self-efficacy and their perceptions of the
74
supportive or challenging environments in which they operated. By observing peers who were
more comfortable with technology and experiencing success themselves or mastery experiences,
the teachers were able to alleviate stress and build confidence in their ability to integrate
technology effectively.
In Table 11, direct quotes from participants are shared to further demonstrate thematic
findings related to Research Question 3 vicarious and mastery experiences as a way to mitigate
physiological arousal from technology integration.
Table 11
Participants Quotes Aligned to Research Question 3 (Theme 4)
Name Quote
Alice I always want to do the right thing and look good. Parents expect that from
me in a way. When I get something new introduced, it can be scary
because you don’t want to look incompetent. But then you just do it
quietly one day and work out the kinks with it. The nice thing is that by
the time I get to that point, someone comes and watches me and thinks oh,
that was easy, and they don’t realize it took a lot of work to get to that
point.
Julia When they took away the smart boards, they put up a Prometheus and that
was scary. When they brought in the cart of iPads, I was so scared because
I wanted to be able to do this for the kids. I always get scared until
someone shows me how to do it. And then I feel comfortable.
75
Discussion for Research Question 3
The data analysis highlights several themes regarding the factors influencing primary
teachers’self-efficacy in incorporating technology into their reading instruction. Most
prominently, participants commonly relied on peer experiences to enhance their technological
and pedagogical knowledge, especially in the absence of substantial support from their districts.
While participants expressed having some support from districts, they shared that much of the
professional development around technology was solely on technological knowledge or how to
operationally use the tool and expressed that these were often “one and done” type sessions that
did not provide the teachers with enough hands-on experiences. As a result, engaging in gradelevel collaboration and after-school discussions proved instrumental in learning about various
technology integration techniques.
Teachers’ confidence in technology integration also stemmed from prior successful
experiences particularly with passive methods of technology integration. They expressed greater
self-efficacy when utilizing familiar tools or activities that had previously yielded positive
outcomes, indicating a preference for what they perceived as tried-and-tested approaches. While
this is not a negative finding, it does have implications for how educators accept technology
which is constantly changing. The teacher acceptance model (TAM; Davis, 1989) suggests if
teachers perceive a technology to be useful and easy to use, they are more likely to adopt it in
their instructional practices. Aligning with TAM, there was a disconnect with how participants
perceived new technology and how it was presented to them, suggesting an opportunity to
leverage professional development to clearly lay out usefulness and usability when launching
technology initiatives.
76
Additionally, verbal persuasion from qualified trainers or professors validated
participants’ use of technology and boosted confidence levels. Affirmative feedback from
perceived experts served to reinforce their belief in their ability to effectively integrate
technology into their teaching practices, particularly during moments of doubt or challenge. In
challenging moments, such as struggling to implement new technology in front of their students,
participants expressed experiencing physiological arousal as stress. However, they found support
in observing peers succeed and drawing from their own mastery experiences over time. These
experiences helped alleviate stress and bolster confidence in technology integration, ultimately
contributing to their overall sense of self-efficacy in incorporating technology into their reading
instruction.
Results for Research Question 4
While most participants described high self-efficacy in technology implementation, their
descriptions of technological knowledge were limited compared to their discourse on
pedagogical and content knowledge. Participants shared about their ongoing professional
development initiatives centered on the science of reading which was in contrast with
participants satisfaction regarding the sufficiency of training in technological knowledge, with all
participants expressing a sense of inadequacy in this domain.
Participants also discussed the challenges of navigating the evolving landscape of
educational technology, grappling with its dynamic nature and the challenges of staying abreast
of emerging trends. Despite acknowledging the significance of technology in modern education,
participants express varying degrees of enthusiasm and readiness to embrace its integration
within their instructional practices and referenced concern about the pace of technology evolving
as an area of concern.
77
Theme 1: Pedagogical and Content Knowledge is Greater than Technological Knowledge
All participants expressed high levels of pedagogical and content knowledge around
foundational reading instruction. In 100% of the interviews there was a noticeable shift in tone
among participants when the discussion shifted from technology integration to their confidence
in teaching reading or their understanding of reading research and best practices. This shift was
evident in increased smiling, increases in length of responses, and even sighs of relief by
participants.
Chloe reported high self-efficacy and domain knowledge, “I’m confident because I have
done this for a long time, and I have taught hundreds of children to read. I know what works.”
Julia echoed this confidence, saying:
I’m very well trained in phonics, and phonics is my big love and my big push. I think
that’s the one area where I’m very confident, and I know my years of learning and
teaching have really brought me to this place where I can confidently say to parents at
Back to School Night that your kids are going to read. All my kids leave first grade
readers.
While nine participants expressed high self-efficacy in their technology implementation,
their descriptions of technological knowledge were comparatively limited to their discussions on
pedagogical and content knowledge, which were firmly tied to research or their understanding of
best practices. Seven participants explicitly mentioned gaining new insights from the new
science of reading initiatives within their districts, aligning with reading research and theories on
how people learn to read. They provided concrete examples of this knowledge and expressed
increased interest in continuing to learn about the best methods to teach reading. Barbara
elaborated:
78
I want to say I feel very confident, but the caveat is, I feel very confident with the
knowledge I have now knowing that it’s evolving. Like, I just learned about the research
on phonemic awareness and how it can be so much more powerful to pair the actual
visual letters with phonemic awareness … and I’m like, oh no, I wasn’t doing that. I
could be more effective if I did that. So, while I feel very confident in what I have now, I
also know as time goes on, things will change drastically, and the way I’m doing them
now will probably change too, as we’re trying to take in all the information.
For six of the participants, their perceived high pedagogical and content knowledge did
not translate into more active technology integration but did influence their self-efficacy in
technology integration. They felt they could use their strong pedagogical knowledge to best
identify how and when to use technology to enhance student learning. However, for these six
participants, technology integration was demonstrated as a means to support child-managed
instruction, enabling them to implement teacher-managed differentiated small-group instruction
with their students. Essentially, their high pedagogical and content knowledge around reading
instruction increased their self-efficacy to implement technology but did not increase full
integrations as outlined within the TPACK framework.
Seven participants fell within the pedagogical content knowledge overlap of the
framework, while three displayed full integration of technology within the TPACK overlap.
Although two participants expressed the use of technology in active ways, they were not the
main architects of these lessons. They were mandated by their districts to utilize these practices,
unlike the other three who explicitly sought to integrate technology to align with project-based
learning or UDL. Upon analysis of these interviews, it appears high teacher pedagogical content
knowledge did influence self-efficacy in integrating technology, but the largest impact on self-
79
efficacy and usage was attributed to mastery experiences and vicarious experiences.
Theme 2: Low Technological Knowledge Decreases Self-Efficacy in Integrating Technology
As previously discussed, participants all expressed high self-efficacy in their pedagogical
and content knowledge for reading instruction, with nine also expressing high self-efficacy for
technology integration within their reading instruction. However, concerning pedagogical and
content knowledge, participants seemed to attribute their high self-efficacy to years of mastery
experience and vicarious experiences with other qualified peers as well as continued education
around reading instruction and principles. Seven participants stated they were still being trained
in content related to reading instruction with five explicitly referencing training around the shift
from balanced literacy to structured literacy and accompanied curriculum changes. In contrast,
with technological knowledge, some participants indicated while they were proficient with the
technology they use in their classrooms, there were aspects they were less familiar with and less
inclined to learn about, as it was not seen as essential to teaching students to read. Additionally,
100% of participants felt that their training in technological knowledge was not sufficient. For
example, Irene stated,
We’re kind of self-taught on how to use it [adaptive online platform]. Sometimes we’ll
watch a video on it. We’ve had a couple staff trainings, but that’s more about how to
interpret the data that we’re getting from our students. I don’t know that I would use it if
we weren’t required to.
As technological knowledge is not always transferable across platforms, apps, or devices,
there was also a sentiment among the participants that technology’s constant dynamism makes it
difficult to stay up on trends and knowledge of what is being released creating a need to
constantly develop technological knowledge as it evolves. Whereas, with pedagogical and
80
content knowledge, much of the confidence came from years of refining on established practice.
Georgia expressed this, “I’ve only like scratched the surface of, like, 20% of what some
programs offer. And I think there’s probably so much more that I could do … but I just have not
had time to delve into it,” later adding, “I mean, teachers are so burnt out on … so many
trainings, and a lot of the teachers don’t even really want to use this.” 100% of participants
believed with or without technology, they would still be able to facilitate reading progress in
their students by the end of the year despite the prevalence of technology in their students’ world
inside and outside of the classrooms.
This context of knowing about student interaction with technology, yet feeling like
technology was a supplemental tool to facilitate reading instruction, is exemplified in Helen’s
statement:
Looking at how much time kids spend on screens in general makes me wary of
encouraging them to do more throughout the school day. When I know there are proven,
scientifically based methods to teach reading without the use of technology. … It
certainly can be used and there are good resources out there, but it doesn’t necessarily
have to be used.
In Table 12, direct quotes from participants are shared to further demonstrate thematic findings
related to Research Question 4 and the overall feeling of teachers as it relates to low
technological knowledge training by their districts.
81
Table 12
Participants Quotes Aligned to Research Question 4 (Theme 2)
Name Quote
Alice No one really helps us to know how to use the technology so of course, I
wouldn’t feel as confident in using something brand new. It’s like driving a
car. If I have never driven a car before, I am not going to want to drive that
car until someone shows me.
Barbara From my experience, the district has been like—we have this program, put the
kids on it, but no one was ever like—here are the goals of this, here’s the
format, here’s what it’s going to look like for your kids, here’s how it
decides whether or not to advance them or to keep them doing more
remedial work. No one ever really explains those pieces. So, then I kind of
feel like I’m just hoping for the best and it’s not a great feeling. I don’t
know what I’m doing until I figure it out on my own or with friends.
Chloe We aren’t trained in how to use the technology outside of how to log in and
click around. If you want to know how to integrate the tech in a powerful
way – that is all on our own.
Donna Every time we do Fast Bridge [online assessment] we have meetings, and
we’ll go over all the data, but it’s fast and they’ve never trained us. I’ve
never had a meeting where they told us what it [data] means. I still have no
idea what they’re reading or what they’re doing. They just tell us to get it
done and then I have no idea.
Eleanor In my current district, no one really teaches us about complicated stuff like AI
or even simple stuff like apps.
Francis I didn’t feel like the district gave me a lot of support. It was more of like, well
try this and see how this works out. And so, I did. I’d try this or that and felt
like I had to learn a lot of it because there wasn’t a lot of support in terms of
training for it.
Georgia Some of the trainers and trainings are really amazing and you get a lot.
Sometimes you go and it wasn’t as useful as it could be. Usually, it’s the
latter.
Helen The district isn’t making us use anything so there is no training. Most of our
training is for other things.
Irene Sometimes we’ll watch a video on it [new technology]. We’ve had a couple of
staff training, but that’s more about how to interpret the data that we’re
getting from our students. So not so much about the teaching aspect of it or
the independent learning aspect of it.
Julia They [district support] say, ‘Well, let me see how you’re going to teach it.’
Well, I don’t know how to teach it and they say, ‘Well, I can’t do it for you.
You have to learn by doing it yourself.’ So, we don’t reach out to them for
help because they make us feel dumb.
82
Discussion for Research Question 4
The analysis of interview data revealed insights into how domain knowledge contributed
to primary teachers’ perceptions of self-efficacy when incorporating technology within reading
instruction. Participants demonstrated a strong sense of self-efficacy in their pedagogical and
content knowledge related to teaching reading, drawing confidence from their extensive
experience and deep understanding of best practices in literacy instruction. High pedagogical
content knowledge in reading instruction did not correspond to increased self-efficacy in
technology integration. However, despite their proficiency in pedagogical and content
knowledge, participants expressed concerns about the adequacy of their training in technological
knowledge, mostly stemming from dissatisfaction from district trainings. This perceived
inadequacy in technological knowledge highlighted a barrier to integrating technology within
their instructional practices. Specifically, participants discussed challenges inherent in navigating
the dynamic landscape of educational technology. While some teachers exhibited an eagerness to
explore new technology such as AI, others expressed hesitation or reluctance reflecting varying
levels among educators in incorporating technology into their reading instruction.
Findings emphasized the pivotal role of mastery experiences and vicarious experiences in
shaping teachers’ confidence in technology integration. Despite their expertise in literacy
instruction, content knowledge or familiarity of technology, teachers’self-efficacy with
technology relied heavily on their ability to observe successful implementations by peers and
engage in hands-on experiences themselves. This suggests that effective professional
development initiatives should prioritize opportunities for teachers to gain practical experience
with technology and learn from the successes of their colleagues, thus bolstering their confidence
and competence in integrating technology within reading instruction.
83
Summary
Through the analysis of the 10 interviews, half of the participants incorporated passive
use of technology into their teaching practices, while the other half engaged in more active
integration of technology, and within that half, a subset fully embraced technology to enhance
instruction as aligned with the TPACK framework. Of this subgroup, three participants expressed
that their continued professional development at the National Board and graduate level
specifically provided opportunities to learn about innovative ways to integrate technology such
as project-based learning and UDL. While all participants expressed strong pedagogical content
knowledge, seven participants displayed lesser technological pedagogical knowledge,
particularly in terms of leveraging technology beyond basic classroom management tools or
mandated use.
Professional development emerges as a significant factor influencing teachers’
technological knowledge, with interviews consistently highlighting a lack of support in their
current settings. Despite these challenges, teachers actively sought to build their self-efficacy and
technological understanding through mastery experiences and vicarious experiences.
Additionally, they were influenced by verbal persuasion to some extent. Participants also
managed physiological arousal and stress associated with technology integration by drawing on
vicarious experiences, which facilitated mastery experiences and subsequently reduced anxiety
surrounding the adoption of new technology.
84
Chapter Five: Discussion
This chapter gives an overview of the study’s findings and their connection to the related
literature and theoretical frameworks discussed in Chapter Two. Three recommendations for
practice will also be shared with discussion on how the recommendations can be applied in
school settings to potentially increase primary self-efficacy in integration of technology within
reading instruction as highlighted in the TPACK framework. The three recommendations include:
1. Provide training for primary teachers on active instruction, as outlined in the National
Educational Technology Plan (U.S. Department of Education, 2024).
2. Incorporate mentorship opportunities and instructional videos within professional
development showcasing effective technology integration.
3. Prioritize adoption of new technology that encourages active versus passive
instruction with students, ensuring equitable learning experiences that support closing
the digital use and digital design divide as discussed by the National Educational
Technology Plan (U.S. Department of Education, 2024).
Findings
Research Question 1
Participants shared four themes when discussing their view on the role of technology
integration within their reading instruction:
• Participants expressed developmental concerns with integrating technology with their
younger students.
• Passive versus active technology integration was highly dependent on teacher
perspective on technology.
85
• Adaptive and online assessments were seen as useful tools despite concerns for
accuracy.
• Participants expressed the belief that technology, while helpful and engaging for
students, should always be secondary to teacher-student interaction.
Pajares (1992) states that “beliefs are instrumental in defining tasks and selecting
cognitive tools with which to interpret, plan and make decisions regarding such tasks” (p. 325).
Within the analysis, the participants’ believed technology was something that could be
overprescribed and, in some cases, detrimental to student growth. Participants expressed concern
about the developmental needs of their primary students and the potential impact of the overuse
of technology. Their perspective influenced how they chose to incorporate technology into their
instruction, if at all.
The majority of participants felt that while technology was meant to enhance learning, it
primarily served as a tool to help facilitate in-person instruction. Technology integration allowed
teachers to work with smaller groups while other students engaged in digital activities aligned
with literacy instruction. This commitment to small group differentiated instruction aligned with
instructional best practice, as it enabled scaffolding of materials (Duke, 2021) and differentiation
through small group settings using digital assessments (Bogner et al., 2002). However, according
to the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE), the ideal use of technology
integration within literacy instruction is to develop and facilitate creativity and innovation,
research and information fluency, critical thinking, problem-solving, and decision-making
(2007). The analysis identified that this ideal was not consistently realized in most classrooms.
Rather, technology was seen as a form of classroom management.
86
While the participants expressed high self-efficacy in their technology integration, their
preference to utilize passive instruction within that integration, suggested that self-efficacy was
related to this type of incorporation within the instruction as opposed to active instruction. As
they were hesitant to use active instruction as a group, this aligns with the research by Hall and
Trespalacios (2019) that states that teachers with lower self-efficacy specifically related to
technological knowledge are less likely to attempt to use technology with students overall.
Table 13 connects the study’s findings with the established literature and the research
questions based on the theoretical and conceptual frameworks.
Table 13
Connection of Research Question 1 to Findings and Literature
Research
question
Findings Literature
How do primary
teachers view
the role of
technology
integration
within their
reading
instruction?
Some participants saw technology as enhancing
instruction, while others primarily used it for classroom
management.
All participants worried about the negative effects of
technology, particularly with young children, on
physical and mental health.
Participants viewed online assessments as beneficial for
identifying students’ needs but maintained reservations
on their accuracy.
Participants felt technology should complement rather than
replace human interaction in the classroom, with
teacher-student engagement being prioritized.
Pajares, 1992
Hall and
Trespalacios,
2019
87
Research Question 2
All participants, except one, reported moderate to high levels of self-efficacy in using
technology for reading instruction. Aligning with the teacher acceptance model (Davis, 1989), the
adoption of technology was closely related to perceived usefulness and ease of use. During
distance learning, although ease of use was not always high, the perceived usefulness of
technology was undeniable to the participants. This supports the tenet that external contexts can
influence educators’self-efficacy, even when facing adversity and navigating novel settings such
as virtual learning spaces (Yoo, 2016). However, after distance learning, participants felt that the
perceived usefulness of technology declined, viewing it as a supplemental tool rather than
essential for reading instruction. They believed that students benefited more from human
interaction especially after the high use of technology during the pandemic.
While most participants expressed high self-efficacy, seven participants’ usage did not
align with ISTE’s (2007) ideal use of technology in instruction and preferred passive integration
overactive integration. High self-efficacy did not translate into motivation to explore new
technology integration within classroom instruction for most participants. Again, this suggests
that while the teachers did express high self-efficacy, their self-assessment, coupled with the
TAM (Davis, 1989), may provide insight into why they described high self-efficacy but showed
higher rates of passive versus active instruction. Also, of the participants who expressed high
self-efficacy and high use of active instruction, there was a common experience of explicit
professional development around innovation with technology. Table 14 connects the findings for
Research Question 2 with the key research.
88
Table 14
Connection of Research Question 2 to Findings and Literature
Research
question
Findings Literature
How do
primary
teachers
describe
their selfefficacy in
using
technology
in reading
instruction?
Participants exhibited moderate to high confidence levels in
integrating technology into literacy instruction, but this did
not translate into high use of active instruction.
The COVID-19 pandemic acted as a catalyst for enhancing
self-efficacy in technology integration among all
participants except one.
Educators who expressed high self-efficacy and high use of
active instruction within their technology integration
participated in professional development focused on
innovative approaches aimed at fostering equity in
education.
Yoo, 2016
Bandura,
1986
Davis, 1989
Research Question 3
Among the main antecedents outlined by Bandura (1997), which include mastery
experiences, vicarious learning experiences, verbal persuasion, and physiological states, vicarious
learning emerged as the key contributor to support teacher self-efficacy around technology
integration, with mastery experiences also supporting growth to a lesser extent. Distance learning
forced teachers to use technology, leading them to engage in trial and error as they navigated
their learning and application. Participants shared that, despite the stressful nature of this time,
they experienced moments where their confidence in technology integration grew as distance
learning continued and they experienced more success with student engagement and overall flow
of classroom routines and procedures.
Upon the return of in-person instruction, self-efficacy seemed to be supported less
through mastery experiences and instead developed through vicarious learning experiences and
learning from peer-to-peer interactions, often occurring in impromptu meetings or check-ins with
89
fellow teachers within the same building. This type of interaction allowed participants to witness
successful implementations and learn from the experiences of others (Schunk, 2020). Realistic
comparisons between oneself and peers are necessary components when engaging in vicarious
experiences (Weinberg et al., 1979), this aligned with the preference of participants to seek out
grade-level peers within similar contexts to better understand how to utilize technology. Table 15
highlights the study’s findings with research around antecedents to self-efficacy as expressed by
the participants.
Table 15
Connection of Research Question 3 to Findings and Literature
Research
question
Findings Literature
What factors do
primary
teachers
attribute to
their sense of
self-efficacy
to incorporate
technology
within their
reading
instruction?
Participants heavily relied on vicarious learning
experiences with comparable peers to develop selfefficacy.
Self-efficacy in technology integration was also
supported by mastery experiences.
Verbal persuasion from respected others validated and
maintained self-efficacy in participants
Participants often experienced physiological arousal
when introducing new technology to students but
observing successful peers and drawing from their
own mastery experiences helped alleviate this stress.
Bandura, 1997
Pressley, 2021
Schunk,
1982,1983,2020
Weinberg et al.,
1979
90
Research Question 4
Among participants, nearly all expressed moderate to high technological knowledge.
However, there was a higher self-assessment of pedagogical content knowledge. During
interviews, participants showcased a deep understanding of core research related to literacy
instruction and shared recent training experiences, displaying enthusiasm for continuing to learn
about the science of reading principles. Analysis revealed that with most participants with high
perceived technological knowledge, this knowledge appeared to be limited to the implementation
of familiar tools and applications, often those they had used for multiple years or those that were
solely student-managed, such as games or websites. Harris et al (2009) discuss knowledge not as
a static concept, but rather suggests that it is “highly event structured and episodic” (p. 211).
Within the analysis, this was also confirmed as technological knowledge was not global for all
tools and appeared to be more aligned with passive implementation and established usage rather
than innovative and active implementation. Of those participants who expressed high
technological pedagogical knowledge as outlined in the TPACK framework, there was a shared
experience of ongoing training. This subgroup reported on formal training in technology
integration and continued to actively seek out new technologies, such as artificial intelligence or
creative applications, to engage students. Paulus et al. (2020) speak to the impact that
professional learning communities can have on integration of technology within the context of
the TPACK framework and specifically, suggest that increased integration of technology is
dependent on building TPACK through communities of practice. Within the participants in
additional training, the format was in group learning experiences like national board cohorts or
graduate-level classes. Table 16 aligns the study’s findings on contextual knowledge with
91
established research, particularly emphasizing self-efficacy within the domains of knowledge
outlined by TPACK.
Table 16
Connection of Research Question 4 to Findings and Literature
Research
question
Findings Literature
How does
domain
knowledge
contribute to
self-efficacy
perceptions
among
primary
teachers when
incorporating
technology
within reading
instruction?
Participants demonstrated high self-efficacy in their
pedagogical content knowledge, attributing this to
their extensive experience and ongoing training.
All participants expressed concerns about the
adequacy of their ongoing development in
technological knowledge.
Despite possessing strong pedagogical content
knowledge, participants did not necessarily feel
more confident in integrating technology into their
teaching.
Harris et al.,
2009
Howze-Owens et
al. 2020
92
Implications for Practice
Recommendation 1
The first recommendation is to provide explicit training for primary teachers on active
instruction, as outlined in the National Educational Technology Plan (U.S. Department of
Education, 2024).
A major component of literacy instruction that has proven to increase student
achievement is the use of small group differentiated instruction to meet varying student needs.
Connor (2006) states that the effect size for student-level, code-focused instruction is roughly 10
times greater than that of whole group instruction. As the majority of teachers interviewed
expressed a preference for using technology during their small group instruction in various ways
to engage students, it would be beneficial to support this preference and focus on improvements
within this already accepted context. By focusing on technology integration in active, childmanaged instruction—an approach teachers are already using—we can enhance the effectiveness
of their teaching methods while minimizing the stress associated with introducing a different
structure to their literacy block. As teachers are already using technology within their literacy
block and research substantiates small group instruction as a way to support student achievement,
focusing on improving the student experience when not working directly with the teacher during
small group time can support all students, not just those working directly with the teacher.
The digital divide, as outlined in the National Educational Technology Plan (U.S.
Department of Education, 2024), explicitly addresses the disparities between students who have
access to technology and those who do not. Additionally, it highlights the often-binary
experiences between students in their application of technology, with students from marginalized
communities often receiving passive instruction. This passive instruction “includes activities
93
such as filling out digital worksheets or consuming digital content without accompanying
reflection, imagination, or participation” (U.S. Department of Education, 2024, p.13), as opposed
to active instruction which involves “critical thinking and includes activities such as coding,
immersive simulations, media production, interaction with experts, making global connections,
design, and peer collaboration” (U.S. Department of Education, 2024, p.14). Professional
development focused on the integration of technology is dependent on building participants’
TPACK and can be accomplished with communities of practice and in situ application (Davis,
1989; Paulus et al., 2020). This was reaffirmed within the analysis of participants’ responses as
those who expressed high TPACK, and shared examples, had all engaged in training specific to
technological integration done in a group setting.
As technology is constantly evolving and shifting, there may be a need for teachers to
understand how to better integrate active instruction to align with the pedagogical and content
knowledge expressed in other subject areas. Additionally, professional development around
technology should be positioned to enhance reading instruction and learning as a platform for
interaction with text and a method for students to make meaning (Kinzer & Leu, 1997). This is
especially important as in the Common Core Standards there are references to use of digital texts
as early as second grade. Based on the findings, as participants expressed higher self-efficacy and
interest in pedagogical and content knowledge specifically around the science of reading
research, there is a potential opportunity to leverage this interest to increase capacity in building
technological knowledge that will support the integration of learning principles and content
related to foundational literacy best practices.
It would be almost impossible to train teachers in technical knowledge on every new
iteration of technology or programming developed as the pace is so fast moving. Moreover, with
94
the onset of artificial intelligence or AI, the level of pervasive technology emerging within
instructional environments is constantly increasing (Devi et al., 2022). Rather than trying to
solely train teachers on technological knowledge or how to navigate the operational aspects of
technology, it may be more beneficial to focus on increasing technological pedagogical
knowledge and the how and why an educator would use certain types of technology in various
settings as it relates to best practice in literacy instruction. In doing so, there is potential to
increase educator domain knowledge not just in technology use, but in instructional best practice.
This in turn may support the use of active versus passive instruction as research has shown that
when following instructional best practice, technology can be a conduit for creativity and
innovation for student learning (ISTE, 2007).
Recommendation 2
The second recommendation includes incorporating mentorship opportunities and
instructional videos within professional development showcasing effective technology
integration.
Bandura (1993) argues that the collective efficacy of teachers is associated with student
achievement. Goddard et al. (2000) identify collective teacher efficacy as a stronger predictor of
student achievement than socioeconomic status. In essence, building teacher self-efficacy does
not just support the teacher but supports the students the teacher interacts with. Through
interviews, a constant tenet present during interviews was the power of vicarious learning
opportunities and opportunities to work with peers as they develop collective self-efficacy.
To support teacher development within the context of technology integration, professional
learning communities such as PLCs may be a successful modality (Harris & Hofer, 2011) to build
TPACK and self-efficacy. These PLCs allow exemplary teachers to provide vicarious experiences
95
that contextualize active learning experiences through facilitated discussions and expert modeling
which was expressed as a key antecedent to self-efficacy discussed by the participants. As all
participants expressed that vicarious learning experiences were the main source of knowledge
and self-efficacy building around technology integration, creating formal PLCs and learning
communities that allow for facilitated peer interactions and collaboration may support tear selfefficacy and alleviate the need for educators to seek out support outside of district training.
Additionally, coupling PLCs with instructional coaching or job-embedded professional learning
aligns with multiple comments of participants that stated that hearing from experts that their
practice was aligned with research and best practice supported maintenance of their self-efficacy
and encouraged them to keep implementing novel and active instruction despite challenging
contexts.
When mentoring or PLCs are not available, at the minimum, professional development
should include videos of real educators in similar contexts to the teachers participating in the
trainings integrating technology with explanation behind the logic and reasoning for instructional
choices. Embedded videos will potentially allow growth in the TPK domain of the TPACK
framework while also providing vicarious learning experiences which participants deemed highly
valuable as an antecedent to their self-efficacy.
Recommendation 3
The third recommendation is to prioritize adoption of new technology within school that
encourages active versus passive usage by students, ensuring equitable learning experiences that
support closing the digital use and digital design divide as discussed by the National Educational
Technology Plan (U.S. Department of Education, 2024).
96
The study’s findings suggest that self-efficacy and domain knowledge were highly
influenced by beliefs and context and can be episodic. This was demonstrated by the increased
use of technology in passive instruction among participants unless explicitly trained in
innovative uses of technology focused on enhancing learning rather than managing behavior.
Therefore, when prioritizing funds for technology integration, the educational needs of the
learning should be prioritized (U.S. Department of Education, 2024) and ensure that adopted
tools meet the needs of the students that are engaging with it through a focus on active
instruction and student outcomes. In doing so, this increases teacher exposure to active
integration of instruction and provides more opportunities to learn through vicarious learning
experiences which was expressed as a main antecedent to self-efficacy in technology integration.
During the adoption stage, districts should engage in an examination of how other
educators in other districts are using the identified technology in varying contexts and require
technology companies to share student outcomes and how their tool utilizes active integration
that supports student engagement through differentiated content and peer interaction through the
technology. Focus should also be on examination if the tool is meant to increase student
engagement through innovation and collaboration or through isolated and discrete tasks with
little opportunities for critical thinking or individualized learning. Moreover, once technology is
adopted, it is recommended that districts engage in developing and instituting aligned
professional development beyond operational use of the tool and instead focus on TPACK which
was an expressed need in the study’s findings. Additionally, as study findings suggest that selfefficacy can change over time through vicarious learning and mastery experiences, a feedback
mechanism to identify if technology integration has been implemented as expected should be
97
utilized to identify if there is a need for more opportunities for professional development to build
technological and pedagogical knowledge around use of the tool.
Through interviews, a recurring theme emerged: teachers lacked adequate training for
using technology within their literacy blocks. As a result, they often relied on peers for support,
typically during their own time and after school hours. In addition to focusing district attention
on closing the digital use divide, which encourages active technology use as an equity measure
and a method to increase student achievement, there is a need to increase the time and resources
available to educators seeking to move away from passive technology use. From the interviews,
it can be gathered that while mandated programs to implement technology do increase usage,
integration is often not active in nature and remains at compliance levels. Conversely, teachers
who participated in professional development focused on technology integration and
instructional best practices were more inclined to use technology actively, as described in the
NETP. By providing all teachers with opportunities to learn about active versus passive
instruction using technology and build domain knowledge within the TPACK framework, we can
help them better understand the “why” behind technology use and move beyond using
technology merely as a means to manage classroom behavior. This was demonstrated in
numerous interviews where participants expressed dissatisfaction with their district training and
the need to supplement learning through alternative methods such as peer support or individual
research.
Limitations
The study acknowledges several limitations that could affect the strength and applicability
of its findings including small sample sizes. This limitation may hinder the generalizability of the
findings to a broader population of primary teachers. Secondly, the use of self-reporting
98
approaches, such as semi-structured interviews, may introduce social desirability bias and recall
bias. Participants might have provided responses they deemed socially acceptable or may have
inaccurately recalled past experiences, compromising the generalizability of the data.
The study also acknowledges limitations related to the lack of disaggregation by
experience, grade levels, and region. Without analyzing the data based on these factors, it is
difficult to determine how these variables may influence the findings. Teachers’ years of
experience, the grade levels they teach, and the regions in which they work can significantly
impact their use of technology and perceptions of self-efficacy. By not accounting for these
differences, the study may overlook important nuances and variations that could affect the
generalizability of the results. Consequently, the findings may not accurately represent the
diverse experiences and contexts of primary teachers across different settings.
Additionally, the non-random and convenience sampling techniques employed may have
resulted in a lack of diverse representation among primary teachers. Consequently, this may also
influence if the findings may not extend beyond the specific sample selected for the study.
Furthermore, the researcher’s prior relationship with participants, which includes knowledge of
their teaching experience and school settings, may have influenced interpretation of responses
such as assumption of understanding of responses which may have affected choice to use probing
questions as well as implicit biases related to positive or negative feelings for the participants
from past interactions or working relationships. Efforts were made to minimize bias during
interviews and data analysis through self-reflection and adherence to the interview protocol.
Specifically, adherence to the protocol was prioritized as a method to limit bias and not provide
opportunities for past experiences together influence participants’ answers as well as consistent
reflexivity as a researcher to check for bias in data interpretation.
99
Future Research
While the findings aligned with the conceptual framework outlined in Chapter Two, the
linear relationship that emerged between the mitigation of physiological states through vicarious
experiences and subsequent mastery experiences should be further explored, as this highlighted
the role of peer-based learning as integral for teacher self-efficacy as a first step in development.
Moreover, it may be beneficial to identify which types of vicarious experiences teachers perceive
as most beneficial in their professional development.
Another interesting finding that emerged through the analysis was the unclear relationship
between perceived self-efficacy to implement technology in reading instruction and the types of
implementation—passive versus active. Looking forward, it may be beneficial to specifically
explore teacher self-efficacy as it relates to specific types of technology integration. Given the
constantly evolving landscape of educational technology introduced to schools annually,
understanding teachers’ perceptions of self-efficacy in various contexts and in different
modalities of technology may support more impactful adoption.
To gain deeper insights into these relationships, a correlational study should be conducted
in the future. Such a study would help quantify the strength and direction of the relationships
between teacher self-efficacy, types of vicarious experiences, and the implementation of
technology in reading instruction. This approach would provide valuable data on how different
factors interact, thereby informing more targeted and effective professional development
programs. Additionally, future research should consider stratifying data by experience, grade
level, and region to provide a more comprehensive understanding of how these factors influence
technology integration and teacher self-efficacy.
100
Conclusions
However, for many educators, technology represents an additional layer of complexity,
perceived merely as an adjunct to instruction rather than an integral tool for enhancement. This
perspective can exacerbate stress, as integrating technology necessitates acquiring new skills—a
task perceived as burdensome amidst existing demands. Professional development initiatives
embedded with vicarious experiences and mentorship from seasoned practitioners offer a
promising avenue for bolstering educators’ confidence in technology integration. By fostering
ongoing, job-embedded learning experiences, such initiatives hold the potential to instill a sense
of self-efficacy and potentially cultivate a willingness among educators to explore innovative
approaches to technology integration.
Such approaches, when thoughtfully employed, can facilitate innovative uses of
technology that transcend mere novelty or classroom management, instead enriching students’
literacy acquisition experiences and even supporting teacher workloads. Now, more than ever, we
need to ensure that our teachers are equipped with the resources needed to meet the needs of their
students that come to school with such varied experiences. This is vital not only for the sake of
the students, but for the sake of teachers that are leaving the field of education in record numbers.
We are spending billions of dollars on educational technology as a resource to improve
student reading level. We cannot afford to fail figuratively or literally. Recent findings from the
National Assessment of Educational Progress (The Nations Report Card, 2022) underscore the
urgency of reevaluating current instructional practices, particularly in addressing the diverse
learning needs of students. Indeed, the modest proficiency levels—highlighted by the fact that
only 33% of fourth graders perform at or above proficiency in reading—underscore the
imperative for transformative pedagogical approaches. Recognizing technology as a catalyst for
101
innovation and divergent thinking, educators can harness its potential to augment traditional
instructional paradigms, thereby fostering enhanced student outcomes. By fostering a culture of
confidence and competence, educators can be better equipped to support their students’ learning
trajectories, not merely in the present but also in navigating the complexities of the future
educational landscape.
102
References
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.
Allington, & Johnston, P. H. (2002). Reading to learn: Lessons from exemplary fourth-grade
classrooms. Guilford Press.
Anderson, R., Greene, M., & Loewen, P. (1988). Relationships among teachers’ and students’
thinking skills, sense of efficacy, and student achievement. Alberta Journal of
Educational Research, 34(2), 148-165.
Anderson, S. E., Groulx, J. G., & Maninger, R. M. (2011). Relationships among preservice
teachers’ technology-related abilities, beliefs, and intentions to use technology in their
future classrooms. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 45(3), 321–338.
https://doi.org/10.2190/EC.45.3.d
Angeli, C., Voogt, J., Fluck, A., Webb, M., Cox, M., Malyn-Smith, J., & Zagami, J. (2016). A K6 computational thinking curriculum framework: Implications for teacher knowledge.
Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 19(3), 47-57.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/jeductechsoci.19.3.47
Ashton, P. T., Olejnik, S., Crocker, L., & McAuliffe, M. (1982). Measurement problems in the
study of teachers’sense of efficacy. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the
American Educational Research Association, New York.
Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37(2),
122. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.37.2.122
103
Bandura, A., & National Inst of Mental Health. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action:
A social cognitive theory. Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Bandura, A. (1998). Personal and collective efficacy in human adaptation and change. In J. G.
Adair, D. Bélanger, & K. L. Dion (Eds.), Advances in psychological science, Vol. 1.
Social, personal, and cultural aspects (pp. 51–71). Psychology Press/Erlbaum (UK)
Taylor & Francis.
Bandura, A. (1988b). Self-regulation of motivation and action through goal systems. In V.
Hamilton, G. H. Bower, & N. H. Frijda (Eds.), Cognitive perspectives on emotion and
motivation (pp. 37–61). Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-2792-6_2
Bandura, A. (1990). Perceived self-efficacy in the exercise of personal agency. Journal of
Applied Sport Psychology, 2(2), 128-163. https://doi.org/10.1080/10413209008406426
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W H Freeman/Times Books/ Henry
Holt & Co.
Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual review of
psychology, 52(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.1
Barclay, S., Todd, C., Finlay, I., Grande, G., & Wyatt, P. (2002). Not another questionnaire!
Maximizing the response rate, predicting non-response and assessing non-response bias
in postal questionnaire studies of GPs. Family Practice, 19(1), 105-111.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/fampra/19.1.105
Beland, C. R. (2016). Verbal Persuasion and Educator Experience Effects on Elementary School
Teachers’ Self-Efficacy. [Doctoral Dissertation, University of Florida]. University of
Florida Digital Collections.
104
Bintliff, A. V., Holtzman, C., Ko, E., Barron-Borden, B., Thong, V., & Ardell, K. (2020).
Innovations in undergraduate mentoring: School-university partnerships to address needs
and inequities during pandemic-related remote learning. Journal of Service-Learning in
Higher Education, 11(2), 54–77.
Bogner, K., Raphael, L., & Pressley, M. (2002). How grade 1 teachers motivate literate activity
by their students. Scientific Studies of Reading, 6(2), 135–165.
https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532799XSSR0602_02
Boyle, E. A., Hainey, T., Connolly, T. M., Gray, G., Earp, J., Ott, M., Lim, T., Ninaus, M.,
Ribeiro, C., & Pereira, J. (2016). An update to the systematic literature review of
empirical evidence of the impacts and outcomes of computer games and serious games.
Computers & Education, 94, 178–192.
Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning.
Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X018001032
Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Borgogni, L., & Steca, P. (2003). Efficacy beliefs as
determinants of teachers’ job satisfaction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 821.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.95.4.821
Castles, A., Rastle, K., & Nation, K. (2018). Ending the reading wars: Reading acquisition from
novice to expert. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 19(1), 5–51.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100618772271
Chan, D. W. (2008). General, collective, and domain-specific teacher self-efficacy among
Chinese prospective and in-service teachers in Hong Kong. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 24(4), 1057–1069. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2007.11.010
105
Cheung, A. C., & Slavin, R. E. (2012). How features of educational technology applications
affect student reading outcomes: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 7(3),
198–215.
Chiu, T. K., Xia, Q., Zhou, X., Chai, C. S., & Cheng, M. (2023). Systematic literature review on
opportunities, challenges, and future research recommendations of artificial intelligence
in education. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 4, 100118.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2022.100118
Clark-Wilson, A. (2014). A methodological approach to researching the development of teachers’
knowledge in a multi-representational technological setting. In A. Clark-Wilson, O.
Robutti, N. Sinclair (Eds.), The mathematics teacher in the digital era: An international
perspective on technology-focused professional development (vol 2, pp. 277–295).
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4638-1_1
Collie, R. J., Shapka, J. D., & Perry, N. E. (2012). School climate and social–emotional learning:
Predicting teacher stress, job satisfaction, and teaching efficacy. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 104(4), 1189–1204. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029356
Connor, C. M., Piasta, S. B., Fishman, B., Glasney, S., Schatschneider, C., Crowe, E.,
Underwood, P., & Morrison, F. J. (2009). Individualizing student instruction precisely:
Effects of child × instruction interactions on first graders’ literacy development. Child
Development, 80(1), 77–100. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2008.01247.x
Dahl-Leonard, K., Hall, C. & Peacott, D. A meta-analysis of technology-delivered literacy
instruction for elementary students. Education Technology Research Development (2024).
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-024-10354-0
106
Day, S. L., Connor, C. M., & McClelland, M. M. (2015). Children’s behavioral regulation and
literacy: The impact of the first-grade classroom environment. Journal of School
Psychology, 53(5), 409–428. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2015.07.004
Darling-Hammond, L., Wei, R. C., Andree, A., Richardson, N., & Orphanos, S. (2009).
Professional learning in the learning profession. National Staff Development Council.
https://edpolicy.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/publications/professional-learninglearning-profession-status-report-teacher-development-us-and-abroad_0.pdf
Darling-Hammond, L., Burns, D., Campbell, C., Goodwin, A. L., Hammerness, K., Low, E. L.,
& Zeichner, K. (2017). Empowered educators: How high-performing systems shape
teaching quality around the world. Jossey-Bass.
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of
information technology. MIS quarterly, 13(3), 319–340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008
Deemer, S. A., & Minke, K. M. (1999). An investigation of the factor structure of the teacher
efficacy scale. The Journal of Educational Research, 93(1), 3–10.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00220679909597624
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). The general causality orientations scale: Self-determination in
personality. Journal of Research in Personality, 19(2), 109–134.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0092-6566(85)90023-6
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The” what” and” why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the
self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268.
https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01
107
Dellinger, A. B., Bobbett, J. J., Olivier, D. F., & Ellett, C. D. (2008). Measuring teachers’selfefficacy beliefs: Development and use of the TEBS-Self. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 24(3). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2007.02.010
Denzine, G. M., Cooney, J. B., & McKenzie, R. (2005). Confirmatory factor analysis of the
Teacher Efficacy Scale for prospective teachers. British Journal of Educational
Psychology, 75(4), 689–708. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709905X37253
Devi, J. S., Sreedhar, M. B., Arulprakash, P., Kazi, K., & Radhakrishnan, R. (2022). A path
towards child-centric artificial intelligence based education. International Journal of
Early Childhood, 14(3), 9915–9922.
Dockstader, J. (1999). Teachers of the 21st century know the what, why, and how of technology
integration. T.H.E. Journal, 26(6), 73-74.
Druga, S., Vu, S. T., Likhith, E., & Qiu, T. (Mar 2019). Inclusive AI literacy for kids around the
world. In FL2019: Proceedings of FabLearn 2019 (pp. 104–111). Association for
Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3311890.3311904
Duke, N. K., & Cartwright, K. B. (2021). The science of reading progresses: Communicating
advances beyond the simple view of reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 56(S1), S25–
S44. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.411
Durak, H. (2021). Modeling of relations between K-12 teachers’ TPACK levels and their
technology integration self-efficacy, technology literacy levels, attitudes toward
technology and usage objectives of social networks. Interactive Learning Environments,
29(7), 1136–1162. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2019.1619591
Eimas, P. D. (1985). The perception of speech in early infancy. Scientific American, 252(1), 46–
53. https://doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican0185-46
108
Ertmer, P. A., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T., Sadik, O., Sendurur, E., & Sendurur, P. (2012). Teacher
beliefs and technology integration practices: A critical relationship. Computers &
education, 59(2), 423–435. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.02.001
Franklin, T., Turner, S., Kariuki, M., & Duran, M. (2001). Mentoring overcomes barriers to
technology integration. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 18(1), 26–31
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., & Bishop, N. (1992). Instructional adaptation for students at risk. The
Journal of Educational Research, 86(2), 70–84. https://www.jstor.org/stable/27541846
Gibbs, G. R. (2018). Analyzing qualitative data (2nd Ed, vol 6). SAGE Publications Ltd.
Glesne, C. (2016). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction. Pearson.
Goddard, R. D., Hoy, W. K., & Hoy, A. W. (2000). Collective teacher efficacy: Its meaning,
measure, and impact on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal,
37(2), 479–507. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312037002479
Goldstein, D., & Shapiro, E. (2020, Aug 13). ‘I Don’t Want to Go Back’: Many Teachers Are
Fearful and Angry Over Pressure to Return. The New York Times.
Goswami, U. (2011). A temporal sampling framework for developmental dyslexia. Trends in
Cognitive Sciences, 15(1), 3–10. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1016/j.tics.2010.10.001
Gough, P.B., & Tunmer, W.E. (1986). Decoding, reading & reading disability. RASE: Remedial
and Special Education, 7(1), 6–10.
https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1177/074193258600700104
Graesser, A., & Mandler, G. (1975). Recognition memory for the meaning and surface structure
of sentences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 1(3),
238. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.1.3.238
109
Guskey, T. R. (1988). Teacher efficacy, self-concept, and attitudes toward the implementation of
instructional innovation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 4(1), 63–69.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0742-051X(88)90025-X
Guthrie, J. T., Wigfield, A., Barbosa, P., Perencevich, K. C., Taboada, A., Davis, M. H., Scafiddi,
N. T., & Tonks, S. (2004). Increasing Reading Comprehension and Engagement Through
Concept-Oriented Reading Instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(3), 403–
423. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.96.3.403
Hall, A. B., & Trespalacios, J. (2019). Personalized professional learning and teacher selfefficacy for integrating technology in K–12 classrooms. Journal of Digital Learning in
Teacher Education, 35(4), 221–235. https://doi.org/10.1080/21532974.2019.1647579
Harris, J., Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2009). Teachers’ technological pedagogical content
knowledge and learning activity types: Curriculum-based technology integration
reframed. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41(4), 393–416.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2009.10782536
Harris, J. B., & Hofer, M. J. (2011). Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) in
action: A descriptive study of secondary teachers’ curriculum-based, technology-related
instructional planning. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 43(3), 211–229.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2011.10782570
Hermans, R., Tondeur, J., Van Braak, J., & Valcke, M. (2008). The impact of primary school
teachers’ educational beliefs on the classroom use of computers. Computers & Education,
51(4), 1499–1509. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2008.02.001
Ho, I. T., & Hau, K. T. (2004). Australian and Chinese teacher efficacy: Similarities and
differences in personal instruction, discipline, guidance efficacy and beliefs in external
110
determinants. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20(3), 313–323.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2003.09.009
Hruby, G. G., & Goswami, U. (2011). Neuroscience and reading: A review for reading education
researchers. Reading Research Quarterly, 46(2), 156–172.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/41203419
Hudson, R. F., Lane, H. B., & Pullen, P. C. (2005). Reading fluency assessment and instruction:
What, why, and how?. The Reading Teacher, 58(8), 702–714.
https://doi.org/10.1598/RT.58.8.1
International Society for Technology in Education. (2007). National educational technology
standards for students. https://iste.org/
Joo, Y. J., Park, S., & Lim, E. (2018). Factors influencing preservice teachers’ intention to use
technology: TPACK, teacher self-efficacy, and technology acceptance model. Journal of
Educational Technology & Society, 21(3), 48–59. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26458506
Judson, E. (2006). How teachers integrate technology and their beliefs about learning: Is there a
connection?. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 14(3), 581–597.
K12 Dive. (2024, May 14). Ed tech market spending to reach $132 billion. K12 Dive.
https://www.k12dive.com/news/ed-tech-market-spending-132-billion/697752/
Kinzer, C., & Leu, D. J. (1997). The challenge of change: Exploring literacy and learning in
electronic environments. Language Arts, 74(2), 126–136.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/41482849
Koehler, M., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge
(TPACK)? Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 60–70.
111
https://citejournal.org/volume-9/issue-1-09/general/what-is-technologicalpedagogicalcontent-knowledge
Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (Eds.). (2016). Handbook of technological pedagogical content
knowledge (TPACK) for educators (2nd Ed., pp. 189–200). Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315771328
Koh, J. H. L., Chai, C. S., & Tay, L. Y. (2014). TPACK-in-Action: Unpacking the contextual
influences of teachers’ construction of technological pedagogical content knowledge
(TPACK). Computers & Education, 78, 20–29.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.04.022
Kraft, M. A., & Blazar, D. (2018). Taking teacher coaching to scale: Can personalized training
become standard practice?. Education Next, 18(4), 68–75.
Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2003). New literacies: Changing knowledge and classroom
learning. Open University Press.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation.
Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511815355
Lemke, J., Karpf, A., Jakopovic, P., & McGlamery, S. (2022). Field Experience Reimagined:
Integrating Microteaches to Foster Preservice Teachers’ Self-Efficacy. Delta Kappa
Gamma Bulletin: International Journal for Professional Educators, 88(5), 25–34.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. SAGE Publications, Inc.
Lochmiller, C.R. & Lester, J. N. (2017). An introduction to educational research: Connecting
methods to practice. SAGE Publications, Inc.
112
McCusker, L. (2017). Professional development recognizing technology Integration modeled
after the TPACK framework (190323917). [Doctoral Thesis, Drexel University]. CORE
by The Open University. https://core.ac.uk/download/190323917.pdf
Merga, M. K., & Roni, S. M. (2017). The influence of access to eReaders, computers and mobile
phones on children’s book reading frequency. Computers & Education, 109, 187–196.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2015). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation. Jossey-Bass.
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A
framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x
Mishra, P. & Koehler, M.J. (2007). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK):
Confronting the Wicked Problems of Teaching with Technology. In R. Carlsen, K.
McFerrin, J. Price, R. Weber & D. Willis (Eds.), Proceedings of SITE 2007--Society for
Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 2214-2226).
San Antonio, Texas, USA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education
(AACE)
Morris, D., Trathen, W., Gill, T., Schlagal, R., Ward, D., & Frye, E. M. (2017). Assessing reading
rate in the primary grades (1–3). Reading Psychology, 38(7), 653–672.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02702711.2017.1323057
National Center for Education Statistics. (2024.). Reading Assessment: Grade 4 National
Results. The Nation’s Report Card.
https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/reading/nation/scores/?grade=4
113
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School
Officers. (2010). Common core state standards. https://www.thecorestandards.org/thestandards/
Olofson, M. W., Swallow, M. J., & Neumann, M. D. (2016). TPACKing: A constructivist framing
of TPACK to analyze teachers’ construction of knowledge. Computers & Education, 95,
188–201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.12.010
Ormston, R., Spencer, L., Barnard, M., & Snape, D. (2014). The foundations of qualitative
research. In J. Ritchie, J. Lewis, C.M. Nicholls, and R. Ormston (Eds), Qualitative
research practice: A guide for social science students and researchers (2nd Ed, pp. 1–
23). SAGE Publications Ltd.
Pajares, M. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct.
Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307–332.
https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543062003307
Pas, E. T., Bradshaw, C. P., & Hershfeldt, P. A. (2012). Teacher-and school-level predictors of
teacher efficacy and burnout: Identifying potential areas for support. Journal of school
Psychology, 50(1), 129–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2011.07.003
Paulus, M. T., Villegas, S. G., & Howze-Owens, J. (2020). Professional learning communities:
Bridging the technology integration gap through effective professional development.
Peabody Journal of Education, 95(2), 193–202.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0161956X.2020.1745610
Petzold, M. B., Bendau, A., Plag, J., Pyrkosch, L., Mascarell Maricic, L., Betzler, F., Rogoll, J.,
Große, J., & Ströhle, A. (2020). Risk, resilience, psychological distress, and anxiety at the
114
beginning of the COVID‐19 pandemic in Germany. Brain and Behavior, 10(9), e01745.
https://doi.org/10.1002/brb3.1745
Pressley, T. (2021). Returning to teaching during COVID-19: An empirical study on elementary
teachers’self-efficacy. Psychology in the Schools, 58(8), 1611–1623.
https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22528
Qi, J., Yan, Y., & Yin, H. (2023). Screen time among school-aged children of aged 6–14: A
systematic review. Global Health Research and Policy, 8, 12.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s41256-023-00297-z
Sadaf, A., Newby, T. J., & Ertmer, P. A. (2016). An investigation of the factors that influence
preservice teachers’ intentions and integration of Web 2.0 tools. Educational Technology
Research and Development, 64, 37–64. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-015-9410-9
Scarborough, H. S. (2001). Connecting early language and literacy to later reading
(dis)abilities: Evidence, theory and practice. Guilford Press.
Schachter, S., & Singer, J. (1962). Cognitive, social, and physiological determinants of emotional
state. Psychological Review, 69(5), 379. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0046234
Schunk, D. H. (1982). Effects of effort attributional feedback on children’s perceived selfefficacy and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74(4), 548.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.74.4.548
Schunk, D. H. (1983). Ability versus effort attributional feedback: Differential effects on selfefficacy and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75(6), 848–856.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.75.6.848
115
Schunk, D. H., & Hanson, A. R. (1989). Self-modeling and children’s cognitive skill learning.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(2), 155. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-
0663.81.2.155
Schunk, D.H. (2012). Social cognitive theory. In K.R. Harris, S. Graham, & T. Urdan, C.B.
McCormick, G.M. Sinatra, & J. Sweller (Eds.) APA educational psychology handbook.
Vol. 1: Theories, constructs, and critical issues (pp. 101–123). American Psychological
Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/13273-000
Schunk, D. H., & DiBenedetto, M. K. (2016). Self-efficacy theory in education. In K. Wentzel &
D. Miele (Eds.), Handbook of motivation at school (2nd Ed, pp. 34–54). Routledge.
Schunk, D.H. (2020). Learning theories: An educational perspective (8th ed.). Pearson
Education.
Shanahan, T., Callison, K., Carriere, C., Duke, N. K., Pearson, P. D., Schatschneider, C., &
Torgesen, J. (2010). Improving reading comprehension in kindergarten through 3rd
grade: IES practice guide. National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional
Assistance. Institution of Education Science, U.S. Department of Education.
https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Docs/PracticeGuide/readingcomp_pg_092810.pdf
Shultz, S. (2023, April 6) Universal design for learning: An introduction. National Education
Association. https://www.nea.org/professional-excellence/student-engagement/toolstips/universal-design-learning-introduction
Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2007). Dimensions of teacher self-efficacy and relations with
strain factors perceived collective teacher efficacy, and teacher burnout. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 99(3), 611–625. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.3.611
116
Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2010). Teacher self-efficacy and teacher burnout: A study of
relations. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(4), 1059–1069.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2009.11.001
Skinner, E. A. (1995). Perceived control, motivation, & coping. Sage Publications, Inc.
https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483327198
Spear-Swerling, L. (2019). Structured Literacy and Typical Literacy Practices: Understanding
Differences to Create Instructional Opportunities. TEACHING Exceptional Children,
51(3), 201–211.
Strahan, D. (2003). Promoting a collaborative professional culture in three elementary schools
that have beaten the odds. The Elementary School Journal, 104(2), 127–146.
https://doi.org/10.1086/499746
Tam, A. C. F. (2015). The role of a professional learning community in teacher change: A
perspective from beliefs and practices. Teachers and Teaching, 21(1), 22–43.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2014.928122
Taylor, B., Pearson, D., Clark, K., & Walpole, S. (2000). Beating the Odds in Teaching All
Students to Read: Lessons from Effective Schools and Accomplished Teachers. Center for
the Improvement of Early Reading Achievement. Office of Educational Research and
Improvement. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED450352.pdf
Taylor, J. R. (2003). Linguistic categorization (3rd Ed). Oxford University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199266647.001.0001
The Nations Report Card (2022). NAEP Report Card: Reading [Data set]. National Assessment
of Education Progress. https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/reading/?grade=4
117
Trigueros, R., Padilla, A., Aguilar-Parra, J. M., Mercader, I., López-Liria, R., & Rocamora, P.
(2020). The influence of transformational teacher leadership on academic motivation and
resilience, burnout and academic performance. International Journal of Environmental
Research and Public Health, 17(20), 7687. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17207687
Tschannen-Moran, M., Hoy, A. W., & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its meaning and
measure. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 202–248.
https://doi.org/10.2307/1170754
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, A. W. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(7), 783–805. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-
051X(01)00036-1
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, A. W. (2007). The differential antecedents of self-efficacy beliefs
of novice and experienced teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23(6), 944–956.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2006.05.003
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology. (2024). National Educational
Technology Plan 2024: A Call to Action for Closing the Digital Access, Design, and Use
Divides. Washington, D.C.
Vasquez III, E., & Straub, C. (2012). Online instruction for K–12 special education: A review of
the empirical literature. Journal of Special Education Technology, 27(3), 31–40.
Wang, L., Ertmer, P. A., & Newby, T. J. (2004). Increasing preservice teachers’self-efficacy
beliefs for technology integration. Journal of Research on Technology in Education,
36(3), 231–250. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2004.10782414
118
Warschauer, M., & Ware, P. (2014). Learning, change, and power: Competing frames of
technology and literacy. In J. Coiro, M. Knobel, C. Lankshear, & D Leu (Eds.),
Handbook of research on new literacies, (pp. 215–240). Routledge.
Webb, R. B., & Ashton, P. T. (1986). Teacher motivation and the conditions of teaching: A call
for ecological reform. Journal of Thought, 21(2), 43–60.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/42589178
Weinberg, R., Gould, D., & Jackson, A. (1979). Expectations and performance: An empirical test
of Bandura’s self-efficacy theory. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 1(4), 320–
331.
Weiss, H. M. (2002). Deconstructing job satisfaction: Separating evaluations, beliefs and
affective experiences. Human Resource Management Review, 12(2), 173–194.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S1053-4822(02)00045-1
Wozney, L., Venkatesh, V., & Abrami, P. (2006). Implementing computer technologies: Teachers’
perceptions and practices. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 14(1), 173–
207.
Yang, W. (2022). Artificial Intelligence education for young children: Why, what, and how in
curriculum design and implementation. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence,
3, 100061. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2022.100061
Yoo, J. H. (2016). The effect of professional development on teacher efficacy and teachers’selfanalysis of their efficacy change. Journal of Teacher Education for Sustainability, 18(1),
84–94. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/jtes-2016-0007
119
Zhao, Y., & Frank, K. A. (2003). Factors affecting technology uses in schools: An ecological
perspective. American Educational Research Journal, 40(4), 807–840.
https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312040004807
120
Appendix A: Interview Protocol
Good afternoon and thank you so much for participating in this interview today. I am
exploring elementary teachers’self-efficacy and their educational integration of technology as an
instructional strategy to teach reading. You were chosen to participate in this study because you
teach children of elementary age (specifically kindergarten through second grade), and your
school provides educational technology tools you can use with your students in various ways.
Today, you will participate in a 60-minute interview. The interview will be recorded, but all
information obtained will remain confidential. We will be recording the interview today to help
me capture your answers correctly and allow me to focus on your answers rather than notetaking. Your name and other identifying information will not be used in any published materials
related to this study. Participation in this study is voluntary, and you can withdraw at any time for
any reason. Your responses will be combined with those of other participants in the aggregate.
The following interview questions will focus on self-efficacy, or a person’s belief in their
ability to succeed in a given situation or task. For this study, I am particularly interested in your
beliefs about self-efficacy as an educator who integrates technology within their reading
instruction and about learning about the context of how you and do not currently use technology
within your reading instruction.
• What, if any, should technology’s role be in reading instruction?
• What do you think has contributed to your view?
• Can you share about how you use technology within your reading instruction?
• Can you share specific experiences where you felt particularly confident using
technology to enhance reading instruction in your classroom? How did it influence
your perception of using technology in that instance, if at all?
121
• Can you share specific experiences where you felt less confident integrating
technology into reading instruction?
• What obstacles, if any, did you encounter?
• How did it influence your perception of using technology in that instance, if at all?
• How confident do you feel about using technology effectively in your reading
instruction?
• What contributes to this feeling?
• How do you feel your comfort using technology plays a role in your choices when
selecting and using technology tools for teaching reading, if at all?
• Can you walk me through your decision-making process when selecting technology
for your students?
• Your comfort teaching reading is another area of interest in the study. We will now
move into some questions about your self-efficacy as a reading teacher.
• How confident do you feel about teaching your students to read?
• What contributes to this feeling? What has contributed to your view on effective
reading instruction?
• How do you feel your teaching knowledge plays a role in your choices when selecting
and using technology tools for teaching reading, if at all?
• Let’s move on to the next set of questions that will help me better understand the type
of support you receive as an educator.
• Can you tell me about a time you were asked to integrate technology within your
instructional practice?
• How were you professionally supported during that time, if at all?
122
• Do you feel you were successful in integrating the technology?
• What do you think contributed to that success?
• What do you think contributed to this outcome?
• What would it look like if you could create an ideal training for new technology?
Thank you for the time and effort you have given to participate in this research study.
Your input is invaluable and will help me better understand the research topic I am exploring. As
a reminder, your responses will remain confidential, and your anonymity is fully protected. Is
there anything else you would like to add before we finish?
123
Appendix B: Interview Question Alignment to Conceptual Framework
• What, if any, should technology’s role be in reading instruction? (context)
• What do you think has contributed to your view? (context)
• Can you share about how you use technology within your reading instruction? (selfefficacy antecedents)
• Can you share specific experiences where you felt particularly confident using? (selfefficacy antecedents)
• technology to enhance reading instruction in your classroom? How did it influence
your perception of using technology in that instance, if at all? (self-efficacy)
• Can you share specific experiences where you felt less confident integrating
technology into reading instruction? (self-efficacy)
• What obstacles, if any, did you encounter? (self-efficacy)
• How did it influence your perception of using technology in that instance, if at all?
(self-efficacy)
• How confident do you feel about using technology effectively in your reading
instruction? (self-efficacy and TPACK)
• What contributes to this feeling? (self-efficacy and TPACK)
• How do you feel your comfort using technology plays a role in your choices when
selecting and using technology tools for teaching reading, if at all? (self-efficacy and
TPACK)
• Can you walk me through your decision-making process when selecting technology
for your students? (self-efficacy, TPACK, context)
• How confident do you feel about teaching your students to read? (TPACK)
124
• What contributes to this feeling? What has contributed to your view on effective
reading instruction? (TPACK)
• How do you feel your teaching knowledge plays a role in your choices when selecting
and using technology tools for teaching reading, if at all? (TPACK)
• Let’s move on to the next set of questions that will help me better understand the type
of support you receive as an educator. (TPACK)
• Can you tell me about a time you were asked to integrate technology within your
instructional practice? (self-efficacy)
• How were you professionally supported during that time, if at all? (self-efficacy)
• Do you feel you were successful in integrating the technology? (self-efficacy)
• What do you think contributed to that success? (self-efficacy)
• What do you think contributed to this outcome? (self-efficacy)
• What would it look like if you could create an ideal training for new technology?
(self-efficacy)
Abstract (if available)
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Technology integration and self-efficacy of in-service secondary teachers in an international school
PDF
One Hawai’i K-12 complex public school teachers’ level of computer self-efficacy and their acceptance of and integration of technology in the classroom
PDF
Instructional coaching, educational technology, and teacher self-efficacy: a case study of instructional coaching programs in a California public K-12 school district
PDF
Instructional coaching in California public K-12 school districts: instructional coaching programs in elementary, middle, and high schools and the impact on teacher self-efficacy with educational...
PDF
Teacher self-efficacy and instructional coaching in California public K-12 schools: effective instructional coaching programs across elementary, middle, and high schools and the impact on teacher...
PDF
Instructional coaching and educational technology in California public K-12 school districts: instructional coaching programs across elementary, middle, and high schools with educational technolo...
PDF
The importance of technological training among public school teachers integrating one-to-one computing: an evaluation study
PDF
Leadership and implementation of 1:1 technology: considering teacher self-efficacy in the implementation process
PDF
Technology as a tool: uses in differentiated curriculum and instruction for gifted learners
PDF
The effect on teacher career choices: exploring teacher perceptions on the impact of non‐instructional workload on self‐efficacy and self‐determination
PDF
Preservice teacher preparation for engineering integration in K-5
PDF
Technological pedagogical skills among K-12 teachers
PDF
Instructional technology integration in a parochial school district: an evaluation study
PDF
Technology integration and its impact on 21st century learning and instruction: a case study
PDF
A case study of technology-embedded instruction: a student-centered approach to enhance teaching and learning in a K-12 school
PDF
Indonesian teachers' adoption of technology in the K-12 classroom: a TAM-based quantitative study
PDF
How are teachers being prepared to integrate technology into their lessons?
PDF
The perception of teachers’ pedagogy of technology integration: a case study of second‐grade teachers
PDF
Hawaiʻi public school principals' level of technology use and the meaningful integration of technology in their school
PDF
TikToking and Instagramming: following high school teacher influencers' roles in supporting and informing teacher practices
Asset Metadata
Creator
Gates, Alia Awni
(author)
Core Title
Exploring primary teachers' self-efficacy and technology integration in early reading instruction
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Educational Leadership (On Line)
Degree Conferral Date
2024-08
Publication Date
06/25/2024
Defense Date
05/01/2024
Publisher
Los Angeles, California
(original),
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
literacy,OAI-PMH Harvest,Primary,self-efficacy,technology,TPACK
Format
theses
(aat)
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Moore, Ekaterina (
committee chair
), Finneran, Clara (
committee member
), Krop, Cathy (
committee member
)
Creator Email
aagates@usc.edu,alia.gates@gmail.com
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC1139970N9
Unique identifier
UC1139970N9
Identifier
etd-GatesAliaA-13147.pdf (filename)
Legacy Identifier
etd-GatesAliaA-13147
Document Type
Dissertation
Format
theses (aat)
Rights
Gates, Alia Awni
Internet Media Type
application/pdf
Type
texts
Source
20240625-usctheses-batch-1174
(batch),
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright.
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA
Repository Email
cisadmin@lib.usc.edu
Tags
literacy
self-efficacy
technology
TPACK