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
/
Examining internal communication practices to improve teachers’ motivation to use ICTs in instruction: a case study of Peruvian secondary schools
(USC Thesis Other)
Examining internal communication practices to improve teachers’ motivation to use ICTs in instruction: a case study of Peruvian secondary schools
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
EXAMINING INTERNAL COMMUNICATION PRACTICES TO IMPROVE TEACHERS’
MOTIVATION TO USE ICTS IN INSTRUCTION:
A CASE STUDY OF PERUVIAN SECONDARY SCHOOLS
by
Komathi Ale-Valencia
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
(COMMUNICATION)
May 2020
Copyright 2020 Komathi Ale-Valencia
ii
DEDICATION
This dissertation is dedicated to my mother, Mdm. Anjalli Muniandy.
Thank you, Amma, for believing in me.
ஆ ச ை தரும ் க ன வுக ள ் எ ல ் லாம ்
அவன ா ல ் தா ன ் நன வு க ள ் ஆ கும ்
அன ் று ததா ட் டு நீ நி சன த்த எ ண ் ண ம ் எ ன ் ன ம ் மா
அச த இ ன ் று ததா ட் டு நா ன ் முடி க ் கு ம ் வண ் ண ம ் பாரம ் மா
தவற ் றி மீது தவற ் றி வந ் து எ ன ் சன சைரும ்
அச த வாங ் கி த் தந ் த தபரு சம எ ல ் லாம ் உ ன ் சன சைரும ்
- M. G. Ramachandran / க வி ஞ ன ் வா லி
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I could not have crossed this bridge without the support and encouragement of some very
important people in my life. I gratefully and sincerely thank my advisor, Professor François Bar,
for his unremitting support, guidance and understanding over the years. He stood by me through
tough times and made sure that I completed this journey with pride and dignity. Thank you,
François, for your relentless patience and positivity.
I am especially indebted to my dissertation committee members, Professor Michael Cody
and Professor Peter Clarke, for their feedback and expertise. I am grateful for their painstaking
efforts to polish my writing. Our interactions may have been few and far between, but the warm
hugs and kinds words they shared were invaluable.
This dissertation is built on a cornerstone of my mentor, Dr. Arul Chib, who has stuck
with me for over a decade. I am incredibly fortunate to have established a close relationship with
someone whose work has inspired me from the moment I was exposed to it. Thank you for
instilling in me the values of meaningful and rigorous scholarship.
I thank the generous support of the Instituto de Estudios Peruanos (IEP) for allowing me
to work with the Programa Leer es Estar Adelante team. I was able to access local schools to
accomplish the fieldwork with the help of the Leer team. I have immeasurable gratitude to my
research assistants, Alvaro Andres Valencia Ortiz and Lorena Luz Rey Evangelista. I
acknowledge their contribution in doing significant legwork and participating in several
discussions which gave me unique insights into the communication technology and education
landscape in Peru. I thank the Peruvian teachers for their generous participation and enthusiasm
for my research work. I am grateful for the time and energy they committed to enabling me to
acquire the data I needed.
iv
I would not have survived a PhD program without the wisdom and guidance of my dear
friend, Renyi Hong. To my most valued best friend, Mina Park, I am forever grateful for your
love for me. I extend my heartfelt gratitude to both Renyi and Mina for the laughs, advice, and
friendship. Special thanks to my marvellous friends - Navid Kaeidi Nejad, Grace Chen, Grace
Kwan, Chi Zhang, Sonia Jawaid Shaikh, Carmen Gonzalez-Luna, Nancy Chen and Rong Wang -
for providing wonderful companionship, social support, and encouragement, online and offline,
near or far. I must acknowledge my friend and quant-guru, Thanomwong Poorisat, for patiently
teaching me advanced statistical methods.
I am especially thankful to Letchi Express Services for providing me a conducive and
safe environment for completing my dissertation. I could sit in front of my computer to write for
hours in length because being in the office made me happy.
I simply would not have made it through this process without my four pillars of support,
who fed me, laughed with me, and cheered me on (jia you!) till the end. I thank my family,
Sarvam, for their constant prayers and wishes. I am grateful to my lovely in-laws, Señor Maximo
Valencia and Señora Teresa Ortiz, for believing in me. And I am most thankful to my uncle,
Mr. Mathialagan Muniandy, for the smile. Thank you, Mama, for never giving up on me.
I would not be here without the love, devotion, and encouragement of my husband, Señor
Alvaro Andres Valencia Ortiz, who stood by me with his persistent patience, positivity and
unconditional love. Even when I hit rock bottom, he was there to lift me up. Thank you, Mi
Amor, from the bottom of my heart. Finally, I am grateful that I can impart in my daughter,
Mathee Eva Ale Valencia, the importance of always finishing what she starts.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication ii
Acknowledgements iii
List of Tables viii
List of Figures ix
Abstract x
Chapter 1: Introduction 1
1.1 General Statement 1
1.2. Problem Statement 4
1.3. Research Overview 6
1.4. Chapter Summaries 9
Chapter 2: Review of Literature and Theory 14
2.1. Implementation of ICTI in the Context of South America 15
2.2. Internal Communication Practices within the School Context 22
2.3. ICTI Implementation and Integration Process 25
2.3a. ICTI Implementation Process 27
2.3b. ICTI Integration Process 29
2.4. Review of Teacher Motivation 31
2.5. Theoretical Approach: Self-Determination Theory (SDT) 32
2.5a. Self-Determination Theory and External Context 33
2.5b. Self-Determination Theory and Needs Satisfaction 35
2.5c. Self-Determination Theory and Motivation 39
Chapter 3: Detailed Research Focus 43
3.1. ICT Implementation Process 44
3.1a. School Context 45
3.1b. Basic Psychological Needs 47
3.2. ICTI Integration Process 49
3.2a. Motivation to Perform 49
3.2b. Motivation to Practice 50
3.3. Research Focus and Hypotheses 53
vi
Chapter 4: Method 58
4.1. Sampling Procedure 58
4.2. Study Context 60
4.3. Sample Characteristics 67
4.3a. Survey Sample Characteristics 67
4.3b. Focus Group Sample Characteristics 70
4.4. Study Procedure 71
4.5. Measures 76
4.5a. ICT Implementation Process: School Context 77
4.5b. ICT Implementation Process: Basic Psychological Needs 78
4.5c. Motivation for Sustained Integration: Motivation to Perform 80
4.5d. Motivation for Sustained Integration: Motivation to Practice 81
4.5e. Focus Group Questions 83
4.6. Analytic Procedure 84
Chapter 5: Quantitative Results 87
5.1. Preliminary Analyses 88
5.1a. Correlation Analysis 96
5.2. Structural Equation Modelling 97
Chapter 6: Qualitative Findings 112
6.1. Internal Communication Practice in ICTI: Teacher Collegiality 113
6.1a. Increased Collegiality for Increased Competence 113
6.1b. Training Programs involving Teachers, not DAIPs 116
6.1c. Increased Collegiality for Increased Relatedness 119
6.2. Internal Communication Practice in ICTI: Structured Leadership 120
6.2a. More Dialogue Equals Less Misunderstanding 120
6.2b. Principals must Step-In to Step-Up 122
6.2c. Teachers are Perceived as Individuals, Not Groups 125
6.2d. Knowledge Demands Respect 127
6.2e. Hands-on involvement for Clearer Routines 129
vii
Chapter 7: Discussion 134
7.1. Discussion of Findings 134
7.2. Proposed Internal Communication Strategies 143
7.2a. Engage in Two-Way Communication to Facilitate Ongoing Dialogue 144
7.2b. Leaders Must Walk the Talk 150
7.2c. Organize Small Group Mentorships 153
7.3. Limitations of the Study 155
7.4. Future Research 158
7.5. Concluding Thoughts 160
Bibliography 162
viii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Survey sample characteristics by schools 68
Table 2 Respondents’ ages, subjects and grade levels taught 69
Table 3 Focus group discussion participants by schools 71
Table 4 Descriptive statistics of study variables 91
Table 5 Factor matrix of items and reliability of scales 93
Table 6 Bivariate correlations among study variables 97
Table 7 Summary of hypotheses and outcomes 102
Table 8 Summary of significant findings
105
ix
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Hypothesized Research Model 57
Figure 2 Typical school vicinity in low SES neighbourhood 60
Figure 3 School ICT lab 61
Figure 4 Conversations with school leaders in an office and an ICT-lab 65
Figure 5 ICT Lab Assistant/DAIP assisting a teacher with troubleshooting a
technical problem during instruction
67
Figure 6 Teachers completing survey questionnaires in staff room 73
Figure 7 Focus group discussion with teachers 75
Figure 8 Structural equation results of hypothesized model with standardized
regression coefficients
99
x
ABSTRACT
The present research uses self-determination theory to assess teachers’ motivation to
integrate technology into their instruction, and how structured leadership and teacher collegiality
satisfy the basic psychological needs of teachers, in turn affecting their motivation. The study
explores two research questions. The first examines the relationships between internal
communication practices in schools, and teachers’ motivation to integrate ICTs in instruction. I
explicate these relationships through a twofold process that captures social and psychological
mechanisms. These include meso-level factors within the school context, as well as micro-level
psychological factors. The first part of this process, the Implementation of ICTI, concerns
institutional communication practices such as peer-interactions among teachers and school
leaders, as well as the influence these practices have on the satisfaction of individual-level needs.
The second part of this process, the Integration of ICTI, assesses the effects of psychological
mechanisms on motivation to use ICTI and engage in student-centred behaviours, as well as their
influence on teachers' intrinsic and extrinsic motivation to perform.
Data gathered from fieldwork conducted in 2015 include responses from focus groups
discussions and surveys with 82 secondary school teachers. Structural Equation Modelling
analysis tested the proposed model to uncover the relationships between ICTI implementation
and ICTI integration processes. This analysis supported the hypothesis that contextual factors
influence teachers’ motivation to integrate ICTI, mediated by the satisfaction of their basic
psychological needs. It revealed that internal communication practices have mixed effects on the
satisfaction of teachers’ psychological needs. Additionally, the qualitative findings suggest that
school principals should gain adequate technical expertise. Indeed, their ICTI knowledge shapes
teachers’ attitudes and responses to technology implementation efforts. The findings suggest
xi
internal communication strategies that could improve teachers’ motivation for sustained ICTI
integration. The first recommends that schools support two-way communication to facilitate
ongoing dialogue among teachers. The second urges leaders to practice what they preach, and the
third proposes small group mentorships. Study limitations and directions for future research are
also discussed.
1
Chapter 1: Introduction
1.1 General Statement
Education sets the foundation of an individual’s future. The United Nations Educational,
Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO Institute for Statistics, 2019a) stresses that
educators are essential in providing quality education to all. Teachers are the backbone of the
education system, imparting knowledge and facilitating learning that impacts the lives of learners
(Global Partnership for Education, 2020). For millions of children enrolled in schools, it is their
teachers to whom they look to for direction, inspiration and hope. Every day teachers have the
ability to change the lives of their students in many diverse and critical ways, and their impact
cannot be underestimated. Teachers themselves also need to have their needs met so that the
lives of millions can continue to improve (The World Bank, 2019).
There is a massive shortage of trained teachers worldwide, with estimates indicating that
the world needs 69 million more teachers in order to achieve universal primary and secondary
education by 2030 (UNESCO Institute for Statistics, 2016). While recruiting teachers is
important, the retention of trained educators is also essential. A multitude of factors influence the
retention and attrition of teachers. One such factor is the institutional environment. As Huges
(2012, p. 247) emphasized, although “personal characteristics, teacher preparation, and teacher
efficacy impact teacher retention; school climate is perhaps the strongest indicator.” This draws
attention to the centrality of school context as a factor in shaping teachers’ experiences in the
workforce.
Since the late 1990s, many scholars have explored why teachers choose to remain in the
teaching profession (Baard, Deci, & Ryan, 2004; Chatzistamatiou, Dermitzaki & Bagiatis, 2014;
Hoy, 2008;). For the most part, it boils down to the question of what motivates teachers to do the
2
work they do. Undeniably, monetary incentives are motivators that “encourage teachers to exert
more “effort”, broadly defined to include both quantity and quality” (Imberman, 2015, p. 2).
However, teachers in developing and developed countries struggle to get paid or even paid on
time, let alone being paid more (Hodal, 2016; Karanja, 2015; Schaeffer, 2019). Additionally,
while it is true that the value of financial rewards affects teachers’ performance, there is ample
evidence that suggests that this may only have little impact on their performance and engagement
in their work. It could even have a negative impact if the remuneration is not large enough (Bello
& Jakada, 2017; Chamorro-Premuzic, 2013; Imberman, 2015). According to Vegas and
Umansky (2005), teachers can be motivated in other ways. They stress that instructional support
offered by principals and fellow teachers in a positive school climate is a valuable non-monetary
benefit. Ultimately, the question remains as to what exactly encourages teachers. By gaining a
clearer understanding of motivating factors and the conditions in which they influence teacher
motivation, more targeted efforts can be taken to enhance teachers’ engagement in instructional
activities.
Encouraging teachers involves arousing their interest to choose to perform an action and
sustaining that interest to persist with the action. In the case of using ICTI, teachers have long
passed the stage of initial motivation. It is important to understand the early transformations in
technology-enabled education that led to the current situation. Early studies on computers and
education from the late-1970s reported that teachers were hopeful and optimistic that digital and
information technologies would improve education (Ayscough, 1976; Chandra & Bliss, 1988;
Farrington, 1982; Milner & Wildberger, 1977). The focus ranged from defining educational
technology to finding solutions for high-quality learning experiences through the effective use of
software and high-speed internet connectivity in classrooms (Office of Educational Technology,
3
2017). However, in the past two decades, the topic of instructional and education technologies
has gained popularity in the burgeoning field of information and communication technologies for
development (Cox, Rhodes, & Hall, 1988; Khan & Ghadially, 2010). The promise of
development and access to all caught the interest of governments and practitioners worldwide
(Gill, 2017, Livingstone, 2012). Populations in the Global North were quick to embrace the
promises of educational transformations that came with a digital landscape (Carneiro, Lefrere,
Steffens, & Underwood, 2011), and the Global South followed shortly after.
A principal strategic response guiding these efforts was the UN Millennium Development
Goals (MDGs), which were established in 2000 (United Nations Development Programme
[UNDP], 2003). Countries made a commitment to the second MDG declaration that would make
“the benefits of new technologies [available], specifically information and communication”
(UNDP, 2005, p. 41). The 2015 Sustainable Development Goals (SGDs) (United Nations (UN),
2015), a set of international development goals that replaced the MGDs, will influence
international development until 2030, as well as the role and impact of ICTs in bridging
knowledge gaps. The proposed SDG 4 – “[to ensure] inclusive and equitable quality education
and promote life-long learning opportunities for all” (UN, 2016, p. 7) – calls for bold
technological breakthroughs in universal primary and secondary education (International
Telecommunication Union, 2016). Despite early challenges in setting up reliable infrastructure
and instilling technological literacy among users, many developing nations have come a long
way in successfully deploying technologies in local schools. A multitude of technology
implementation programs and initiatives have been deployed since the UN launched these
measures to make infrastructure and hardware available to people. Once access was established,
4
the conversation shifted from how people used their devices to how they interacted with
available learning software and applications to transform education.
Examining the early stages of technology adoption among teachers allowed for a better
understanding of factors that impeded or facilitated teachers’ decisions to incorporate technology
in their work. In response to early findings on teacher motivation, developing countries have
altered the way teachers’ approach ICTI. Evidence points to improved efforts to build teachers’
ICT capacities, increased access to hardware and software, and better-quality internet
connectivity in schools (Zhao, 2008). However, since many teachers in developing countries are
past the stage of initial motivation to use ICTI, this conversation must shift to address the issues
surrounding more sustained motivation to use ICTI. From a temporal perspective, William and
Burden’s (1997) distinction of motivation is useful in capturing this shift in analysis. They
propose examining the “successive stages of the motivational process along a continuum” –
including is necessary “not just from a theoretical perspective but also from a pedagogical
perspective” (as cited by Dörnyei & Ushioda, 2013, p. 61). These stages range from the initial
reason for doing an action, to deciding to pursue the action, and finally reaching a stage of
sustained motivation. However, Richardson and Watt (2010, p, 139) noted that “there has been
little inquiry into teacher motivation that has been systematic and theory-driven.” I attempt to
address this need to investigate teachers’ sustained motivation to continue integrating ICTs in
instruction.
1.2. Problem Statement
Compared to their rural counterparts, urban regions in developing countries have the
advantage of a more established technological infrastructure, better quality technical training and
the prioritization of including ICTs in school curriculum (Buabeng-Andoh, 2019; Halili &
5
Sulaiman, 2018; Wang, 2013). Consequently, the integration of ICTs in instruction is more
readily welcomed and positively regarded among urban schoolteachers in developing countries
(Munyengabe, Zhao, Haiyan, & Hitimana, 2017). The situation in Lima, Peru is comparable to
that of other Global South metropolises in South America. Following the widespread reliance on
hardware and software, many public schools have an established technology infrastructure, albeit
with a combination of modern and dated devices and moderately stable internet connectivity. To
date, educational initiatives have largely centered around technology deployment and
implementation and have made little progress on understanding the human interactions and
communication practices of school personnel. As Salas-Pilco (2014, p. 8) points out, it is
important not to “ignore the structures that impede the successful integration of these
technologies in the public-school system” due to the fast rate of innovation in technology. In
order to sustain the integration of technology, especially among teachers who are on the frontline
of educational transformations, it is essential to understand how to sustain their motivation to use
ICTs in instruction.
Hence, it is important to shift the focus in this direction because the long-term and
sustained impact of technology in education is dependent on understanding the people using
these technologies. Indeed, there are ample studies exploring different factors that influence
motivation of technology users. However, there is little research to suggest solutions in
motivating teachers that are grounded in communication practices and interactions. The problem,
then, is that insufficient attention is given to the role of communication behaviors in motivating
teachers to continue using ICT in lessons. This involves understanding contextual factors in
order to determine strategies that can be implemented toward institutional concerns about
6
technology-enabled instruction. Moreover, there is insufficient evidence in ICTE studies that
illustrate how an individual’s psychological well-being connects context and motivation.
Furthermore, unpacking the multi-faceted concept of motivation is crucial in examining
the most relevant aspects of motivation in ICTI integration. The specific problem, then, is that
sustained ICTI integration has generally been examined from a techno-deterministic perspective
that lacks focus regarding the context and the people involved. Existing research conversations
on sustained ICT integration tend to overlook ramifications of motivation. Hence, I contend that
meso-level contextual mechanisms and micro-level psychological mechanisms are key when
addressing the function of internal communication on teachers’ motivation to engage in sustained
technology integration.
A knowledge gap exists as to how internal communication practices are related to
technology use in schools. This involves facilitating dialogue the kay agents involved in the
implementation and integration of ICTI, namely, teachers and school leaders. The study suggests
that implementing effective internal communications strategies within the school will improve
teachers’ sustained motivation to practice ICTI. Determining these communication strategies
involves examining the relationships between school context and motivation as mediated by the
satisfaction of teachers’ psychological needs. The strategies will help inform future
implementation efforts so that communication and motivation are equally prioritized in ICTE
research and practice. This study aims to address these gaps in research.
1.3. Research Overview
I attempt to demonstrate that contextual factors, specifically those related to internal
communication within the school’s professional community, regulate teachers’ motivation to
7
integrate technology. I argue that this relationship is mediated by the extent to which their basic
psychological needs are satisfied. The objective of the study is twofold.
First, I study the structural relationships of two key contextual constructs of internal
communication, namely structured leadership and teacher collegiality, with teachers’ motivation
for sustained ICTI integration. This research uses self-determination theory to assess teachers’
motivation to integrate technology into their instruction, and how structured leadership and
teacher collegiality satisfy the basic psychological needs of teachers, in turn affecting their
motivation. Hence, I empirically demonstrate that satisfying teachers’ needs for competence,
autonomy and relatedness mediate the effects of structured leadership and teacher collegiality.
This in turn affects their motivation to perform (intrinsic and extrinsic motivation) and practice
(active use and student-centered behavior) technology-enabled instruction. The results highlight
on the quintessential role of internal communication constructs when trying to motivate teachers.
Second, guided by the study findings, I propose improved internal communication
strategies to link research to practice. I systematically investigate factors affecting ICTI
implementation and sustained integration of technology by teachers. There is limited focus in
extant studies that apply the findings to the real-world context. Instead, studies analyze the
situation in schools without extending their scope uncover relevant, contextual and practical
solutions that can be adopted by principals and teachers. I intend to fill this gap in praxis by
proposing practical strategies to enhance the internal communication practices in schools that
affect teacher motivation.
I use mixed methods, including self-administered surveys and focus group discussions
with teachers across seven schools in urban Peru, to gather and evaluate information related to
the school’s internal communication practices and teachers perceived psychological states. I
8
analyze the quantitative data to understand relationships between meso-level social factors and
micro-level individual factors affecting teacher motivation to use ICTs in instruction. I rely on
qualitative findings to interpret the survey findings, as well as to learn about the realities of
teachers experiences with their school leaders and peers. To bridge research findings and
practice, I focus on generating strategies that have potential practical value for institutions in
Peru, as well as a broader audience of researchers, government personnel and policymakers.
These strategies emphasize the importance of actively engaging school leaders and teachers in
open dialogue and encouraging increased peer-to-peer interactions to boost teachers’ motivation.
The proposed strategies are meant to foster a conducive organizational communication
environment through various measures, such as increasing the involvement of principals in ICTI
matters and encouraging peer-to-peer learning. With productive internal communication
strategies in place, urban schools in Peru will be better able to foster long-term use of ICTs in the
classroom. The findings from this study, along with the resultant strategies, could translate to
improved ICTI implementation approaches in other urban regions of Peru. It could also
potentially be relevant to other countries in the South American continent. By creating greater
awareness among scholars and practitioners, I hope to contribute to future efforts to create better
practices in ICT-enabled learning environments that bring forth positive educational
transformations.
9
1.4. Chapter Summaries
Chapter 1. The first chapter offers an executive summary highlighting the motivation behind
this research study. I also briefly present the research focus and outline the study objectives. In
this section, I present summaries of the succeeding six chapters. In addition to outlining the study
content and approach, the summaries serve to provide brief insights to findings and overarching
issues.
Chapter 2. In the second chapter, I justify the choice of Peru as a study context and the
implications it has in relation to other South American nations. I present the review of extant
literature on ICTI and elaborate on current perspectives on ICTI implementation and integration.
I introduce in detail the concept of internal communication and its relevance to school context in
ICTI implementation and subsequently to ICTI integration. I emphasize the importance of
internal communication, especially for motivation. I then review the concept of motivation and
its significance as a determinant of sustained ICTI efforts. I ground this study on motivation on
the theory of self-determination. Self-determination theory (SDT) is widely applied to explain
how and why human behaviors occur, as it is concerned with people’s motivation as shaped by
their surrounding environment. It is most relevant to this research because it provides a clear
structure to understanding the relationship between implementation and integration for
motivation. I explain the significance of SDT to this study by elaborating on its focus on context,
as well as the multi-dimensional perspective it presents to the study of motivation. The unique
aspect of SDT is its recognition of three universal basic psychological needs for competence,
autonomy and relatedness, and how satisfying these needs is detrimental to attaining a spectrum
of motivational outcomes. I elaborate on the specific aspects of motivation studied in this
research in the next chapter.
10
Chapter 3. In this chapter, I outline the research focus. I attempt to explain the role of internal
communication practices in motivating teachers to use information and communication
technologies in instruction. I illuminate this relationship through a twofold process to
demonstrate that motivation is fueled by social and psychological mechanisms. These encompass
meso-level factors within the school context, as well as micro-level psychological factors.
The first part of this process, the Implementation of ICTI, concerns institutional
communication practices that include peer-interactions among teachers and school leaders, and
the influence these practices have on individual-level needs satisfaction. I identify two contextual
factors relevant to internal communication, namely structured leadership and teacher collegiality.
The second part of this process, the Integration of ICTI, assesses the effects of
psychological mechanisms on motivation to perform and practice ICTI. These include the need
for competence, autonomy and relatedness.
In this study, I segment motivation as relating to two overarching outcomes; motivation
to perform and motivation to practice. Motivation to perform is derived from SDT. Intrinsic
motivation and extrinsic motivation present two ends of the motivation spectrum. According to
SDT, intrinsic motivation is related to the purely hedonic focus of pleasure-seeking or
engagement in an activity. On the other hand, extrinsic motivation is a non-internalized form of
motivation that occurs when individuals desire to gain approval and endorsement from others for
their choice of behaviors. I operationalize the second outcome of motivation as relating to
teachers’ motivation to practice, which can be classified into two different types of motivation:
the motivation to engage in use of ICTI, and the motivation to practice ICTI as a behavioral
outcome that also extends to their pedagogical approaches in classrooms.
11
The above sections lay the foundation for the chapter’s concluding section. I present two
research questions. The first investigates how internal communication practices in schools affect
teachers’ motivation to integrate ICTs in instruction. The second research question investigates
internal communication strategies that could improve teachers’ motivation for sustained ICTI
integration. Following this, I present the study hypotheses that examine the associations between
contextual factors of structured leadership and teacher collegiality in ICT implementation to
psychological factors of basic psychological needs for competence, autonomy, and relatedness in
computer-assisted instruction. The hypotheses proceed to question the mediating role of
psychological needs in influencing teachers’ intrinsic and extrinsic motivation to perform and
motivation to practice active usage and student-centered teaching behavior when integrating
ICTs in instruction. I present the hypothesized study model that captures the relationships of
these variables.
Chapter 4. The fourth chapter overviews methods. The sampling procedure, study context,
sample characteristics and study procedure are presented in detail. The measures used in this
study are presented with respect to variables related to ICT implementation and ICT integration.
Finally, the analytical procedure is presented.
Chapter 5. The fifth chapter details the results of hypotheses and research questions proposed in
chapter three. I present results of statistical analyses, including descriptive statistics, exploratory
factor analysis and reliability, correlations, and structural equation models. I explain the tests
conducted and the results yielded in greater detail in the following sections. In presenting
preliminary analyses of study constructs, I outline the frequency distributions, means and
standard deviations to provide an overview of study variables. This is followed by factor
loadings for the latent variables that resulted from the exploratory factor analysis. This
12
information clarifies how the various scales were evaluated to ensure that the most statistically
appropriate question or items were used in the analysis. Cronbach’s α (alpha) for internal
consistency was used for the reliability analyses. Pearson’s correlation was used in preliminary
analyses to test the strength of relationships between the latent variables.
In order to empirically answer the first research question of how internal communication
practices in schools affect teachers’ motivation to integrate ICTs in instruction, I present with
quantitative results from structural equation modelling (SEM). The leadership variable positively
influenced need for autonomy but had significantly negative association with relatedness.
Teacher collegiality variable significantly predicted all three needs dimensions. The competence
variable positively mediated the effects of collegiality on intrinsic motivation and active use,
while the autonomy variable positively mediated the effects of both internal communication
constructs on extrinsic motivation and the two constructs of motivation to practice, i.e. active use
and student-centered behavior. The relatedness variable negatively mediated the effects of both
internal communication constructs on active use while positively mediating their effects on
student-centered instructional behavior.
Chapter 6. In this chapter, I present the qualitative findings under two main sections. The first
involves findings related to internal communication practices specific to teacher collegiality, and
the second is specific to structured leadership. The qualitative findings give important clues on
how I can fit the relationships found in the quantitative results. The qualitative findings are also
important in yielding ideas and directions for internal communication strategies that will be
proposed in Chapter 7. The findings suggest that increased collegial practices can lead to
improved feelings of competence and relatedness among teachers. Teachers expressed interest in
learning from fellow peers through structured activities and training sessions. The findings
13
suggest that teachers’ perceptions of their peers, lab assistants and school leaders. The interviews
with teachers revealed that school leaders need to engage in more open dialogue with teachers in
order to avoid misunderstandings and increase their involvement in the schools’ ICT
implementation efforts to bring about positive impact to teachers’ integration experiences.
Chapter 7. In this chapter, I bring together the quantitative results and qualitative findings to
discuss areas where they contradicted and merged. The qualitative findings give important clues
on how I can fit the relationships found in quantitative results. Consequently, I will discuss the
quantitative results using in-depth interview data presented in the previous chapter.
Subsequently, I propose internal communication strategies that are informed by study findings
and generated by teachers themselves during the interviews. The strategies were generated as a
cumulative outcome from analyses of study findings along with the expertise of teachers.
The first recommends that schools support two-way communication to facilitate ongoing
dialogue among teachers. The second urges leaders to practice what they preach, and the third
proposes small group mentorships. Study limitations and directions for future research are also
discussed.
14
Chapter 2: Review of Literature and Theory
In the previous chapter, I outlined study motivation. A review of extant literature
suggests that organizational communication structures explain internal communication patterns
surrounding technology use in instruction. I intent to ascertain specific motivators that include
these organizational interactions.
In this chapter, I review extant literature on the impact technology on learning outcomes.
I establish that the focus should shift to communication practices within schools. This study asks
an unresolved question relating to teachers’ motivation to use technology for the purpose of
instruction in the context of Lima, Peru. I attempt to demonstrate that school context shapes the
individual psychological well-being, which in turn influences teachers’ sustained motivation to
integrate technology. Informed by the findings, I propose contextualized strategies for future
ICTI implementation initiatives. I propose internal communication strategies to improve
teachers’ motivation for sustained ICTI integration in Lima, Peru.
Additionally, I review the concept of internal communication practices and explain its
function in motivating teachers to use information and communication technologies in
instruction (ICTI). I explain the relevance of internal communications as it pertains to ICTs in
education. In doing so, I introduce the ICT implementation and implementation processes that
form the basis of my research arguments. The ICT implementation process is concerned with the
school context where communication practices between school leaders and teachers occur. I
emphasize the need to acknowledge that such practices underlying the school context should
consider end users’ needs. As for the ICT integration process, I explain that integration depends
teachers’ motivation. Drawing these arguments together, I introduce the theoretical framework
guiding this research. Self-determination theory examines motivation as occurring within an
15
ecological context and influenced by the extent to which basic psychological needs are satisfied.
This chapter serves to review these topics that will be explicated in greater detail in the next
chapter.
2.1. Implementation of ICTI in the Context of South America
Countries in the Global South had varied experiences when it came to introducing ICTs
in the educational (ICTE) domain. Some faced challenges in setting up basic infrastructure, such
as a scarcity of electricity, inadequate financial resources to provide training to teachers,
unreliable internet connectivity, and the inability to navigate content and applications that were
not in the local language (Zhao, 2008). Others faced problems such as the poor user attitudes
stemming from a fear of technology, troubles with hardware maintenance, insufficient qualified
personnel who failed to provide sufficient assistance, disproportionate distribution of devices,
and a general lack of interest among school administrators.
While initiatives for introducing technology in education were different in each region,
South American countries are a unique group that seem to experience similar conditions in their
efforts to introduce ICTs in public schools. When technology deployment was considered a
priority in the early 2000s, many South American governments invested millions of dollars to
bring computing devices to schools in rural and urban regions (Cristia, Ibarraran, Cueto,
Santiago, & Severin, 2017). Geographically, there are significant variations in the level of
technology deployment by regions. Urban schools have more access to computers and better
internet connectivity, while the level of ICT penetration is much lower in rural schools.
Consequently, majority of government initiated ICTE programs target schools in urban regions,
with a greater emphasis placed on nation capitals, such as Lima, Peru, Santiago, Chile, La Paz,
Brazil, etc. In these countries, an innovation classroom or ICT lab is set up in schools first. Once
16
schoolwide infrastructure is configured and devices are deployed, it is left to individual
institutions to determine how to best use the computers. Peru is among the few governments to
offer basic technological training to public school teachers, while others like Brazil left teachers
to develop skills on their own (Trucano, 2015). Pedagogically, there is little support offered
when developing ICT curricula. Teachers are expected to independently prepare lesson plans,
gather resources, create content and present instructional materials.
The earliest of these efforts was sparked by the One Laptop per Child (OLPC) initiative,
promising low-cost hardware to resource-strained learning environments. The largest OLPC
program to date was based in Peru. Despite the distribution of over 900,000 laptops in Peruvian
schools (Ames, 2015), multiple research studies on OLPC’s impact on learning outcomes was
inconclusive (Heeks, 2002, 2010; Kraemer, Dedrick, & Sharma, 2009). The programs’ premise
that children could teach themselves by simply having access to the device was irrelevant in the
classroom context, where the role of teachers was significantly dismissed. As a result, the
challenges faced by schoolteachers and students that threatened long-term adoption led to the
eventual program demise within five years (Trucano, 2012). Cristia and colleagues (2017)
criticize the program’s limited information on pedagogical integration and disregard the
facilitative role of teachers. Meanwhile, Therias, Bird and Marshall (2015, p. 448) pointed out
that while the devices distributed to students were innovative, there were issues with the
implementation strategy that schools adopted. Till today, boxes of unopened OLPC laptops can
be seen in schools that have since abandoned these devices for desktop computers.
Learning from the outcome of its OLPC initiative, the Peruvian government took
measures to equip teachers with technical knowledge and capacity via mandatory training
workshops. Other efforts by educational charities, such as Blue Sparrow, partnered with rural
17
schools to equip classrooms with refurbished desktop computers. Blue Sparrow’s strategy was to
involve local communities in presenting a contextualized implementation of their Conectados
(Connected) program. Therias and colleagues’ (2015) evaluation of the program suggests that
rural schools could more widely integrate computer-enabled learning across their curriculum, but
outcomes were inconclusive due to insufficient information.
Since 1996, a handful of small-scale ICT programs have been launched in urban regions
of Peru, mainly targeting secondary schools. It was not until 2001 that Peruvian education
departments initiated multiple ICT programs that aimed to bring learning technologies into rural
and urban schools (Salas-Pilco, 2014). One such program, the Huascaran Program (2001 to
2006), aimed to deploy hardware and basic software applications to select schools, along with
teacher training and internet connectivity. The program was the first to recognize a need for
trained lab assistants in schools’ ICT labs who were “trained in IT and pedagogy, [and]
responsible [for ensuring] the intensive and effective use of computer labs in all subject areas”
(Cristia, Czerwonko, & Garofalo, 2014, p. 4).
In the case of Brazil, the government invested millions of Reals into their early ICT
implementation efforts. Low technological literacy among teachers and students was a serious
challenge (Fidalgo-Neto, Tornaghi, Meirelles, & Berçot, 2009), yet there was insufficient
support in terms of building teachers’ ICT capacities. Souza and colleagues’ (2017) analysis of
ICTs in Brazilian schools from 2010 to 2014 found that few provided teachers with essential
technical training for the program, and even the teachers themselves raised concerns over a lack
of institutional support. Eight six percent of them maintained that institutions should prioritize
equipping them with the tools and resources to teach using technology.
18
Between 2012 and 2017, a partnership between a local non-governmental organization,
Fundação Lemann (Lemann Foundation) and an international non-profit educational
organization, Khan Academy, changed teachers’ experiences. The initiative was started to
address the lack of online educational content in Portuguese. It also offered training and support
for teachers to develop classroom content using these resources. The program leveraged on
social media platforms, such as Facebook, to provide “online communities of practice for
teachers to enable related peer support and guidance” (Trucano, 2015, p. 1). Another joint effort
between the Brazilian Ministry of Education and the UNESCO Institute for Information
Technologies in Education is the Criança Esperança Program. Although it focused making ICT
resources accessible to children and youth, the program also recognized the need to ensure that
teachers had the necessary skills to “to use ICTs in all aspects of their professional
practice through tools such as the ICT Competency Framework for Teachers” (UNESCO Office
in Brazil, 2017, p. 1).
However, it should be noted that majority of these initiatives in South America receive
little to no institutional support. Without understanding the realities and challenges of the school
context, many programs were not able to sustain the interest of teachers or garner the support of
school leaders. As Fraillon and colleagues (2014, p.180) suggest, “teachers use ICT more
frequently when their school culture supports technology in particular and innovation in
general.” These cases of ICT implementation efforts in South America point to two problems:
the lack of institutional support, and the lack of contextually relevant programs that fail to garner
the support of school leaders. Both these challenges could potentially negatively affect teacher
motivation to integrate ICTI into their lessons.
19
Educational programs across the continent often have external funding to provide schools
with additional hardware and software to aid teachers. In many cases, research interventions to
evaluate ICT impact on learning were criticized for displacing the hours allocated for traditional
classroom learning and devoting more time to ICT-enabled instruction to cater to their
experimental needs instead (Bulman & Fairlie, 2015). Yet, these evaluations are often draw on
the artificial settings of these interventions instead of organic classroom interactions. In the
absence of real-life constraints and challenges, these settings make it difficult to accurately relate
the findings to actual school practices. Consequently, in this paper I highlight that empirical
research should be grounded in contextualized settings that are close to schools’ original
routines. Studies often tend to focus on teachers alone without considering contextual factors that
could affect their motivation to adopt ICTs for instructional purposes. Such an approach is useful
to this research as I attempt to investigate issues surrounding the actual instructional practices of
teachers in Peruvian schools. Hence, the closer the research settings are to teachers’ realities, the
more they will be able to accurately reflect on their daily experiences, which would then lead to
the development of more relevant strategies and policy proposals.
Another common characteristic shared among South American ICTE efforts is the lack of
acknowledgment that teachers function as a product of their interactions with a wider
professional community. The presence of a strong professional collaborative culture is conducive
for change and innovation (Douglas & Megan, 2013). Hence, technology training should foster
teachers’ sense of agency by emphasizing collaboration among peers as a form of professional
development. With professional teaching communities where teachers are encouraged to
collaborate and create new technology-based materials, this could potentially lead to school-level
20
pedagogical reforms. One exception that embraced the potential of teacher collaboration is the
Plan Ceibal program in Uruguay.
Plan Ceibal is the Uruguayan program that aims to digitize education across the country
and provides digital technology access to over 700,000 students between the ages of 5 and 18,
and more than 40,000 teachers. It has also provided internet connectivity to 100% of primary
schools in Uruguay (Mateu, Cobo, & Moravec, 2018). When the program was piloted in 2007,
no teacher training took place. Even when there was training in place in 2008, it was “too
focused on how to use the machine itself, and not focused on how to use it in the learning
process” (Derndorfer, 2010, p. 1). It was not until 2009 that Plan Ceibal really took off among
teachers. A revamp championed the introduction of “Formadores” (teacher trainers), focusing on
the use of devices that were relevant to the school curriculum. Another radical redesign of the
teacher training program in 2010 incorporated “Maestros de Apoyo Ceibal” (Ceibal support
teachers) and “Amigo Ceibal” (Ceibal friend) to train and mentor colleagues (Hinostroza, Jara, &
Brun, 2011). The unique aspect of Amigo Ceibal is that it involves school leaders in selecting
and organizing the mentor-mentee teams. This ensured the presence of institutional support and
made school leaders commit to an initiatives’ success (Bianchi & Laborde, 2014). Both teacher
training programs leveraged on the knowledge and competencies of fellow teachers to foster a
school environment that encourages peer collaboration. Such approaches to building
communities of practice have the potential to meaningfully transform school systems and the use
of ICTI. However, this approach did not catch on beyond Uruguay. Many school leaders
perceive that ICTI integration among teachers is an individual effort and fail to recognize the
value of peer-to-peer learning to train and build capacities.
21
The Peruvian Context. Located on the western coast of South America, Peru is home to over 32
million people. Spanish, the most widely spoken language, is closely followed by Quechua and
over 47 other indigenous languages (Salas-Pilco, 2014). The Peruvian Ministry of Education
oversees over 6 million children under the public education system in more than 44,000 public
schools across rural and urban regions. According to the 2019 Human Development Reports
(UNDP, 2019), the Peruvian government spends about 3.9% of its GDP on education, where
95% of the teachers in Peru are “trained to teach”. Students in Peru spend an average of 9.2 years
in school, with a literacy rate of 94% for ages 15 and above. Notably, 74% of secondary schools
in Peru have access to the Internet. This information is retrieved from data released by the
UNESCO Institute of Statistics (2019b) reporting the percentage of secondary schools with
“access to the Internet for educational purposes” from the period of 2010 to 2018 across 82
countries worldwide. I analyzed the information and found that secondary schools in 31
countries have 100% access to the Internet. Of these, 16 countries are classified as developed
economies by the United Nations (2019). This indicates that almost 50% of these 31 countries
are developing economies that have invested substantially to offer full Internet access for
secondary school education. The only South American country in this group is Uruguay (100%).
The 21 countries that fall within the lowest quartile offer between 1% to 53% access. Paraguay
(22%) is the only developing South American country in this group. Peru is in the 37th percentile
position, with 74% of its secondary schools having internet access. It is worth noting that most
South American countries fall in the 50th percentile range alongside Peru, like Argentina (56%),
Brazil (69%), Ecuador (69%), and Colombia (70%).
The latest report from the UNESCO International Bureau of Education (2018, p. 31)
elaborates on a proposed curriculum plan developed in the Peruvian “Currículo Nacional de la
22
Educación Básica” (CNEB, National Curriculum for Basic Education). The Peru CNEB
envisions a curriculum where teachers adopt an approach that is “in line with the socio-
constructivist perspective of pedagogy”, where teachers are mentors and facilitators in classroom
learning. The plan encourages teachers to take learner-centered approach[es]” in traditional
classrooms, where “learners are encouraged to take initiatives and be active in their own
learning” (p. 35), thereby encouraging independent problem-solving, promoting teamwork and
triggering critical thinking. The emphasis for learner-centered instruction should extend to ICT-
enabled classrooms too. Evidence suggests that adopting a student-centered teaching model
strengthens student learning and improves their communicative skills in the ICT-enabled
classroom (Lu, Hou, & Huang, 2010; Zhao, 2008).
Plans to extend this instructional approach to ICTI are still in its nascent stages despite
popular claims that teachers should be facilitators in technology learning environments (Gill,
2017; Groff, 2013). Furthermore, scholars are increasingly suggesting that student-centered
instruction should be the next step in integrating technology in schools (Moeller & Reitzes, 2011,
Muianga, Klomsri, Tedre, & Mutimucuio, 2018). Hence, there is much relevance in exploring
teacher motivation to engage in student-centered instruction in ICT-enabled classrooms in
addition to the traditional settings proposed in the Peru CNEB.
2.2. Internal Communication Practices within the School Context
Educational institutions are organizations that engage in educational activities
(Shurygina, Aleshina, & Prokhorova, 2018). As with other organizations, communication is an
inherent component in the functioning of educational institutions or schools. Schools maintain
relationships with its internal (such as students, school leaders, administrative and non-
administrative staff, and teachers) and external (such as parents, ministerial bodies, media and
23
other stakeholders) groups using various formal and informal communication strategies (Mortan,
Veres, & Suciu, 2010). This study is interested in the internal communication from within the
school context, involving structures that govern interactions specifically among school leaders
and teachers.
Bovee and Thill (2000, p. 7) define internal communication as “the exchange of
information and ideas within an organization”. Internal communication is an important
organizational function that captures communication processes that take place at any given time
within an organization (Argenti, 2003; Bovee & Thill, 2000). Apart from being studied in the
organizational communication literature (Eisenberg & Goodall, 2004; Hargie & Tourish, 2002),
the topic is also widely researched by scholars of organizational psychology (Bakker, Albrecht,
& Leiter, 2011; Karanges, Beatson, Johnston, & Lings, 2014; Pugh & Dietz, 2008), corporate
communication (Mazzei, 2010; Mitrofan & Bulborea, 2013) and public relations (Cameron &
McCollum, 1993; Jo & Shim, 2005). It is widely recognized that internal communication
encourages a positive organizational culture by converging “corporate symmetrical
communication and responsive leadership communication” (Men & Yue, 2019, p. 1). These
structures governing interactions apply to vertical communication between school leaders and
teachers, as well as horizontal communication that involves peer-to-peer interactions among
teachers (Men & Bowen, 2017). These intra-organizational communication structures are
associated with the actual practices that members undertake (Verčič, Verčič, & Sriramesh, 2012).
These practices are concerned with knowledge sharing which “results in more effective work
practices, which in turn can also increase one’s motivational levels” (Kalla, 2005, p. 311).
When examined, the element of communication was often studied within the parameters
of teachers’ digital exchanges with staff, students and parents via e-mails, chat groups and web
24
pages (Blau & Hameiri, 2010). Beyond investigating the application of ICTs for carrying out
communication tasks, it is essential to probe the more practical communication dynamics within
a school context. As such, I investigate the internal communication structures that guide
interactions and pedagogical dialogue for the effective implementation of technology in schools.
Communication structures can be operationalized as the extent and ways in which ICTE-
related information is communicated, passed on and received by people in the school. Extant
research examines communication dynamics between teachers and students in ICT classrooms
(Judd, Kennedy, Cropper, & Cropper, 2010; Liang, Hsu, Huang, & Chin, 2012), but there exists
a gap in understanding how internal communication practices among schools’ professional
communities affect computer-assisted instruction, specifically between teachers and school
administrators, and among teachers.
Internal communication assesses practices that guide and support communication within
a context. Pelletier and Rocchi (2015, p. 110) describe contextual factors as “the structure of a
specific environment, like the educational environment (i.e., educational policies), as well as the
people within it (i.e., the colleagues, the principal, the administrators)”. Their explanation points
to two intertwined elements that make up a school context: rules and people. Rules could refer to
ICTI guidelines regarding the use of school’s computer and internet facilities, as well as
expectations on how teachers should use ICTI. People could refer to the actual end-users,
teachers, and how they interact, make decisions, and collaborate. I confine the focus to a schools’
professional community, comprising of people within the school context who’s interpersonal
behaviors may support or hinder teachers’ perceived needs of autonomy, competence, and
relatedness. Within the school context, principals are the primary leaders and policymakers,
backed by school administrators (UNESCO, 2011a) who manage and interact with teachers. The
25
power dynamics of these interactions are often top-down, while the configuration of power in
peer-to-peer interactions among teachers are considered horizontal. In line with this, this study
examines the first contextual variable as relating to school leadership and their structured
approach to communicating rules guiding ICTI. The second relates to teacher collegiality that
captures the collaborative interactions and their shared orientation using ICTI.
Typically, ICT policies are hierarchically instituted at the national, state, district, and
school levels (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD], 2018). This
study is concerned with the role of institutionally established guidelines for the implementation
of technology in teaching. Institutional policies “help schools and teachers to keep abreast of the
constant flow of technological novelty, and to manage the change and disruption that some new
tools may introduce” (OECD, 2015a, p. 50). Beyond providing direction, effective guidelines
“create a context that provides teachers with a supportive environment for integrating technology
in the classroom” (Gibson, 2009, p. 163). School context also consists of ways in which
members in a school associate with each other, often expressed by shared orientations and
collegial behaviors. Hence, internal communication practices within the school context can be
understood as a product of human interactions and institutional procedures. It is worth noting
that school context, as operationalized in this research, does not dismiss the significance of the
physical environment. Instead, school context recognizes that policies, norms and expectations
that govern relationships, behavior and beliefs, are reflective of the communicative practices
within the school.
2.3. ICTI Implementation and Integration Process
Early research on ICT in education distinguishes between computer-assisted (for
teaching) and computer-managed (for managing) instruction (Brock, 2001; Murphy &
26
Greenwood, 1998; Pelgrum & Plomp, 1993). This study looks specifically at computer-assisted
instruction. While computer-managed instruction is centered on more administrative uses such as
monitoring, keeping records and evaluating academic progress (Ghavifekr, Afshari, Siraj, &
Seger, 2013; Howard, Chan, Mozejko, & Caputi, 2015), here I focus solely on the
implementation and integration processes involved in computer-assisted instruction. In
computer-assisted instruction, teachers adopt a variety of teaching strategies (i.e. simulation, drill
and practice, tutorial, problem-solving) to deliver lessons using didactic or Socratic methods
(Bebell, Russell, & O’Dwyer, 2004). Teaching practices require the coordination of scaffolding
activities, often performed in a fair degree chronology (Darling-Hammond, Flook, Cook-Harvey,
Barron, & Osher, 2019). At the planning stage, teachers search for information using digital
applications or the Internet to plan and produce teaching materials (Sung, Chang, & Liu, 2016).
This is followed by actual instruction and evaluation in ICT classrooms. This research suggests
that ICT implementation strategies adopted by schools and teachers affect the integration of ICTs
in instruction.
The implementation process establishes that internal communication practices are
grounded within the school context. According to this process, leadership and teacher interaction
form the foundation of communication practices. Furthermore, the ICT implementation process
involves a consideration of end-user needs, in this case, teacher’ needs. The second section
reviews the ICT integration process. Evidence suggests that the integration of technology
continues to be a fundamental challenge in developing countries that struggle to offer clear
implementation solutions in teaching practices (Behar & Mishra, 2015; Ertmer & Ottenbreit-
Leftwich, 2010; Kopcha, 2012). Such trends may have unfavorable implications on sustained
ICTI integration (Albion, Tondeur, Forkosh-Baruch, & Peeraer, 2015; Georgsen & Zander,
27
2013). The objective to investigate the implementation and integration factors that affect
teachers’ motivation to use technology in instruction, rather than measuring the teaching-learning
outcomes of integrating technology. Hence, the ICT integration posits that the psychological
aspects of teachers’ needs is related to their motivation to continue and sustain the use of
technology in instruction.
2.3a. ICTI Implementation Process
The ICTI implementation process is concerned with the institutional communication
practices that include peer-interactions among teachers and school leaders, and the influence
these practices have on individual-level needs satisfaction. ICT implementation processes tend to
overlook structural issues within complex institutional environments (OECD, 2018; UNESCO
Institute for Statistics, 2016), and are often justified on the basis that technology deployment will
address prevailing challenges in the education systems (Bracey & Cluver, 2005; Derndorfer
2010). The problem, then, is not the focus on the technology itself, but rather the lack of
consideration of contextual factors when implementing ICTs in schools. As Tessmer and Richey
(1997, p. 88) state, “context is a medley of factors that inhibit or facilitate to varying degrees”.
Contextual factors in the ICTE setting can refer to national and institutional guidelines, policies
and rules for ICT use, as well as communication norms and activities within the school
community.
The implementation of ICTs in education can be represented at two distinct contextual
levels. The national level deals with the development of ICT policies related to the distribution of
financial resources and facilities across schools in a country, as well as the creation and
development of educational software systems and nationwide ICT curriculum (Loxley & Julien,
28
2004). However, this study is concerned with contextual factors in ICT implementation at the
school level where internal communication practices occur.
School context relates to the management of technological resources in schools. It also
considers the institutional policies formulated by the school management govern the quantity of
available ICT resources for teaching and learning, and guide the quality of pedagogical practices
(UNESCO, 2011a). In addition to school leaders, teachers are crucial within the school context
as they adopt these technological tools, while also influencing how colleagues in the school
community use computers and the internet in their day-to-day instructional practices (Buabeng-
Andoh, 2019; Yurdakul & Coklar, 2014).
With respect to teachers, another major contextual factor concerning implementation
process is the consideration of their end-user needs (Ottenbreit-Leftwich et al., 2010). Often, a
one-size-fits-all approach that prioritizes technology ignores the consideration for teachers’ end-
user needs in instruction (Carrasco & Torrecilla, 2012). While studies have found that an
understanding of user psychology – such as motivation to use ICTs and satisfaction of needs – is
linked to enhanced teaching practices that yield improved educational outcomes (Jamieson-
Proctor, Watson, Finger, Grimbeek, & Burnett, 2007; Mahdizadeh, Biemans, & Mulder, 2008),
there is a gap in extant literature that is concerned with the relationships between contextual
factors and user needs in the ICT implementation process.
I assess implementation efforts to understand internal communication practices that
connect school context and end-user needs. This encompasses the internal communications
practices within teachers and school management, and the functional policies, rules and
regulations surrounding ICT use. These elements shape the implementation process and are
influential in satisfying teachers’ needs. Therefore, the ICT implementation process involves the
29
capacities of teachers and key administrators in the school system, whose beliefs, policies and
practices shape the efficient use of ICTs within the school context. Nuances related to ICT usage
are captured in the integration process.
2.3b. ICTI Integration Process
ICTI integration – frequently referring to appropriating and teaching using computers and
the Internet for the purpose of supporting classroom instruction – is characterized as the
preparation and delivery of teaching materials using digital resources (Grassetti & Brookby,
2016; Inan & Lowther, 2010). As Hsu (2010, p. 177) explains, “the goal of ICT integration is to
plan and teach using technology properly, considering the curriculum, students, and technology,
and to improve student’s learning”. Extant research acknowledges that integration occurs along
different stages and phases of assimilation, transition and transformation (Chen, 2008; Kim,
Kim, Lee, Spector, & DeMeester, 2013). According to UNESCO (2011a) definitions, these
phases refer to the four stages of emerging, applying, infusing and transforming. While it is
important to recognize that ICT integration in classrooms is a complex process that takes time
(Inan & Lowther, 2010), evidence suggests that integration is not taking place in ways advocated
in the literature due to the lack of attention given to teachers (Albion et al., 2015; Judson, 2006;
Mumtaz, 2000).
Marcinkiewicz (1993) reported that in order to achieve ICT integration, the focus must be
on teachers and the factors that foster the usage of digital tools. He added that “full integration of
computers into the educational system is a distant goal unless there is reconciliation between
teachers and computers” (p. 234). Similarly, extant research establishes the centrality of teachers
as key agents in the integration of information technologies in educational practice (Acevedo,
2005; Ertmer, 2005; Voogt, Knezek, Cox, Knezek, & Brummelhuis, 2013). As Almerich and
30
colleagues (2016, p. 111) point out, the responsibility of integrating technology is “assumed
essentially by teachers”, without whom the “integration of technological resources would never
take place”.
However, past literature commonly identifies a number of key variables that are deemed
influential to teachers’ ICT integration, namely their demographic characteristics (Law & Chow,
2008), beliefs and attitudes about computers (Blau & Peled, 2012), ICT skills and knowledge
(Bingimlas, 2009), and technology availability and access to computing resources (Donnelly,
McGarr, & O’Reilly, 2011). More recently, studies examine personal and contextual factors,
namely communication and interaction within the school community (Almerich, Orellana,
Suarez-Rodriguez, & Diaz-Garcia, 2016; Eyal & Roth, 2011) and institutional support systems
(Cakir, 2012; Howard & Thompson, 2016). These factors influence how teachers integrate
technology. However, these integration variables have hitherto been examined in isolation from
others, with limited focus on how they are affected by teachers’ psychological factors and
internal communication practices pertinent to the implementation process.
Often, ICT implementation and integration processes are examined independently, with
little understanding about how they affect motivational outcomes. In this research, I draw
connections between implementation and integration processes by demonstrating that they
collectively shape teachers’ motivation to perform and practice ICTI. I explicate the ICT
implementation and integration processes and their relationships in greater detail in the following
chapter. I now present the theoretical underpinning of this research and elaborate on the
relevance of the theory in bringing together implementation and integration process, and to the
underlying objective to examining teacher motivation.
31
2.4. Review of Teacher Motivation
Extant research has largely focused on evaluating the impact of technology use on
student learning outcomes (Ale, Loh, & Chib, 2017; Chen, Lambert, & Guidry, 2010; Naik,
Chitre, Bhalla, & Rajan, 2020). These studies have examined the extent to which ICTs impact
short- and long-term educational goals, academic performances by subject matters, as well as
psychological outcomes related to technology use in classrooms. The conversations also looked
extensively at student motivation to engage in ICTs (Corbalan, Pass, & Cuypers, 2010; Hilty &
Hber, 2017; Liu & Chu, 2010; Tüzün, Yilmaz-Soyla, Karakuş, İnal, & Kızılkaya, 2009). Despite
a common focus on technology-enabled learning, considerable attention has been given to
teachers and technology-enabled instruction (Davies, Nyland, Bodily, Chapman, Jones, &
Young, 2016; Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010; Mumtaz, 2000). The discussions surrounding
teacher motivation have primarily been concerned with issues related to initiating motivation.
Early studies in teacher motivation (Barnett & McCormick, 2003; Butler, 2007; Gutterman,
Rahman, Supelano, Thies, & Yang, 2009) often maintain that “motivation is an important factor
influencing teachers’ uptake of ICT in their teaching” (Cox, Preston, & Cox, 1999, p. 1).
Additionally, a burgeoning area of research has examined the concept of teacher
motivation (Corkin, Ekmekci, & Parr, 2018; Hornstra, Mansfield, van der Veen, Peetsma, &
Volman, 2015; Richardson & Watt, 2010) as an outcome of individual and socio-contextual
triggers (Medalia & Saperstein, 2011; Olafsen, Deci, & Halvari, 2018; Urdan, 2001). Teacher
motivation often explores two overarching issues: initiating motivation and sustaining
motivation. The former is interested in the reasons why teachers choose to carry out an activity,
while the latter is concerned with why they persist in engaging in an activity (Williams &
Burden, 1997). One activity that is increasingly being included by teachers is the use of
32
information and communication technologies in instruction (ICTI). In today’s knowledge
society, it is widely recognized that technology has pervaded the field of education for the
benefit of student learning (Albrini, 2007; Gouseti, 2010; Livingstone, 2012). Consequently,
teachers are now at the forefront of executing technological tools in the classrooms. Previously,
they were only required to have mastery over traditional teaching methods, but in the past
decade, there is has been an increased expectation for teachers to be technologically trained. This
meant that teachers could carry out their administrative work and help integrate the use of these
learning devices in their instructional approaches.
2.5. Theoretical Approach: Self-Determination Theory (SDT)
The topic of self-determination gained popularity within education research in the late
1980s (Wehymer & Field, 2007). Since then, many studies have examined self-determination as
a development outcome in students with a range of learning needs and disabilities (Barrable &
Arvanitis, 2018; Hendry, Crocker, & Hodges, 2014; Raley, Shogren, & McDonald, 2018) and for
teachers’ professional growth (Jones, 2006; Sørebø, Halvari, Gulli, & Kristiansen, 2009; Tan,
Whipp, Gagné, & Van Quaquebeke, 2018). Self-determination refers to the acquired skill of
gaining independence to act freely according to one’s own intention without external
compulsion. Therefore, self-determination is “an approach to human motivation and personality”
(Ryan & Deci, 2000a, p. 68). Hence, the more self-determined a person is, the more motivated
the person feels. Motivation in this sense is understood as a person’s interest and willingness to
engage and persist in a task or behavior over an extended period (Schunk, Meece, & Pintrich,
2014).
A well-researched theory that captures the complex relationship between environment,
people and practice is self-determination theory (SDT) proposed by Deci and Ryan (1985, 2000).
33
SDT is widely applied to explain how and why human behaviors occur, as it is concerned with
people’s motivation as shaped by their surrounding environment. Lai (2011, p. 9) stated that self-
determination theory is relevant to answering the question, “Do I want to do this task and why?”
as it relates to the deemed value of engaging in a task. According to SDT, this value is shaped by
the complex relationship between environmental and personal factors (Deci, Koestner, & Ryan,
1999).
There are two main reasons why self-determination theory is the ideal theory to base this
research. The theory presents the attainment of motivation as determined by ecological factors
that influence psychological needs. I review the theory along this sequence. Firstly, this research
dwells on the role of institutional communication practices on teachers’ motivation. These
internal communication practices are embedded in meso-level ecological context of schools.
Secondly, this research draws attention to the importance of understanding micro-level needs of
teachers using ICTI. Self-determination theory allows for meso- and micro-level factors to be
analysed simultaneously to predict influence on an individual’s motivation. The theory
acknowledges that environmental factors influence a person’s motivational state, while
maintaining that this relationship is mediated by the individual’s psychological state. Therefore,
SDT stipulates that “if the context promotes the support of the three psychological needs,
individuals are more likely to experience need satisfaction” (Rocchi & Pelletier, 2017, p. 366)
and needs satisfaction leads to motivation to engage in an activity (Deci & Ryan, 1985).
2.5a. Self-Determination Theory and External Context
It is important to note that the interplay of technology use and motivation cannot be
studied through a techno-deterministic lenses. Researchers have established that there is a
complex relationship between environment, people and practice when it concerns
34
implementation and integration of ICTs. There is also evidence that intersections of these factors
are consequential to user experiences and psychology (Andoh-Baidoo, 2017). Researchers have
examined contextual elements such as gender, training and power-relations (Ng et al., 2012;
Waddell & Williamon, 2019) and found them to be instrumental in impacting how people
perceive their internal state (Ale et al., 2017; Thomaes, Sedikides, van den Bos, Hutteman, &
Reijntjes, 2017).
Self-determination theory recognizes that a person’s motivation is shaped by the
ecological context the person is in. The theory posits that motivational outcome is a product of
internal and environmental factors. As Wehmeyer and colleagues (2003, p. 27) explain:
“Self-determination does not lie ‘within a person’. It is the product of both the individual
and the environment… [in order] To fully understand the construct, one must therefore
understand not only how various personal characteristics influence self-determination,
but the manner in which the ecology influences its development and behavioural
manifestation”.
Contextual factors can include the structure of the organizational environment and the
people within it (Deci & Ryan, 1985). While it is more common to find studies focusing only on
the associations between needs constructs and motivational outcomes, some have considered
how contextual factors influence psychological needs and motivation. A recent study by Rocchi
and Pelletier (2017) provide evidence to illustrate the role of context as an antecedent of
coaches’ motivation and behaviors. They found that “coaching context supported or thwarted
their psychological needs, which positively or negatively predicted their autonomous and
controlled motivation” (p. 366). In the institutional context, there is sufficient evidence to
demonstrate that psychological needs constructs are dependent on contextually embedded factors
35
(Mausethagen & Mølstad, 2015), where teachers’ needs depend on various contextual conditions
such as school regulations (Hornstra et al., 2015), pressure from school administration and
colleagues (Reeve, 2009), learning abilities of students (Furtak & Kunter, 2012) and styles of
leadership (Eyal & Roth, 2011).
2.5b. Self-Determination Theory and Needs Satisfaction
Studies that have examined the role of user needs often overlook the multi-dimensional
characteristic of individual needs. Ryan and Deci (2000b) claim that individuals require support
of three basic psychological needs to attain motivational outcomes. Self-determination theory
categorizes an individual’s psychological needs into three specific dimensions: competence,
autonomy and relatedness. SDT links these psychological needs to an individual’s ability to be
motivated or self-determined to act, “in order to grow and to thrive emotionally, psychologically,
and interpersonally across [their] life span” (Lynch, 2013, p. 302). This premise has been
empirically established in numerous studies demonstrating that satisfying basic needs predicted a
variety of motivational outcomes (Katartzi & Vlachopoulos, 2011; Liu, Wang, Kee, Koh, Lim, &
Chua, 2014; Lohmann, Muula, Houlfort, & De Allegri, 2018). This also led to increased well-
being (Campbell et al., 2015; Church et al., 2013), political interest (Russo & Sattin, 2017),
engagement in video gaming (Rogers, 2017) and physical activity (Fenton, Duda, & Barrett,
2016), health behaviours (Ng et al., 2012), and volunteering (Haivas, Hofmans, & Pepermans,
2013).
As Wermke and colleagues (2018, p. 307) highlight,
“the teaching profession should be understood as a layered phenomenon
including the individual teacher as well as different groupings of teachers at the
school-level ... [D]ue to the complex nature of teachers’ work, including, for
36
example, pedagogical, social and administrative tasks, teachers should be
understood as operating in multiple areas.”
This argument is equally relevant in the analysis of teachers’ psychological needs.
Pelletier and Rocchi (2015) highlight that an environment that satisfies the three basic
psychological needs will foster improved motivation. In contrast, to “the extent that social
contexts do not allow satisfaction of the three basic psychological needs for competence,
relatedness, and autonomy, they will diminish motivation, impair the natural developmental
process, and lead to alienation and poorer performance” (Deci, Vallerand, Pelletier, & Ryan,
1991, p. 333). Teachers could experience varying degrees of needs satisfaction across different
aspects of their work. A lack of satisfaction in one area of their work does not translate to a
similar absence of needs fulfilment in another. It is important to note that this research focuses
on teachers’ needs satisfaction within the job scope of implementing technologies in instruction.
Teachers may experience fulfilment or satisfaction of certain needs in this task, but these
experiences may not translate to other parts of their work.
Self-determination theory posits that environmental or social context would affect the
extent to which psychological needs are met. Researchers demonstrated that social context, such
as the classroom environment, nurtures students’ basic psychological needs, which in turn is
found to positively student influence motivation and engagement (Deci & Ryan, 2002; Reeve,
2009; Stefanou, Perencevich, DiCintio, & Turner, 2004). Furthermore, Standage and colleagues
(2005, p. 411) found that students who perceived a “need-supporting environment experienced
greater levels of need satisfaction”. With reference to external variables, it is worth noting that
“from a theoretical perspective, a fundamental precept of Deci and Ryan’s theorizing is that the
psychological processes and constructs embraced by self-determination theory are universal to
37
all cultures, across gender, and throughout developmental periods” (Deci & Ryan, 2000; as cited
by Standage, Duda, & Ntoumanis, 2005, p. 416).
Need for Competence. According to the theory, the need for competence is satisfied when
individuals feel confident in their abilities to perform a behavior and believe that they are
competent in possessing the skillsets needed to achieve their goals. This involves possessing a
mastery of skills and knowledge needed succeed in a task. Having clear routines (Wichadee,
2014) and effective feedback systems (Trad, Katt, & Neville, 2014) are some strategies linked
with satisfying a need for competence.
Teachers’ ICT competency or capacity is found to be a major predictor of integrating ICT
in instruction (Buabeng-Andoh, 2012). Teachers who do not have confidence in their ability to
handle technology are found to be less willing (Mooij & Smeets, 2001) and less prepared (Inan
& Lowther, 2010) to use them in the classroom. Likewise, teachers competent in technological
resources are better able to introduce, modify and hone their educational practices (Ertmer,
Ottenbreit-Leftwich, Sadik, Sendurur, & Sendurur, 2012). Fundamentally, teachers’ sense of
competence in the uptake of new technologies in their classroom practice is largely dependent on
the extent of professional development activities that schools offer (Hennessy & London, 2013;
OECD, 2015b).
Studies that assess environmental context have been critiqued for an excessive focus on
autonomy with little attention paid to the satisfaction of competence (Ryan & Deci, 2000a). Yet,
this need for proficiency and sense of effectiveness has important behavioural implications
(Fischer, Malycha, & Schafmann, 2019).
Need for Autonomy. The need for autonomy is satisfied when individuals can act independently
and “implies the feeling of volition and choice rather than feeling pressured or coerced in one’s
38
actions” (Lynch, 2013, p. 302). The word autonomy “literally means ‘self-governing’ and
implies, therefore, the experience of regulation by the self” (Ryan and Deci, 2004, p. 451).
Researchers have found that the need for autonomy is satisfied through strategies such as
providing flexible behaviour options (Xie & Ke, 2011; Xie, 2013) and offering validation or
recognition for undertaking a challenging task (Chen & Jang, 2010; Shroff, Vogel, & Coombes,
2008). Research on the impact of teachers’ perceived sense of autonomy support on student
learning outcomes has gained prominence in recent years (Diseth, Breidablik, & Meland, 2018;
Wang, Liu, Ding, Xu, Liu, & Zhen, 2017). Yet, there is a need to better understanding impact of
teaching environment on teachers’ need for autonomy (Booth, Guinmard, & Lloyd, 2017).
In the institutional context, being supportive of teachers’ autonomy means giving
teachers agency in making their own choices without being pressured or controlled to conform to
any institutional agenda (Ryan, Deci, & Grolnick, 1995). Additionally, teachers’ perception of
autonomy is also positively associated with a school climate that is attentive to and interested in
their suggestions and perspectives (Parker, 2015).
Need for Relatedness. The need for relatedness is satisfied when individuals feel connected to
peers, or when individuals have significant others who engage in or support their behavioural
choices. The sense of belonging is associated with expressions of respect for peers, rather than
being disconnected with others. Research has found that the extent to which individuals receive
effective feedback (Kerssen-Griep & Witt, 2012; Witt & Kerssen-Griep, 2011) and the
immediacy with which their requests are fulfilled (King & Witt, 2009) are related to satisfaction
of the need for relatedness.
According to self-determination theory, relatedness can be described as “the need to feel
connected and accepted by salient or significant others” (Motl, 2007, p. 353). Additionally, the
39
need for relatedness involves having satisfying connections and interactions among fellow
teachers’ in the educational environment (Deci & Ryan, 2000). Nias, Southworth and Yeomans
(1989) note that teachers displaying relational behaviors spend time talking to one another about
personal and professional experiences.
2.5c. Self-Determination Theory and Motivation
Information technology research has “tended to overlook the centrality of teachers’
motivation as a critical determinant of teachers’ own experience” (Pelletier & Rocchi, 2015, p.
107). Motivation is highly valued and relevant to the real world because its consequences are
deemed “central and perennial ... for it is at the core of biological, cognitive, and social
regulation” (Ryan & Deci, 2000a, p. 69). It has long been the object of scientific inquiry that has
been measured in terms of cognitive (Barnett, 1995; Yeager et al., 2016), affective (Brady et al.,
2016), behavioral (Park, Gunderson, Tsukayama, Levine, & Beilock, 2016), and physiological
(Rocchi & Pelletier, 2017) response outcomes. Much of the longstanding studies on motivation
treat it as a single construct (Watt, 2006) that is driven by the pursuit of a single goal related to
either cognition or behavior.
Touré-Tillery and Fishbach (2014) argue that more than one dimension of motivation can
be studied in combination provided that the assessed outcomes are focused on a single goal.
They propose an approach to distinguish between two dimensions of motivation; process-
focused motivation and outcome-focused motivation. Process-focused motivation is concerned
with the cognitive dimension of motivation and relates to the feelings and beliefs associated with
performing an activity. This type of motivation hinges on the value that people place on an
activity, often either internally or externally inspired (Ryan & Deci, 2000b). Traditionally,
researchers use behavior to infer motivation (Hamilton, Way, & Chen, 2009; Paul, 1992;
40
Willingham, 2007) and “capture the strength of motivation by the extent to which one’s actions
are consistent with a focal goal” (Touré-Tillery & Fishbach, 2014, p. 332). The second
dimension of motivation, outcome-focused motivation, is concerned with getting things done, or
judgements that emphasize outcomes. It relates to the actions or practices associated with doing
an activity.
A tenet of self-determination theory is that motivation is not a unidimensional concept.
The theory posits that there are six types of motivation that can be broadly categorised into the
following types: amotivation, intrinsic motivation, and extrinsic motivation. An individual’s
absolute lack of intention to act is captured in one end of the spectrum as amotivation, which is
often due to a perceived lack of usefulness or value in engaging in an activity that one deems
fruitless. While studies have examined amotivation as a predictor of negative attitudes (Tanaka,
2013), anxiety (Ersoz, 2016) and physical activity (Gunnell & Gaudreau, 2015), it is not
pertinent to the scope this study. Instead, I elaborate on the intrinsic and extrinsic motivational
aspects of SDT.
On the opposite end of the spectrum is intrinsic motivation. An intrinsically motivated
individual engages in a behavior simply for the inherent interest or enjoyment gained from it.
Although the ideal scenario is one where teachers engage in the integration of technology
because they are inherently motivated, this is seldom the case (Education Review Office, 2012;
Egbert & Thomas, 2001). This is not because of a conclusive lack of interest, but because of the
reality that many factors continue to challenge technology integration in school. This does not
mean that intrinsic motivation cannot be attained. Instead, it is essential to tease out the
environmental and psychological factors that improve motivation.
41
A large body of research shows that intrinsically motivated people perform work-related
tasks with greater efficiency (Gagné & Deci, 2005; Grag & Rastogi, 2006), and sustain long-
term behavioral changes (Teixeira, Carraça, Markland, Silvia, & Ryan, 2012). Early studies that
examined the role of intrinsic motivation in the adoption of computers and the internet (Atkinson
& Kydd, 1997; Davis, Bagozzi, & Warshaw, 1992; Teo, Lim, & Lai, 1999) reveal that
intrinsically motivated teachers engage in computer-assisted instruction for their inherent interest
and the value they see in it. Relevant to this study, Sørebø and colleagues (2009) demonstrate
that the fulfillment of teachers’ basic psychological needs is directly linked to increased intrinsic
motivation to utilize e-learning.
There are four forms of extrinsic motivation that could also lead to self-determination.
External regulation refers to the motivation to engage in an activity for the external rewards and
punishments it entails. Introjection is the motivation to act in order to avoid feelings of guilt and
anxiety. Identification is motivation that is sparked by the realization that an action bears a
degree of personal importance and worth. The most self-determined form of extrinsic motivation
is integration, or the motivation to engage in a behaviour. As Jocobi (2018, p. 60) summarizes,
“when the behaver acts as a result of internalizing the reasons for the action and assimilating
them into sense of self, then the actions have become ‘self-determined’ and the behaver
has reached integration”. Of the four levels of extrinsic motivation, it is at the level of integration
that teachers will find ICTI more meaningful, and therefore would be more likely to engage in
sustained integration (Ryan & Deci, 2000b).
While most studies consider intrinsic motivation as a more desirable outcome, it is
important to recognize the merits of externally inspired motivation, especially given the reality
that people cannot always be inherently motivated. There is evidence that shows extrinsic
42
motivation can lead to synergistic outcomes (Amabile & Pratt, 2016). Furthermore, achieving
this state of performing an action simply for the joy attained from it takes time to nurture (Lai,
2011). Extrinsically motivated individuals are said to internalize the reasons for motivation,
which could be just as positive as intrinsic motivation. Internalization is defined “as the process
of taking in values, beliefs, or behavioral regulations from external sources and transforming
them into one’s own” (Ryan and Deci, 2017, p. 182), and draws heavily on elements in the
environmental context.
As highlighted in the ICT implementation process, SDT brings together internal
communication practices related to external school context and an examination of the
psychological needs of teachers. The theory connects implementation with integration process by
relating to the mediating effect of needs satisfaction on teachers’ motivation to use ICTI. In the
next chapter I detail these relationships, introduce the study variables, outline a clear research
focus, present the research questions and hypotheses and unveil the hypothesized structural
regression model.
43
Chapter 3: Detailed Research Focus
In this chapter, I explicate the role of internal communication practices in motivating
teachers to use information and communication technologies in instruction (ICTI). I study
internal communication practices to understand organizational routines and communication
patterns and problems, rules governing interactions, and the circumstances that shape the
emotional conditions of people who use internet-enabled computers in their work. Hence, I refer
to internal communication patterns that specifically concern the use of technology in instruction
between school leaders and teachers. I intend to gain deeper insights on the social systems that
facilitate and/or impede technology implementation in schools, and to understand the influence
that users’ psychological states have on their sustained interest to utilize technology.
I illuminate this relationship through a twofold process to demonstrate that motivation is
fuelled by social and psychological mechanisms. These encompass meso-level factors within the
school context, as well as micro-level psychological factors. The first part of this process, the
Implementation of ICTI, concerns institutional communication practices that include peer-
interactions among teachers and school leaders. It also includes the influence these practices
have on individual-level needs satisfaction. The second part of this process, the Integration of
ICTI, assesses psychological mechanisms on motivation to perform and practice ICTI.
I lay out specific study variables in accordance to the processes of ICT implementation
and integration to answer two research questions.
RQ1: How do internal communication practices in schools affect teachers’ motivation to
integrate ICTs in instruction?
RQ2: What internal communication strategies can be adopted to improve teachers’
motivation for sustained ICTI integration?
44
I explicate the ICT implementation process. This process involves meso-level contextual
structures, namely structured leadership and teacher collegiality, and micro-level psychological
structures, namely the needs of competence, autonomy and relatedness. I explicate the ICT
integration process. This process involves two categories of motivational outcomes. The first
category is teachers’ motivation to perform, or their intrinsic and extrinsic motivation to integrate
ICTI. The second category is teachers’ motivation to practice, or their willingness to engage in
active ICT use and to undertake student-centered instructional behaviors. Both categories are
concerned with teachers’ sustained motivation to integrate ICTI. Finally, I present the research
questions, hypotheses, and study model with proposed causal chains.
I contend that, in the educational context, the internal communication practices
undertaken by school leaders and teachers shape the implementation and integration of ICTs in
instruction. The existing research suggests that implementation and integration processes lead to
teachers’ sustained motivation, while the review of the theoretical approach provides clarity on
the function of these processes in achieving motivational outcomes. In the following sections, I
explain the ICT implementation and integration processes and introduce the theoretical
framework guiding this research.
3.1. ICTI Implementation Process
I outline two organizational structures of internal communication affecting ICT
implementation that are studied in this research: structured leadership and teacher collegiality. I
introduce the three psychological needs variables that are theorized to be directly influenced by
school context.
45
3.1a. School Context
Structured Leadership. The United States Department of Education (2016, p.5) emphasizes
that systemic changes in instruction materialize best when school leaders share a vision for
technology implementation that takes users’ needs into consideration, and “develop a plan that
translates the vision into action”. For this to happen, school leaders need to convey their
intentions and visions in a structured manner. Further stressing the role of school leaders in ICTI
implementation, Cakir (2012, p. 275) notes that school leaders are “responsible for prioritizing
the use of new technologies in the schools” and “ensuring that computer teachers are provided
with the support they require”. Structured leadership refers to how well leaders are perceived to
provide structured guidance and instructions to teachers. This involves receiving clear
instructions on how to use computers and the Internet for teaching purposes, as well as being
adequately informed about leaders’ expectations of teachers in the implementation process.
Structured leadership requires a well-defined set of implementation objectives that are
communicated to teachers, in addition to aiding in the clear scheduling of ICT lab usage.
Principals, therefore, shape the communication space that guides and supports, while creating
opportunities for teachers to engage with technology, and are paramount in determining how
teachers use ICTs in instruction (Fernet, Guay, Senecal, & Austin, 2012).
Studies show that there is a positive association between structured leadership of school
principals and self-determined teachers (Eyal & Roth, 2011; Nie et al, 2014). Structured
leadership with respect to implementing ICTs in instruction, can take the form of administrative
and technical support (Inan & Lowther, 2010). Teachers perceive administrative support as
originating directly from the school administrators and leadership. This includes the pressure to
conform to computer-assisted teaching practices, and imposing time and access constraints to
46
using available ICT resources. For example, Pelletier and colleague (2015) reveal that teachers’
self-determined motivation for teaching mediates the relationship between administrative support
in schools and teachers’ autonomy-supportive behaviors. Technical support is concerned with
teachers’ perception of adequacy of technological resources, such as digital hardware and
software and the strength of the internet connectivity, and the extent of technical assistance
present. Moreover, structured leadership practices have been found to impact teachers’ need for
autonomy and subsequent sense of motivation (Sheldon, Turban, Brown, Barrick, & Judge,
2003).
Teacher Collegiality. Collaboration is an expression of collegiality (Little, 1999). Previous
research shows that collegial practices can have positive impact on teachers (Blau & Shamir-
Inbal, 2017; Schwarzer & Greenglass, 1999). Teacher collegiality can be understood as the
“existence of coordinated practices among teachers in the same school” (OECD, 2015a, p. 70) in
the presence of “peer dialogue and peer experience” (Behar & Mishra, 2015, p. 76). Voogt el al.
(2013) reveal that teachers who engage in collaborative work, such as consulting with fellow
teachers and jointly planning lesson materials for instruction, gain greater knowledge and
expertise relevant to their teaching practices. Collegial teaching environments is crucial in
developing teachers’ ICT competencies (Nayar, 2012) and computer self-efficacy (Torkzadeh,
Koufteros, & Pflughoeft, 2003). Collegial environments also foster “better working relationships,
which in the longer term may improve the quality of teaching and learning” (Jarzabkowski,
2002, p. 1).
Digital connectivity offers teachers a platform to connect with greater frequency and to
perform administrative duties with improved coordination, as well as complementing face-to-
face meetings in schools (Hauge & Norenes, 2014). Moreover, educators who take advantage of
47
technology can jointly plan to enhance their teaching. (Hennessy, Deaney, & Ruthven, 2005).
Therefore, effective instructors who craft collaborative opportunities can experience improved
social support in computer-assisted instruction (Klopfer, Osterweil, Groff, & Haas, 2009).
Kolleck (2019, p. 2) noted that schools that encouraged a collaborative culture demonstrated
positive influence on teacher motivation.
Mora-Ruano and colleagues (2018) found that engaging in collegial relationships is
dependent of “personal attributes such as age (i.e., older teachers tend to collaborate to a lesser
degree than their younger colleagues), gender (i.e., female teachers are more likely to collaborate
than male teachers), and experience (i.e., teacher collaboration is higher among novice teachers)”
(as cited by Kolleck, 2019, p. 4). Hence, I operationalize teacher collegiality as the collaborative
undertaking of teachers as they navigate the possibilities that technology offers in instruction.
This includes working together to assess existing methods of using ICTI, as well as reaching out
to peers for informational support. Collegial relations also include teachers’ orientation toward
their school’s common goal to implement technology. Their shared perceptions of the value of
ICTs as well as their beliefs about the collective support that they receive from peers are
encompassed in the measure for collegial relations.
3.1b. Basic Psychological Needs
The psychological dimension of needs satisfaction, as proposed in self-determination
theory, is a multi-dimensional construct that mediate the effects of ecological contexts on
motivation.
Satisfaction of Teachers’ Need for Competence. In the context of computers and education,
the need for competence (as perceived by teachers) can be operationalized as the need to acquire
functional and technical skills necessary to engage in ICT use (Cullen & Greene, 2011). A key
48
determinant of competence is access (UNESCO, 2011b). In addition to serving as educational
resources, technology access in school is crucial for teachers to develop their ICT competences
(Guzman & Nussbaum, 2009). Teachers who have access to information technologies in schools
can use available computer programs and retrieve online information to help them prepare
teaching materials for instruction. With greater access, teachers may be able to better acquaint
themselves with computer software and applications, search for new resources and build
confidence in using ICTs (Prestridge, 2012) as they access these educational devices individually
or together with colleagues (Somekh, 2008).
Satisfaction of Teachers’ Need for Autonomy. Autonomy is described as the desire to take
charge or be in control of a situation, whereby one can freely make choices about one’s actions
and decisions (Wong & Liu, 2008). In school settings, “autonomy provides teachers with choices
to adopt, adapt, or reject an instructional reform” (Dexter, Anderson, & Becker, 1999, p. 224).
Autonomous teachers engage in an activity voluntarily without external pressure to do so. Nuñez
and León (2015, p. 275) elaborate that “social environments that support autonomy provide
meaningful rationale, acknowledge negative feelings, use noncontrolling language, offer
meaningful choices, and nurture internal motivational resources.”
Satisfaction of Teachers’ Need for Relatedness. Relatedness pertains to an individual’s sense
of social engagement and degree to which one feels they belong to a certain community. It is
often linked to the shared feelings of closeness from being able to relate to one another (Niemiec
& Ryan, 2009). Teachers reinforce a sense of camaraderie via interactions that create shared
meanings about their attitudes, values and beliefs (Awan, 2015). I examine relatedness within the
context of computer-assisted instruction.
49
3.2. ICTI Integration Process
ICTI integration assesses psychological mechanisms motivation to perform and practice
ICTI. I seek to gain a holistic understanding of the meso- and micro-level factors that that affect
this goal. In doing so, I examine the cognitive dimensions and behavioral dimensions of
motivation. Formed on this categorization, I study two cognitive dimensions of motivation that
are connected directly to self-determination theory. Frist, I examine teachers’ intrinsic and
extrinsic motivation to perform ICT integration. Second, I examine teachers’ motivation to
practice active use of ICTs in instruction and engage in student-centered teaching behaviors.
Self-determination theory captures motivation as relating to a move to perform a certain
task. I find this theory limiting because the act of integrating technology in instruction involves a
push to perform, and a thrust to practice a behaviour on nearly a daily basis. Teachers need to be
moved to engage actively in their technology-enabled classes. They also need to be continuously
interested in this pedagogy, and care about how they teach. Therefore, in addition to focusing on
teachers’ internal and external motivation to perform ICTI, it is important to understand their
intentions for continued practice. Thus, I contend that sustained ICTI integration would involve
the advancement of pedagogical approach; one that moves forward from a teacher-centered
practice to a motivation to engage in student-centered teaching behaviors. Hence, I study two
behavioral dimensions of motivation that are derived from literature on ICTI.
3.2a. Motivation to Perform
Intrinsic Motivation to Use ICTs in Instruction. Intrinsically motivated individuals feel an
innate sense of satisfaction from willingly engaging in a behavior for the purpose of learning,
accomplishment and stimulation (Li, 1999), regardless of the tangible rewards associated with an
action. Hence, it is associated with increased interest and enjoyment in performing an activity
50
(Ryan & Deci, 2000b). I investigate the role of intrinsic motivation in ICT use in line with
findings from Wang and colleagues (2019), which demonstrate that the fulfillment of the needs
for teachers’ perceptions of their competence, autonomy and relatedness is positively associated
with an enhanced sense of intrinsic motivation.
Extrinsic Motivation to Use ICTs in Instruction. ICTI integration is still in its early stages.
Therefore, it is relevant and timely to examine the integration of ICTs in education as being
externally regulated. People who are extrinsically motivated are often inspired by the
demonstration of tangible and intangible external rewards, such as recognition, praise, and salary
increase (Deci, 1975). Extrinsic motivation can be prompted by positive reinforcers such as
rewards, and negative reinforcers such as consequences. For instance, punishment is a type of
negative reinforcer that decreases the probability of an individual undertaking an action. In other
words, extrinsically motivated people perform actions because “the behaviors are prompted,
modeled, or valued by significant others to whom they feel (or want to feel) attached or related”
(Ryan & Deci, 2018, p. 182). Since this study is interested specifically in examining factors that
increase the probability of individual integrating technology, I limit the scope to only positively
reinforced extrinsic motivation.
3.2b. Motivation to Practice
Active Use of ICTs in Instruction. Studies show that teachers who are more familiar with
integrating technology in instruction spend less time using computers for lesson preparation
(OECD, 2015a). However, this finding does not necessarily coincide with actual classroom
instruction. In other words, quality of lessons may not coincide with quantity of technology use
in teaching. Due to the inherent difficulty in measuring instructional quality (Jamieson-Proctor et
51
al., 2007; Tondeur, van Braak, Ertmer, & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2015), the degree of ICT
integration is measured by the intensity with which teachers use instructional technology.
There are several ways to approach intensity of ICT use. While some scholars have noted
that there is “…no clear and commonly admitted definition of ICT measurement of use and
intensity” (Aoun & Dubrocard, 2012, p. 332), others have attempted to operationalize this
outcome variable in several ways. Aoun and Dubrocard proposed a dual approach to measuring
intensity – first by summing the number of available equipment to appraise the extent to which
an organization is “intensively equipped for ICT”, and second by creating an aggregate score of
the reasons for which users use ICTs. Hadhri and colleagues (2012) adopted a more commonly
used assessment of usage intensity that is based on frequency of access, while OECD (2016a)
evaluated intensity of use by the extent to which users used ICTs. Biagi and Loi’s (2013)
approach to evaluating intensity of use combined information on the number of basic ICT
activities performed and the related frequency of use.
The presence of such varying approaches suggests that the term ‘intensity of ICT use’ is
tantamount to the term ‘amount of ICT use’. As opposed to the typically understood meaning of
the word ‘intensity’ – which signifies a degree of strength or concentration – the term in this
study is taken to capture the extent of ICT use by teachers in the integration process. As such, I
operationalize intensity of use as a combination of information on number of technological
equipment, access to computers, frequency and extent of ICT use, or purpose of usage (Biagi &
Loi, 2013).
Student-centered Teaching Behavior in ICT-enabled Instruction. Technology-enabled
instruction can support a move from traditional ‘teacher-centric’ teaching behavior to more
‘learner-centric’ instructional approaches (Trucano, 2005). This is reflected in the infoDev report
52
(2010, p. 2) which states that “appropriate use of ICT can catalyze the paradigmatic shift from
teacher-centered pedagogy to a more effective learner-centered pedagogy.” The Programme for
International Student Assessment (PISA) (OECD, 2014) reports that teachers in many
developing countries continue to integrate information technology in lessons using teacher-
centered approaches to learning, as opposed to student-centered ones. In this approach, lessons
are typically associated with traditional instruction where teachers lead, and students follow. This
could range from demonstrating learning activities on computers, to browsing, downloading and
presenting subject-related materials from the Internet.
The focus on ‘autonomy support’ that calls attention to the actions of teachers in ICT
classrooms is central to self-determination theory (SDT). Within SDT, autonomy support is a
student-centered instruction that refers to what one person says and does to enhance another
person’s subjective experience of autonomy (Reeve, Jang, Carrell, Jeon, & Barch, 2004). As it
relates to teachers, it involves shifting from traditional modes of teaching such as lecturing and
telling (“sage on the stage”) to facilitating and guiding (“guide on the side”). Student-centered
teaching can be defined as the “degree to which teachers acknowledge the perspective of
students when interacting with them and encourage their proactive participation in learning
activities” (Graça, Calheiros, & Barata, 2013, p. 1067), without using coercive or controlling
strategies (Reeve et al., 2004). The overarching principle of autonomy support is to help students
‘learn how to learn’.
Stefanou and colleagues (2004) found that teachers who exhibited behaviors that
encouraged students’ involvement in classrooms supported the acquisition of skills and
knowledge. Thus, qualities of student-centered teaching practice include the tendency to be easy
going upon provision of direct instructions, providing choices in computer activities, promoting
53
the relevance of an activity to students’ learning tasks, and encouraging independent learning
(Grolnick, Deci, & Ryan, 1997; Koh & Frick, 2010). Beyond a proven association with the need
for autonomy, this study investigates how needs for teachers’ perceptions of relatedness and
competence inform their student-centered practices in the ICT integration process. In this study, I
operationalize student-centered teaching behavior as an instructional practice and seek to
understand how teachers can be motivated to practice this behavior when integrating technology.
3.3. Research Focus and Hypotheses
Internal communication assesses promoting effective communication among people
within an organization. This involves understanding contextual factors in order to determine
strategies that can be implemented toward concerns of an organization. Addressing internal
communication related to technology use in the schools of Lima, Peru involves facilitating
dialogue among teachers and school leaders who are the key agents involved in the
implementation and integration of ICTI.
Despite widespread research on the potential of ICTs to influence pedagogy, few studies
have rigorously examined the institutional systems that influence computer-enabled instruction.
Though previous research in developing countries has led to ambivalent conclusions on the
impact of technology as a learning tool, shifting the focus to communication practices of teachers
and principals can be potentially more important due to an overall lack of attention on the effects
of leadership and peer-interactions on teachers’ motivation to engage in computer-enabled
instruction. Additionally, since broader literature on ICTs in education typically examines the
impact of computer access on student-learning outcomes, it is not yet clearly understood how
teachers experience schoolwide implementation efforts and the role of internal communication in
guiding integration behaviours, and ultimately teachers’ motivation to sustain the use of
technology in instruction.
54
Through this study, I aim to deepen understanding of the role of internal communication
practices in influencing teachers’ motivation to sustain the use of ICTs in instruction (ICTI). The
study suggests that implementing effective internal communications strategies within the school
will positively impact teachers’ motivation to practice and perform ICTI efforts. Determining
these communication strategies involves examining the relationships between school context and
motivation as mediated by the satisfaction of teachers’ psychological needs. I attempt to
empirically examine the institutional systems that affect how teachers experience schoolwide
implementation efforts. This involves investigating the relationships between contextual
mechanisms of leadership and peer-interactions, as well as psychological mechanisms of needs
satisfaction and motivation.
Using self-determination theory, I demonstrate that school context influences the
satisfaction of teachers’ psychological needs for competence, autonomy and relatedness, which
in turn influences their motivation to use of ICTI and engage in student-centred behaviours.
Additionally, teachers must be intrinsically and extrinsically motivated to perform. I propose
contextualized strategies for future ICTI implementation initiatives according to data gathered
through surveys and interviews. These internal communication strategies can be adopted to
improve teachers’ motivation for sustained ICTI integration in Lima, Peru.
The study explores two research questions. The first examines the relationships between
internal communication practices in schools and teachers’ motivation to integrate ICTs in
instruction. It argues that internal communication practices shape how leaders lead and teachers
interact with peers in the ICTI implementation phase. These interactions affect how teachers
integrate technology because it influences teachers’ motivation to actively use ICTI and to
engage in student-centred behaviours. This is in addition to influencing teachers’ intrinsic and
55
extrinsic motivation to perform. I assess teachers’ motivation to integrate technology into their
instruction, and how structured leadership and teacher collegiality satisfy the basic psychological
needs of teachers, in turn affecting their motivation. Hence, the study illustrates the role of
internal communication practices in influencing teachers’ motivation when mediated by the
satisfaction for their needs for competence, autonomy and relatedness. The findings suggest
internal communication strategies that could improve teachers’ motivation for sustained ICTI
integration
The logic provided by literature and self-determination theory guide the hypothesized
research model (refer to Figure1). The model begins with paths specific to the ICT
implementation process; from the two aspects of social context to the three dimensions of needs
satisfaction: (a) positive predicted paths from structured leadership to competence, autonomy,
and relatedness, and (b) positive predicted paths from teacher collegiality to competence,
autonomy, and relatedness. The model concludes with paths specific to the ICT integration
process; capturing the associations between the satisfaction of basic needs to motivational
outcomes: (c) positive predicted paths to motivation to perform intrinsic motivation and extrinsic
motivation, and (d) positive predicted paths to motivation to practice active ICT use and student-
centered teaching behavior.
Hence, the study suggests the following hypothesized relations in response to the
research questions.
H1: Structured leadership in ICT implementation positively influences the satisfaction of
teachers’ basic psychological needs for (a) competence, (b) autonomy, and (c) relatedness
in computer-assisted instruction.
56
H2: Teacher collegiality in ICT implementation positively influences the satisfaction of
teachers’ basic psychological needs for (a) competence, (b) autonomy, and (c) relatedness
in computer-assisted instruction.
H3: Satisfaction of teachers’ basic psychological needs for (a) competence, (b) autonomy,
and (c) relatedness positively influence their (1) intrinsic and (2) extrinsic motivation to
perform when integrating ICTs in instruction.
H4: Satisfaction of teachers’ basic psychological needs for (a) competence, (b) autonomy,
and (c) relatedness positively influence their motivation to practice (3) active usage and
(4) student-centered teaching behavior when integrating ICTs in instruction.
57
Figure 1 Hypothesized Research Model
58
Chapter 4: Method
Data was collected during fieldwork from November 2015 to December 2015 in
government-run secondary schools in urban Lima and Callao, Peru. Teachers are the unit of
analysis for this study. I collected quantitative data using cross-sectional survey questionnaires
and qualitative data from focus group discussions. Respondents were Peruvian teachers who
teach secondary levels one to five. The survey questionnaire gathered information on teachers’
perceptions of school context, satisfaction of needs and motivation. Focus group discussions
yielded insights on teachers’ perceptions of school leaders and their relationships with peers.
In this chapter, I provide an overview of ICTI implementation efforts in the Peruvian
context. I elaborate on my observations during meetings with school leaders and ICT lab
assistants on schoolwide technology initiatives. I report the sample characteristics of survey
respondents and focus group participants, the procedure undertaken for both data collection
methods. I present the study procedure and measures. The independent variables are related to
school context and basic psychological needs. The dependent variables test four motivational
outcomes related to technology integration. I conclude with an explanation of analytical
procedures.
4.1. Sampling Procedure
An independent research institute, Instituto de Estudios Peruanos (Institute of Peruvian
Studies), assisted with gaining access to secondary schools affiliated to their ongoing Leer
(Read) education program. I consulted the directors of Leer to provide expert advice on possible
variances in the neighborhood socioeconomic status (SES) of schools. The directors advised that
government schools from higher socioeconomic neighborhoods were often given better quality
and quantity of computers, than their lower SES neighbors. SES is found to influence availability
59
of educational resources and overall teaching standards (Xuan et al., 2019). I shortlisted school
by districts to ensure that ICT facilities and resources distributed by the Ministry of Education
did not vary significantly across study schools. Seven schools located in low-income
neighborhoods were selected. They belong to three urban districts in Lima city: Lima Cercado,
Callao, and Via El Salvador.
I used purposive sampling to deliberately select schools based on several predetermined
criteria. I required that a school was equipped with a functioning ICT lab with internet
connectivity. Technology-enabled classes had to be conducted on an on-going basis over at least
the past six months. Furthermore, I ensured that an ICT lab assistant who assisted teachers with
troubleshooting and preparing teaching materials was present in the school. A sample of seven
schools that met the study criteria were identified after initial phone conversations with
principals of 16 schools. Site visits were made to meet with respective school principals, and to
reconnoiter the ICT labs to get a better sense of hardware and software availability. A letter of
research support from my faculty advisor served as a recruitment tool for schools to participate. I
provided principals with information on my study objectives and timeline, methodological and
ethical procedures, compensation for participation, and expectations from schools, such as
assisting in participant requirements. school principals signed site permissions letters to provide
consent and gave verbal permissions to conduct surveys and focus group discussions with
teachers in the school premises.
60
Figure 2 Typical school vicinity in low SES neighbourhood
Teachers from the study schools used ICT tools to teach ten subjects covered in the
national secondary-level curriculum. Only full-time teachers were included in the study since
they were well-acquainted with school ICTI policies and expectations. Principals were
responsible for recruiting teachers who met the study criteria, verbally informing them that
participation was purely voluntary and would in no way affect work appraisals. Follow-up
appointments were made with senior administrators to arrange for convenient dates to conduct
data collection during school hours. I obtained approval from the University of Southern
California Institutional Review Board (IRB # UP-15-00696) on December 9, 2015.
4.2. Study Context
The seven study schools shared comparable characteristics in terms of being in low
socioeconomic neighborhoods, types of technical facilities available in the school vicinity,
quality of government employed and technology-trained teachers, and availability of school
resources. Larger study schools had between 30 and 42 teachers, with up to 350 students. The
61
smaller schools had about 15 teachers and 100 students. Each school had a functioning ICT lab
equipped with an average of 18 operational desktop computers with Intel Pentium processors.
Schools were connected to wireless internet network. It was common for computers to be
arranged against the walls (see Figure 3).
Figure 3 School ICT lab
Observations from Meetings with School Leaders. I initiated contact with school leaders, i.e.
principals (director) and vice-principals (sub-director), to request permission to conduct this
study in their schools. I met with school leaders for an hour each to gather information on their
perspective on teachers using technology for teaching purposes. Leaders shared about their ICTI
initiatives and plans, school-specific policies, and experiences interacting with technology in
their work. I observed as school leaders introduced my project to administrators and teachers,
and instructed instructions them to assist with my data collection.
62
I met personally with principals and/or vice-principals of all seven schools. I was
subsequently directed to either a head administrator familiar with the school’s ICT matters, or to
a teacher who was regarded as being highly tech-savvy. They presented a demonstration of
available programs, applications, internet infrastructure, and other electronic equipment acquired
for teaching purposes. I noted that the principals did not possess reliable information about the
quantity of properly functioning computer devices or the quality of the internet/Wi-Fi
connectivity. Instead they looked to an administrator or a teacher to furnish me with such
information.
Only two of the seven principals engaged with a computing device for work, mainly used
to draft documents and send emails. The rest of the principals preferred not to use computers for
work because they did not consider themselves to be computer savvy. They found it tedious to
learn and preferred to work manually on hardcopy documents. As one principal stated, “I do not
know how to use computers myself... When I was a teacher years back, I had no need to use
computers… Now, I am comfortable doing my work without computers.” Apart from a couple of
principals who were self-taught, none of the principals had undergone formal technology training
workshops. State-wide initiatives to install computers and internet in Peruvian schools did not
prioritize the inclusion of school leaders in capacity-building efforts. ICT-training workshops
offered by the local Ministry of Education (MOE) were targeted at teachers and were not
mandatory for school leaders. Self-taught principals expressed interest in exploring the learning
opportunities that technology has to offer to teachers and students. Principals with little ICT
knowledge acknowledged the benefits of ICTs in education but were not keen on getting
involved in the execution of technology-enabled classes.
63
Principals were instructed by the MOE to implement school-wide use of computers in
teaching practices. This involved attending to the physical set-up of computer labs and
acquainting teachers with plans to incorporate a technology component to their lesson design.
The actual design of computer-enabled lessons was left to the discretion of individual teachers
who were knowledgeable of their subject curriculum requirements. Principals indicated that their
duty was to avail the hardware, while teachers were in-charge of exposing students to ICT-based
lessons. Teachers could choose to use the available devices for demonstration and lecture
purposes or get students to work on assignments using online resources and applications.
Typically, an ICTI implementation plan did not require principals to be involved in curriculum
development and execution. Leaders had to provide guidance to teachers in terms of
communicating their expectations and ensuring that ICT-based lessons are scheduled into the
overall curriculum. However, principals were not required to follow up on the curriculum or
lesson content.
While principals expressed enthusiasm and support, they showed little interest in sharing
their understanding of how computers were used by their schoolteachers. When I probed the
principals on the specifics of how teachers used ICT in their work, they were not able to provide
adequate answers. They stated that teachers across all subject areas were expected to incorporate
at least five hours of computer-enabled lesson every week. They gave teachers complete control
over the content covered in these classes and allowed them to use computer facilities for lesson
preparation. Principals had not sat in any of the ICT classes either. A principal recalled: “The
teachers know what to do. I just oversee.” Principals expressed having a very vague idea of how
teachers conducted classes using ICTs, with little knowledge of the applications, programs or
64
websites used to develop class content. Majority of the principals were unfamiliar with the
technology. Consequently, they hesitated to intervene in the execution of ICT classes.
Apart from pre-scheduled class hours, principals noted that teachers visited the labs to
prepare lessons and research course materials. I noted that, as with their response on other
matters regarding ICTI in their schools, principals were knowledgeable of what teachers are
expected to do but demonstrated poor knowledge on how teachers went about actually using the
ICTs in their practice. Despite a hands-off approach to actual ICTI integration, principals did
acknowledge that technology implementation in their schools were not smooth sailing. Principals
were approached by teachers with suggestions and ideas to improve their ICT practice. Beyond
lending a listening hear, principals seldom took action to resolve the issues raised. They
expressed that ICTI issues were lesser of a priority compared to other school matters. One
principal echoed the sentiment, “I leave it to teachers to conduct the [ICT] classes. I know that
some teachers are better than others. Some do struggle… but it is up to them to manage… I do
not have much to add apart from encouraging them to try harder…. Yes, some teachers give up
and decide not to bring their students to the ICT labs… I know that there are problems, but I
don’t get really involved.” When probed further on their lack of involvement, principals stated
that they were too overwhelmed with administrative work to pay much attention to the ICT
component of instruction (refer to Figure 4).
65
Figure 4 Conversations with school leaders in an office and an ICT-lab
ICT Lab Assistants. Docente del Aula de Innovación Educativa Peru (DAIP), also known as an
ICT lab assistant are technology-specialists assigned by MOE to follow a set of guidelines
established to improve technical support and teachers’ performance in the innovation classroom.
Typically, each school is assigned a DAIP who has the following responsibilities: to assist
teachers with technical troubleshooting, to strengthen ICT-training for teachers, to assist teachers
with lesson preparation by directing them to useful online educational resources, to provide
66
maintenance of lab equipment, and to ensure the well-ordered scheduling of labs for instruction
and lesson preparation (Chávez, in press).
Ideally, at least one well-qualified DAIP is appointed to an urban school to perform the
expected duties for educational innovation. Achieving this in Lima schools has been a constant
challenge. Leaders of all seven schools shared about their experiences with receiving DAIPs,
which they unanimously described as being substandard. The schools expected DIAPs to assist
teachers in their innovation efforts. Principals shared that despite multiple requests, the MOE
would be unresponsive in assigning a DAIP, to the extent that teachers could go for almost a year
without a lab assistant. They recalled that, in addition to high turnover rates, DIAPs would also
not necessarily be present daily to attend to the technical needs of teachers. Principals have little
to no control over the work responsibilities and attendance of DAIPs since they are under the
direct employment of the ministry. Principals mentioned of instances where DIAPs essentially
failed to perform their expected duties. Some principals did acknowledge the presence of past
DAIPs who were dedicated to their duties. These DAIPs helped teachers with preparing their
lesson content, maintained and updated the hardware, and efficiently coordinated teachers’ use of
the labs.
At the time of data collection, four of the seven schools had a DAIP. Three schools were
awaiting the assignment of new DIAPs. Principals would discuss their requirements for ICT-
enabled classes with DIAPs. Principals also delegate the responsibility of scheduling teachers for
lab use to DIAPs. Principals mentioned that they rarely had follow-up meetings with the
assistants to check on matters relating to teachers’ lab use or to appraise the DIAP’s work
performance. In cases where a school did not have a DIAP, teachers are still required to continue
their ICT-based classes. However, principals shared that some teachers may choose to
67
temporarily suspend lab lessons because they did not feel confident in being able to manage their
lessons without the presence of a DIAP (refer to Figure 5).
Figure 5 ICT Lab Assistant/DAIP assisting a teacher with troubleshooting a technical problem
during instruction
4.3. Sample Characteristics
4.3a. Survey Sample Characteristics
A sample of 85 teachers were recruited from seven participating schools in the urban
areas of Lima and Callao: Luis Cabello Hurtado, Nuestra Señora del Carmen, Ramon Castilla,
Abraham Valdelomar, Juan Francisco de la Bodega y Quadra, Cesar Vallejo and Peru-Estados
Unidos. All the teachers are Peruvians, residing either in Lima or Callao. There were more
68
female teachers (64.7%) than male teachers (35.3%) in the sample, which is consistent with the
demographics of teachers in the province (Peru Ministry of Education, 2016). The median age
was 49, which comprised 10% of the sample. More than half the sample population (62.4%)
have a bachelor’s degree. Many (31.8%) have a masters’ degree, issued either from a teaching
institute or a local university, while a minority (4.7%) attained only a secondary school
education.
Table 1 Survey sample characteristics by schools
School N % Gender N %
Luis Cabello Hurtado 15 17.6 Male 6 40.0
Female 9 60.0
Nuestra Señora del Carmen 10 11.8 Male 4 40.0
Female 6 60.0
Ramon Castilla 19 22.4 Male 8 42.1
Female 11 57.9
Abraham Valdelomar 7 8.2 Male 3 42.9
Female 4 57.1
Juan Francisco de la Bodega y
Quadra
12 14.1 Male 4 33.9
Female 8 66.7
Cesar Vallejo 16 18.8 Male 3 18.8
Female 13 81.3
Peru-Estados Unidos 6 7.1 Male 2 33.3
Female 4 66.7
Total Sample Size 85 100 Male 30 35.3
Female 55 64.7
Respondents had between 4 and 41 years of teaching experience, with a median of 22
years. Their number of years teaching in respective study schools ranged from 1 to 33 years, with
a median of 13 years of experience. Respondents taught a combination of the 10 core subjects set
69
by the Peru Ministry of Education. Most respondents (48.8%) taught students of across
secondary levels one to five (n = 41).
Table 2 Respondents’ ages, subjects and grade levels taught
Age N %
30 and below 2 2.5
31 to 40 8 10.0
41 to 50 36 45.0
51 to 60 28 35.0
61 and above 6 7.5
Core Subjects Taught N %
Mathematics 14 16.5
Communication 15 17.6
Foreign language (English) 5 5.9
Art 5 5.9
History, geography and economics 14 16.5
Civics 2 2.4
Physical education 5 5.8
Religious education 4 4.7
Science, technology and environmental
studies
12 14.1
Vocational training 9 10.6
Secondary Grade Levels Taught N %
Only lower secondary levels (one to two) 16 19.0
Only upper secondary levels (three to five) 14 16.7
Combination of lower and upper levels 13 15.5
All secondary levels (one to five) 41 48.8
70
Almost all respondents (98.8%) owned a computer in their homes. At 90.1%, a slightly
lower percentage have internet connectivity at home. With an average of 15 years of experience
using computers, most teachers (36.5%) began using computers at homes. Seventy-four percent
have received formal computer training via workshops or training sessions organized by the
MOE (31.8%). A large majority of the sample reported using ICTs at least once in their teaching
careers: 97.6% computers (n = 82) and 93.4% the internet (n = 71). For the purpose of this study,
only teachers who have used computers in instruction at least once (n = 82) were retained for
analysis.
4.3b. Focus Group Sample Characteristics
Seven focus group discussions were conducted: one session per school. Senior
administrators in schools were contacted to shortlist and recruit a maximum of 10 participants for
each session. Only teachers who had experience using computers for teaching purposes were
invited. A total of eighty-two teachers, of both genders from all secondary levels, were verbally
solicited to participate. Fifty-five teachers participated in the discussions (see Table 3). There
were 37 female (67.3%) and 18 male (32.7%) participants across various subjects and levels, and
with varying experiences using ICTs to teach. All participants of the focus group discussions
concurrently completed the study survey.
71
Table 3 Focus group discussion participants by schools
School N % Gender N %
Luis Cabello Hurtado 8 14.5 Male 3 37.5
Female 5 62.5
Nuestra Señora del Carmen 7 12.7 Male 2 28.6
Female 5 71.4
Ramon Castilla 10 18.2 Male 3 30.0
Female 7 70.0
Abraham Valdelomar 8 14.5 Male 3 37.5
Female 5 62.5
Juan Francisco de la Bodega y Quadra 8 14.5 Male 3 37.5
Female 5 62.5
Cesar Vallejo 10 18.2 Male 3 30.0
Female 7 70.0
Peru-Estados Unidos 4 7.3 Male 1 25.0
Female 3 75.0
Total Number of Participants at Focus
Group Discussions
55 100.0 Male 18 32.7
Female 37 67.3
4.4. Study Procedure
The concurrent triangulation design approach (Creswell, Plano Clark, Gutmann, &
Hanson, 2003) involves a single-phase data collection that is conducted separately yet
concurrently, allowing for a more complete understanding of the research problems. This one-
phase design allowed me to implement the qualitative and quantitative methods during the same
timeframe, although not with equal weightage. Primarily, I use quantitative research methods to
answer my research questions and hypotheses, while relying on qualitative data to provide
greater explanations on findings on the technology implementation and integration processes
examined in this study.
72
Spanish-speaking research assistants (RAs), with prior experiences working on research
projects in education, were recruited to assist me as principal investigator (PI). The three RAs
were involved in the data collection process, from communicating with school administrators
and participants on study procedures to providing transcriptions and translations of spoken and
written information required for the study. It was crucial that RAs became familiar with study
objectives, methodology and data collection techniques. I conducted extensive training
workshops on administering surveys and on moderating focus group discussions to prepare the
RAs.
For the purpose of identifying problem areas for improvement, the survey questionnaire
was pretested with five teachers of the Peru-Estados Unidos School in Lima. In a one-to-one
interview setting, teachers were asked to explain their reactions to question format and wording,
clarity of terminologies and logical flow. While they were completing the questionnaire, teachers
were requested to think out aloud. Teachers pointed out a need for clarity in definitions of key
terms, such as “technical problems” and “ICTs”. Consequently, a brief explanation was provided
in the questionnaire to define ICTs: “For purposes of this survey only, the concept of ICT is
limited to computers or laptops and the internet available at your schools.” Teachers also
identified repetitive questions that seemed repetitive and called attention to overall length of the
survey. which took a little over an hour to complete. Notes were taken on pretest observations
and revisions were made to the final survey.
A pilot discussion session was held to pretest focus group questions with six teachers of
the Ramon Castilla School in Callao. The school principal assisted in organizing the pilot
session. The pilot was aimed at getting teachers’ feedback on question wording, to better
estimate time allocation, and to assess the emphases given to different discussion areas. The final
73
focus group moderator guide was revised accordingly. Teachers who participated in the pilot
discussion were not recruited for the actual study to prevent possible bias in response. Tokens of
appreciation were presented to teachers for their inputs.
Data were collected in December 2015 after the academic term had ended. Teachers were
present in schools only for grading and administrative purposes. Therefore, classes were not
interrupted. This arrangement allowed greater flexibility in scheduling separate timeslots to
administer surveys and to carry out focus groups, although in no order. At all data collection
sessions, each teacher was provided with an information sheet to obtain consent to participate.
Participants were briefed verbally and in writing about the study. The RAs assured teachers that
participation was completely voluntary, and all information collected would be kept confidential.
We informed teachers that they could withdraw from participation at any point. Participation in
surveys and discussions were mutually exclusive.
Figure 6 Teachers completing survey questionnaires in staff room
74
School leaders and administrators were requested not to be present during data collection.
This was to ensure teachers did not experience undue influence and constraint. Only authorized
research assistants were present to proctor in silence and individually address questions during
survey sessions. RAs also assisted in moderating discussions and take notes during the sessions.
Photos taken for report purposes were modified to eliminate the possibility that study
participants could be identified. All participants were presented with tokens of appreciation for
their participation.
Survey Procedure. Participants gathered in respective schools’ staff meeting rooms at
designated timeslots to each complete a paper-based survey questionnaire (see Figure 6). The
survey was conducted anonymously, with preassigned school identification numbers marked on
the top of each questionnaire prior to distributing to participants. An RA introduced the research
team, briefed participants of their rights, presented the survey sections, clarified definitions of
select terms and addressed questions. Teachers were asked not to discuss survey questions with
one another. The survey took approximately 40 minutes to complete. Upon completion,
participants returned the surveys personally to the PI who retained sole access to the documents.
75
Figure 7 Focus group discussion with teachers
Focus Group Procedure. Focus group sessions were held privately in classroom spaces, with
tables and chairs arranged in a manner conducive for a discussion (see Figure 7). The principal
investigator, a trained moderator and a note-taker were present at every session. Prior to
commencing each focus group, consent was sought to audio record the discussion. The audio
recordings were made available only to authorized research study personnel who assisted in
transcribing and translating the data. All identifiable information from the focus group data were
anonymized during audio transcription. Focus group discussions lasted two hours each and were
conducted in Spanish. At various points during the discussions, probes raised by the PI were
translated by RAs real-time and directed at participants. After debriefing participants, meals were
provided in appreciation of their time.
76
4.5. Measures
The study variables are grounded on self-determination theory (SDT). The first set of
measures are used to test implementation factors, and a second set of measures capture
integration of technology in instruction. The questionnaire solicited responses from participants
on their perceptions regarding two aspects of school context, namely school leadership and
teacher collegiality. Respondents were asked to reflect on the extent to which they perceived
fulfilment of basic needs for autonomy, relatedness and competency. Questions relating to
sustained ICTI integration measure respondents’ motivation to perform and practice.
Most questions were close ended. All the variables were tested using various 7-point
Likert-type scales, except for “active ICTI use” which used a 5-point scale. It is recommended
that the responses are presented ordinally in an ascending order without any overlap (Krosnick &
Presser, 2009). When the scales were pretested with teachers, each response point on the scale
was tested to ensure that it was “meaningful and interpreted the same way by each participant to
ensure data quality” (Boateng, Neilands, Frongillo, Melgar-Quiñonez, & Young, 2018, p. 6).
Items used to operationalize the variables were adapted from prior studies, with changes
in wordings to reflect a focus on technology use in an instructional setting. Examples of
contextual adjustments are the use of phrases like ‘ICTs to teach’, ‘in our school’, ‘other
teachers’, etc. I explained to teachers that the term “ICTs to teach” encompasses their usage of
computers and the internet for planning and preparing lesson materials, as well as for conducting
ICT-enabled lessons in the classroom. For questions on leadership, teachers were asked to reflect
on their “principal(s)” which included head administrators, namely their principal and/or vice-
principal in-charge of ICT implementation in the school. The phrase “teachers at our school” was
used to refer to colleagues who are subject teachers at the secondary level.
77
The questionnaire and moderator guide were designed in English, and then translated by
an RA to Spanish. A reverse Spanish-to-English language translation was generated to check for
errors. The next chapter presents results from preliminary analyses, specifically the exploratory
factor analysis done to confirm the structure of the data to select the strongest indicators of each
construct. More information on variable mean, standard deviation, and reliability score are
presented in that chapter. Selected items were averaged to create composite indexes for
respective variables.
Variables testing school context and basic psychological needs are explained in the first
section under the ICT implementation process. The second section covers variables related to the
ICT integration process. Motivation for sustained integration includes teachers’ motivation to
perform ICTI and motivation to practice ICTI. The section concludes with an explanation of the
questions discussed in the focus groups.
4.5a. ICT Implementation Process: School Context
Zhu and colleagues (2011, 2014) proposed a subset of scales related to attitudinal and
behavioral perceptions of teachers to measure school context. Respondents were asked to reflect
on various contextual factors to indicate the extent to which they agreed on statements
characterizing their school context, specifically those related to structured leadership and teacher
collegiality. Items were measured using Likert-type items, anchored by 7 (Strongly Agree), 4
(Neutral) and 1 (Strongly Disagree).
Structured Leadership. The leadership variable measured teachers’ perceptions of structured
guidance and instructions. The four items (Zhu, Devos, & Li, 2011) captured the extent to which
teachers perceived that school leaders offered well-organized information regarding ICTI
implementation. This involves receiving clear instructions on how to use computers and the
78
internet for teaching purposes and being adequately informed about leaders’ expectations of
teachers in the implementation process. Example of items include: “The principal provides clear
instructions for teachers on how to use ICTs to teach” and “The principal has clear objectives for
teachers on how to use ICTs to teach.” The items were averaged to create a composite index,
Leadership.
Teacher Collegiality. The teacher collegiality dimension of school context measured the extent
to which teachers worked together to provide collegial support when using instructional
technology (Jarzabkowski, 2002), in addition to their shared orientation toward the school’s goal
to implement ICTI (Pachler & Daly, 2006). The measure for collegial relations captured
perceptions of collaborative work with peers. This includes working together to assess existing
methods of using ICTI, as well as reaching out to peers for informational support. The test for
collegial relations also included teachers’ orientation toward a common schoolwide goal to
implement technology. Their shared perceptions of the value of ICTs as well as their beliefs
about the collective support that they receive from peers are encompassed in the measure for
collegial relations. Example of items include: “All teachers work together to accomplish our
school goals related to using ICTs to teach,” “Most teachers support our school goals on using
ICTs to teach,” and “In order to do better at using ICTs to teach, I work collaboratively with
other teachers.” Seven items were averaged to create a composite index, Collegiality.
4.5b. ICT Implementation Process: Basic Psychological Needs
Measures for the multidimensional concept of basic psychological needs fulfillment were
adapted from the Basic Need Satisfaction at Work Scale used by Kasser, Davey, and Ryan
(1992) and Baard, Deci, and Ryan (2004). Derived from SDT, scales were designed specifically
to measure the satisfaction of needs using 23 items. Self-determination factors of perceived
79
competence, autonomy and relatedness were measured with Likert-type items anchored by 7
(Very True), 4 (Somewhat true) and 1 (Not at all True), where the higher values indicated a
greater sense of fulfilled needs.
Perceived Competence. The first measure for perceived needs satisfaction dealt with the extent
to which teachers perceived a sense of confidence in their abilities to use technology in their
instructional work. It touched on teachers’ beliefs on their capabilities and skills in using the
technology and overcoming technical challenges. Perceived competence to teach using ICTs was
measured with five questions, for example: “I do not feel very competent about ICTs when
trying to use them to teach (reverse-coded),” “I feel confident I can overcome even the most
challenging technical problems that I might encounter when I use ICTs to teach,” and “I feel
confident in my ability to use ICTs to teach even if it is challenging to me.” The items were
averaged to create a composite index, Competence.
Perceived Autonomy. The second measure for perceived needs satisfaction dealt with the extent
to which teachers perceived a sense of control in their use technology for instructional work
(Devos, Dumay, Bonami, Bates, & Holton, 2007). It involved teachers’ perceptions of their
freedom to express their opinions and ideas to the school with respect to ICTI. This measure
included the degree to which teachers perceived that their suggestions were being heard and
taken into consideration in the implementation process. Items measuring perceived satisfaction
of the need for autonomy also measured teachers’ beliefs regarding their involvement in
decisions that shape how teachers used technology. Six questions addressed perceived need for
autonomy when using instructional technology, for example: “I feel like I can make a lot of
suggestions to the school on deciding how I can use ICTs to teach,” “I feel like I can be involved
in the decision making process regarding ICTs” and “I am free to express to my school my ideas
80
and opinions on using ICTs to teach.” The items were averaged to create a composite index,
Autonomy.
Perceived Relatedness. Past studies typically measured perceived autonomy and competence
using questions designed with context specific items. On the other hand, items on perceived
relatedness (i.e. a desire to feel connected to others) were seldom contextually worded to
measure satisfaction of relational needs (Sørebø et al., 2009). In order to include a nuanced,
contextually-relevant dimension to the factor of relatedness, participants answered four questions
on how teachers related to their peers who also use ICTs to teach: “I feel like I have more in
common with teachers who also use ICTs to teach,” “I feel a sense of camaraderie with teachers
who also use ICTs to teach because we do so for the same,” “I feel close to my teachers in our
school who appreciate how difficult it can be to teach using ICTs,” and “I feel like I get along
better with teachers who also use ICTs to teach.” The four items were averaged to create a
composite index, Relatedness.
4.5c. Motivation for Sustained Integration: Motivation to Perform
Motivation to perform was conceived as teachers’ internal motivation to participate in
ICTI for its inherent enjoyment versus external motivation derived from rewards such as praise
and approval. Questions specific to intrinsic motivation and external regulation were adapted
from the Multidimensional Work Motivation Scale (Gagné et al., 2014) designed after well-
validated SDT-based motivation scales. Participants responded to the stem ‘Why do you use
ICTs to teach?’. Items were answered on a 7 (Very True), 4 (Somewhat true) and 1 (Not at all
True) Likert scale, where higher values indicated a greater motivation to perform.
Intrinsic Motivation. The interest/enjoyment subset of the Intrinsic Motivation Inventory
(Gagné et al., 2014; Grolnick & Ryan, 1987) was used to measure perceived intrinsic motivation
81
specific to the context of using ICTs to teach. According to SDT, enjoyment falls within the
realm of intrinsically rewarding activities, beyond a purely hedonic focus of pleasure-seeking
(Frederick & Ryan, 1995). Example of items include: “I use ICTs to teach because… “I am
interested in it” and “It is fun.” The items were averaged to create a composite index, Intrinsic.
Extrinsic Motivation. The study focuses on a type of extrinsic motivation categorized as
external regulation. This is a non-internalized form motivation that occurs when individuals
desire to gain approval and endorsement from others for their choice of behaviors. Items
measuring external regulation focused on the perceived external validations that teachers receive
as they integrate ICTI. The questions, adapted to the study context, were directed at perceived
external validations gained from school leaders and fellow teachers. Example of items include:
“The principal praises me when I use ICTs to teach,” “The principal is not supportive of my
personal welfare when use ICTs to teach (reverse-coded),” and “My colleagues are not
encouraging when I use ICTs to teach (reverse-coded).” The items were averaged to create a
composite index, Extrinsic.
4.5d. Motivation for Sustained Integration: Motivation to Practice
Motivation to practice measures two behavioral outcomes, namely teachers’ active use of
computers and the degree to which they adopt pedagogical approaches that support autonomous
learning among students. The study conceptualizes motivation to practice as behavior focused on
the continued use of ICTI, with a conscious awareness of engaging in ICT-enabled teaching
practices that are directed at developing student autonomy.
Active ICT Use. These variable measures the extent to which teachers frequently use computer
applications and internet resources. Active use also measures the intentions of teachers to
continue using technological devices in instruction. I created an index of active ICT use by
82
combining information on the frequency of computer and internet use in instruction, number of
ICT programs, applications and web content utilized for teaching and lesson preparation, and
their intention to continue using these computing tools for instruction. I generated this index
from a combination of four sets of questions.
Firstly, respondents attributed a score, using a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1
(Once in a Few Months), 2 (Once a Month), 3 (Once in a Few Weeks), 4 (Weekly), and 5
(Almost Every day), to the frequency with which they used computers and the internet to teach
over a specified time period. For example, “In the past 6 months, how often did you use internet
to teach your classes?” Secondly, respondents indicated the cumulative number of computer and
internet “applications” they used for lesson preparation and actual teaching from a scale of 1 to
5, whereby 5 stood for the usage of 5 or more applications. For example: “Number of computer
and internet applications used for teaching and preparation.” Thirdly, respondents reported the
extent to which they utilized computers and the internet for teaching purposes using a 5-point
scale ranging from 1 (to a very small extent), 2 (to a small extent), 3 (somewhat), 4 (to a large
extent) and 5 (to a very large extent). For example: “To what extent do you use computers in
your teaching practice?” Finally, respondents indicated their intention to continue integrating
ICTI using a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1(Strongly Disagree), 2 (Somewhat
Disagree), 3 (Neutral), 4 (Somewhat Agree), and 5 (Strongly Agree). For example: “I intend to
continue to teach using computers in the next academic year.” Seven items were averaged to
create a composite index, Use.
Student-centered Teaching Behavior. This study conceptualizes teachers’ motivation to
practice ICTI as a behavioral outcome that extends to their pedagogical approaches in
classrooms. Six items measuring student-centered teaching behavior, using scales adapted from
83
past studies (Assor, Kaplan, & Roth, 2002; Roth, Assor, Kanat-Maymon, & Kaplan, 2007),
encompass three areas of autonomy-enhancing practices in ICT-enabled classrooms.
The first is providing students the choice to perform ICT activities that interest them and
offering them the option to alter teachers’ instructional approach to suit their interests. An
example of question is, “I allow students to choose to do ICT activities that interest them, instead
of setting specific boundaries.” The second looks at encouraging independent learning and
allowing teachers to constructively express improvements to ICTI activities. An example of
question is, “I allow students to decide for themselves how to wish to do an ICT activity.” The
final area of student-centric teaching behavior is fostering understanding of the relevance that
ICT-based learning activities to learning tasks and academic goals. An example of question is, “I
talk about the connection between the ICT activities that students perform in class and what
happens in real life.” The scale was anchored in 1 (Never), 2 (Rarely, in less than 10% of the
chances when I could have), 3 (Occasionally in about 30% of the chances when I could have), 4
(Sometimes in about 50% of the chances when I could have, 5 (Frequently in about 70% of the
chances when I could have), 6 (Usually in about 90% of the chances I could have) and 7 (Every
time / Always). The items were averaged to create a composite index, Behavior.
4.5e. Focus Group Questions
Corresponding to the questionnaire, the focus group moderator guide touched on
illuminating aspects of ICT implementation process, namely that of issues surrounding school
leadership and teacher collegiality. Thus, an emphasis was placed on explicating aspects of
school context pertaining to participants’ use of instructional technology. The discussion
surrounded issues of technology access and explored factors affecting teachers’ motivation to
integrate ICTI. Teachers were asked to share their thoughts on issues that fostered and hindered
84
their integration of technology in instruction. Questions were designed to elicit a range of
responses, from general observations on how ICT use was coordinated in the school to responses
that required teachers to share their individual experiences and points of view.
Examples of generic questions include: “What kinds of support do you think teachers
need to get from schools to do so?” and “What influences your decision to teach or not to teach
using computers and the internet?” Example of questions that dealt with school context include:
“What do you think about your school’s policy (rules, norms) regarding the use computers and
the internet to teach, if any?” Within which, teachers were probed for suggestions to inform
practical recommendations. An example of a question that touched on the dimension of teacher
collegiality was, “What can your school do to create an environment that stimulates better
communication among teachers regarding policies about teaching using computers and the
internet?” And schools’ openness to teachers’ contributions in decision making was explored
with: “How open is your school to the suggestions of teachers, with respect to using computers
and the internet to teach?”
4.6. Analytic Procedure
Datasets were screened and modified for missing values, outliers, and normality. No
systematic missing pattern was detected in the screening. The study data did not have many
missing responses, but each item had one to five missing cases. To avoid biased parameter
estimates resulting from listwise- or pairwise- deletion (Arbuckle, 2003), the study employed a
two-step OLS regression analysis to manually impute missing values for every missing case.
Outliers were screened by examining standardized scores of each variable. Only one case was
identified as an outlier. A preliminary data analysis indicated that the results did not change
significantly after deleting the outlier; therefore, the outlier were removed from the dataset to
85
avoid possible interference with the results. The normality of each variable was investigated in
terms of its skewness and kurtosis to ensure that the maximum probable estimation procedures
used in this study did not produce distorted results (Curran, West, & Finch, 1996). The normality
assumptions of all the indicators were met. The variables did not substantially depart from
normality according to values of acceptability for psychometric purposes; values |4.0| for
kurtosis and |2.0| for skewness (Hildebrand, 1986).
All responses were input into SPSS dataset (SPSS Statistics Version 17.0). Means,
standard deviations, skewness and kurtosis scores are presented as descriptive statistics.
Exploratory factor analysis, using maximum likelihood analysis with varimax rotation, was
conducted to investigate the coherence of items in measuring the study constructs. Cronbach
coefficient alpha was utilized to evaluate internal consistency. Relationships among all variables
were examined using bivariate correlation analysis.
Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) analysis tested the proposed model to uncover the
relationships between ICTI implementation and ICTI integration processes. Structural Equation
Modelling is well-known to “theoretically and empirically disentangle[s] complex causal
linkages among correlated variables” (Rivers, 2011, p. 144). Further, SEM is “a multivariate
analytic procedure for representing and testing (a) inter-relationships between observed variables
and constructs, and (b) interrelationships among constructs” (Purpura, 1997, p.300). As Kline
(2005) suggests, SEM is a family of related procedures that build upon factor analysis, multiple
regression and path analysis procedures.
The adequacy of the hypothesized model was analyzed via SEM using Version 22.0 of
the statistical program AMOS (Analysis of Moment Structures). Parameters were estimated by
using maximum likelihood fitting function because it produces unbiased, consistent and efficient
86
estimates that are scale-free and scale-invariant (Kaplan, 2000). Model fit was assessed using
four goodness-of-fit indices: nonsignificant model chi-square (χ
2
) (Kline, 2005), comparative fit
index (CFI) and normed fit index (NFI) with values that fall in between .95 and 1.00 (Hu &
Bentler, 1999), and root mean square error of estimation (RMSEA) with values of .05 or less
indicate acceptable errors of approximation (Browne & Cudeck, 1993).
87
Chapter 5: Quantitative Results
In this chapter, I present results of the statistical analyses, including descriptive statistics,
exploratory factor analysis and reliability, correlations, and structural equation models. I outline
the frequency distributions, means and standard deviations to provide an overview of the study
variables. This is followed by factor loadings for the latent variables that resulted from the
exploratory factor analysis. Cronbach’s α (alpha) for internal consistency was used for the
reliability analyses. Pearson’s correlation was used in preliminary analyses to test the strength of
relationships between the latent variables. Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) analysis tested
the proposed model to uncover the relationships between ICTI implementation and ICTI
integration processes. The following chapters will discuss qualitative findings to shed light on
the SEM results and present internal communication strategies that can be adopted to improve
motivation for sustained ICTI integration.
The SEM analysis supported the hypothesis that contextual factors influence teachers’
motivation to integrate ICTI when mediated by the perceived satisfaction of their basic
psychological needs. An examination of the relationships among proposed variables show
interesting results, albeit not entirely consistent with the proposed hypothesis. It reveals that
internal communication practices have mixed effects on the perceived satisfaction of teachers’
psychological needs. While structured leadership had no influence on teachers’ perceived need
for competence, it had contrasting effects on the perceptions of the other two needs. It is found
that leadership positively satisfies teachers’ perceived need for autonomy, but negatively
influences their perceived need to feel connected to their peers.
In the integration phase, the results garner equally mixed associations with teachers’
motivation to perform and practice ICTI. While five predicted associations are not supported, six
88
predictions are supported, with one contrasting prediction. The results are useful in elucidating
the type of needs that, when perceived to be fulfilled, influence specific motivational outcomes.
Intrinsic motivation is found to be predicted only when teachers’ perceived need for competence
is fulfilled. Whereas extrinsic motivation is predicted only by a fulfilled need for autonomy.
While perceived satisfaction of relatedness only predicted motivation to practice ICTI, the results
are mixed because perceived relatedness positively supports teachers’ motivation to practice
student-centered bahavior but negatively predicts their motivation to actively use ICTI. Active
use, on the other hand, is positively linked to perceived needs of autonomy and competence.
Student-centered behavior too does not garner full support from all three needs as it is positively
predicted by a satisfied need for autonomy, with no relationship to the perceived need for
competence.
Indeed, the results are mixed and do not entirely align with the proposed hypotheses.
Nonetheless, the results are meaningful for this exploratory study that intends to unravel how
factors related to institutional communication influence motivation specific to using ICTI.
Having conducted the study in the Peruvian school setting allows for contextualized findings that
can inform the development of internal communication strategies relevant to the local context.
By understanding the specific relationships between context, needs and motivation,
complemented by qualitative findings that will be discussed in the next chapter, I can propose
strategies that are relevant, contextualized and meaningful to this setting. I will present these
discussions in greater detail in the final chapter.
5.1. Preliminary Analyses
Secondary education guidelines in Peru state that teachers typically engage in an average
of seven work hours a day, which is about 35 hours a week (World Education News and Review,
89
2015) for a variety of tasks such as actual instruction, grading and administrative work, and other
school tasks. While this is the general guideline, instructional hours differ by the type of subjects
taught (OECD, 2016b). A World Bank study (2007) stated that Peruvian teachers often average a
20-hour teaching load per week, with most teachers often clocking in more hours than expected.
Data on study respondents reflects this pattern, where teachers reported spending 24 hours a
week in traditional classroom instruction. Of these hours, they reported devoting about five and a
half hours per week on ICT-enabled instruction across the different secondary-level classes and
subjects they teach. This data is also consistent with other reported cases (Pilco, 2014).
Commonly used offline programs were Microsoft Office desktop applications available
in the schools’ ICT labs, namely Word (68.3%), Excel (57.8%), and PowerPoint (58.5%). Other
Microsoft, Adobe and Corel systems for Windows (45.1%) that are used included Access,
Acrobat, CorelDraw, Paint, Photoshop, Project, Publisher, and Visio. While study respondents
did access available software, they reported spending a little over 4 hours in computer labs, or,
using the internet to search for and present teaching materials. Compared to previous years
where teachers relied more on offline computer applications (The World Bank, 2007), the
teachers surveyed reported widespread usage of Google web search engine (52.1%), followed by
YouTube website (30%) and other educational online activities for teaching purposes. This was
due to improved internet connectivity and infrastructure in urban school over the last decade.
Therefore, teachers are found to rely on Internet resources to facilitate most of their ICT-based
instruction.
I conducted preliminary analyses of study constructs. There is a total of nine composite
scales used in the study. The recommended minimum number of items in a scale to reliably
90
measure a latent construct is three items (Marsh, Hau, Balla, & Grayson, 1998). All the nine
constructs studied have three or more items respectively.
A descriptive analysis of the seven-point Likert-type scales, anchored by 7 (Strongly
Agree), 4 (Neutral) and 1 (Strongly Disagree), reveal a glimpse of teachers’ perceptions of
school context, their perceived needs and motivation. School context variables of structured
leadership (M = 4.32, SD = 1.51) and teacher collegiality (M = 4.30, SD = 1.17) received
comparable support from teachers.
Respondents also reported somewhat consistent levels of perceived basic needs
satisfaction: need for competence (M = 4.79, SD = 1.21), autonomy (M = 4.38, SD = 1.19) and
relatedness (M = 4.31, SD = 1.42). As for the tested motivational outcomes, respondents reported
high levels of perceived intrinsic motivation (M = 5.93, SD = 1.18), whereby they claim to use
ICTI purely for the innate enjoyment derived from engaging in the activity, and moderate level
of extrinsic motivation (M = 4.25, SD = 1.26). Teachers practiced student-centered teaching
behavior (M = 4.34, SD = 1.16) and engaged in active use of ICTI (M = 3.72, SD = 0.67).
As general guideline for skewness, a range that this below 1 but above -1 indicates that
the distribution is not skewed. The skewness for all the study variables is found to be within this
range, suggesting that the data is acceptably distributed. The guideline for kurtosis is the same as
that of skewness, and the study data is also found to have a normal distribution. These
preliminary findings are reported in Table 4 along with variable names.
91
Table 4 Descriptive statistics of study variables
Overarching
Concepts
Variables N of
Items
Mean Std.
Deviation
Skewness Kurtosis
School Context
Structured Leadership
(Leadership)
4 4.32 1.51 -.55 -.46
Teacher Collegiality
(Collegiality)
7 4.30 1.17 -.33 -.39
Basic Needs
Competence
(Competence)
5 4.79 1.21 -.09 -.92
Autonomy (Autonomy) 6 4.38 1.19 -.05 -.16
Relatedness
(Relatedness)
4 4.31 1.42 -.02 -.54
Motivation to
Perform
Intrinsic Motivation
(Intrinsic)
3 5.93 1.18 -.92 -.18
Extrinsic Motivation
(Extrinsic)
5 4.25 1.26 -.44 .32
Motivation to
Practice
Active Use (Use) 7 3.72 .67 .32 -.05
Student-centered
Teaching (Behaviour)
6 4.34 1.16 .30 -.64
All items of each construct were first screened for face validity, and questions that did not
seem to measure the construct were deleted. I conducted an exploratory factor analysis (EFA)
using maximum-likelihood extraction procedure with varimax rotation. As a first assessment
rule, I identified the factor loading of each item. Items with factor loadings below 0.30 are
considered inadequate and it is often recommended to retain items that have factor loadings of
0.40 and above (Boateng et al., 2018; Nunnally, 1978). The second column of Table 5 on
Factors Loading indicates that all the factor loading scores fall within this range, suggesting that
the items selected to measure each of the study construct fit well with others in their respective
groups.
92
The second assessment rule that I used to determine the optimal number of items or
factors to retain was that Eigenvalue was greater than one (Kaiser, 1960; Nunnally, 1978). All
the items fulfilled this criterion.
Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity were used to determine
sampling adequacy and the appropriateness of the identified constructs (Pallant, 2007). The rule
is that KMO should be higher than 0.5% and Bartlett’s Test value should be significant with a p-
value less than 0.05%. The third column of Table 5 on KMO/Barletts’s Test indicates that all the
nine study constructs have satisfactory KMO values and significant Bartlett’s Test scores.
I used Cronbach’s alpha to measure the internal consistency of each scale. This measure
is considered an index of scale reliability, where a coefficient range between 0.80 and 1 is
considered very good and that above 0.60 is acceptable (Cicchetti & Sparrow, 1981; Nunnally,
1978). The first column of Table 5 indicates the composite variable names used to refer to
constructs tested, such as Leadership and Competence. The respective Cronbach’s alpha indexes,
ranging from 0.67 to 0.90, are reported next to the variable names. Finally, Table 5 reports the
complete list of questions or items used to measure each variable.
93
Table 5 Factor matrix of items and reliability of scales
Factor/Item (Cronbach’s Alpha) Factor
Loading
KMO/
Barletts’s
Test
Leadership (α = 0.90) 0.78**
The principal(s) clarifies with teachers his/her expectations of us
regarding the usage of ICTs to teach.
0.93
The principal(s) clearly explains the school’s objectives and
policies regarding teachers’ use of ICTs to teach.
0.91
The principal(s) provides teachers with clear schedules for when
to use ICTs for lesson preparation and for actual instruction.
0.63
The principal(s) provides clear instructions to guide teachers on
various ways in which we can use ICTs to teach.
0.88
Collegiality (α = 0.85) 0.75**
Teachers at our school work together to assess possible teaching
approaches for using ICTs to teach.
0.57
I consult with other teachers at our school on ways to use ICTs
to teach.
0.75
In order to do better at using ICTs to teach, I work
collaboratively with other teachers.
0.77
Other teachers are often interested to know more about how I
use ICTs to teach.
0.64
Teachers at our school work together to accomplish our school
goals related to using ICTs to teach.
0.80
Teachers at our school share positive perceptions about using
ICTs to teach.
0.50
Teachers at our school are in support of our school goals for
using ICTs to teach.
0.65
Competence (α = 0.76) 0.69**
I often do not feel very competent about using ICTs to teach.
(reverse-coded)
0.69
I often do not feel that I am capable of using ICTs to prepare and
conduct lessons. (reverse-coded)
0.51
I feel confident in my technical skills to use ICTs to teach even
if it is challenging to me.
0.85
94
I often feel that I am knowledgeable of the various ICTs tools
and applications that I use to teach.
0.76
I feel confident that I can overcome even the most challenging
technical problems that I might encounter when using ICTs to
teach.
0.75
Autonomy (α = 0.79) 0.77**
I feel like I can make a lot of suggestions to the school on
deciding how I use ICTs to teach.
0.62
I feel free to express my ideas and opinions on how I want to use
ICTs to teach.
0.66
I feel that the school respects my decisions on the extent to
which I choose to use ICTs to teach.
0.75
My feelings, both positive and negative, toward using ICTs to
teach are taken into consideration at my school.
0.83
I feel engaged in the schools’ decision-making processes
regarding the use of ICTs to teach.
0.71
I feel like I am free to take initiatives about ICT matters related
to my teaching.
0.64
Relatedness (α = 0.82) 0.75**
I feel like I have more in common with teachers who share
similar experiences with me when using ICTs to teach.
0.81
I feel a sense of camaraderie with teachers who also use ICTs to
teach because we do so for the same reasons.
0.91
I feel close to my teachers in our school who appreciate how
difficult it can be to teach using ICTs.
0.77
I feel like I can get along better with teachers who also use ICTs
to teach.
0.73
Intrinsic Motivation (α = 0.86) 0.67**
I have a lot of interest in using ICTs to teach. 0.79
I use ICTs to teach because it is a gratifying experience for me. 0.92
I enjoy using ICTs to teach. 0.94
Extrinsic Motivation (α = 0.76) 0.68**
The principal(s) praises me for using ICTs to teach. 0.77
95
The principal(s) encourages me by explaining the value that
using ICTs to teach has for me.
0.76
The principal(s) is not supportive of my personal welfare when I
use ICTs to teach. (reverse-coded)
0.73
Teachers at our school offer little encouragement when I use
ICTs to teach. (reverse-coded)
0.70
My colleagues show little importance to me when I use ICTs to
teach. (reverse-coded)
0.60
Use (α = 0.67) 0.60**
In the past six months, how often did you use computers (and
applications programs) to teach your classes?
0.72
In the past six months, how often did you use the internet (and
online resources) to teach your classes?
0.56
To what extent do you use computers (and applications
programs) in your teaching practice in the past six months?
0.66
To what extent do you use the internet (and online resources) in
your teaching practice in the past six months?
0.59
What is the number of computer application programs and
online resources that you used for teaching and lesson
preparation in the past six months?
0.76
I intend to continue to teach using computers (and applications
programs) in the next academic year.
0.71
I intend to continue to teach using the internet (and online
resources) in the next academic year.
0.80
Behavior (α = 0.85) 0.77**
I ask students if there are things that they would like to change
in the way I teach using ICTs.
0.77
I allow students to choose to do ICT activities that interest them,
instead of setting specific boundaries.
0.74
I ensure that students do ICT activities that interest them. 0.87
I talk about the connection between the ICT activities that
students perform in class and what happens in real life.
0.77
I am receptive to students’ opinions and ideas regarding the ICT
activities they perform in class.
0.67
I allow students to decide for themselves how they wish to
perform an ICT activity.
0.73
96
5.1a. Correlation Analysis
Pearson correlations were conducted to assess the bivariate relationships between the
constructs used in the structural models (see Table 6). An examination of the bivariate
correlations shows that variables in the hypothesized model are related to varying extents,
ranging from .23 to .71. The results indicate a strong correlation between structured leadership
and teacher collegiality (r = .67, p < .01). Leadership is significantly correlated only to perceived
need for autonomy (r = .64, p < .01). While collegiality does not share a correlation with
autonomy, it shares a strong significant correlation to perceived competence (r = .71, p < .01)
and a weak correlation to perceived relatedness (r = .23, p < .01). All three dimensions of
perceived basic psychological needs are positively correlated. Teachers’ need for autonomy is
similarly correlated to relatedness (r = .34, p < .01) and competence (r = .34, p < .01), with a
higher correlation between the latter two dimensions (r = .50, p < .01). An inspection of the
bivariate correlations among the endogenous variables suggests that perceived needs satisfaction
constructs are associated with ICT integration measures in varying degrees.
All three needs dimensions have positive correlations with intrinsic motivation to use
ICTs to teach; competence (r = .54, p < .01), autonomy (r = .33, p < .01) and relatedness (r = .36,
p < .01). Teachers’ motivation to practice student-centered behavior is positively correlated with
perceived competence (r = .34, p < .01), autonomy (r = .40, p < .01) and relatedness (r = .36, p <
.01). On the other hand, only perceived autonomy (r = .45, p < .01) is significantly correlated
with extrinsic motivation to perform. Finally, teachers’ active use of ICTs to teach is not
positively correlated to their perceived need for relatedness. Instead, competence (r = .34, p <
.01) and autonomy (r = .24, p < .01) are correlated to active use.
97
Table 6 Bivariate correlations among study variables
Leadership Collegiality Competence Autonomy Relatedness Intrinsic Extrinsic Use Behavior
Leadership -
Collegiality .67
**
-
Competence .01 .19 -
Autonomy .64
**
.71
**
.34
**
-
Relatedness -.01 .23
**
.50
**
.34
**
-
Intrinsic .08 .27
*
.54
**
.33
**
.36
**
-
Extrinsic .61
**
.46
**
-.09 .45
**
-.04 -.07 -
Use .01 .09 .34
**
.24
**
.12 .16 .02 -
Behavior .17 .29
**
.34
**
.40
**
.36
**
.26
**
.01 .13 -
* p < .05, ** p < .01
5.2. Structural Equation Modelling
I used Structural equation modelling (SEM) to evaluate the hypotheses and test whether
the conceptual model is supported by the data. SEM is used as a confirmatory technique to show
support for a proposed casual model. A structural model shows how all the studied endogenous
and exogenous variables are connected by illustrating the direct effects between variables using
straight arrows. It combines aspects of multiple regression and confirmatory factor analysis to
simultaneously estimate a series of dependence relationships. Hence, SEM can measure variables
more comprehensively and reliably (Kocakaya & Kocakaya, 2014). As Plaggenhoef (2007, p.
123) stated, “the most important characteristics of SEM which make it different from other
techniques are the parallel estimation of multiple and interrelated dependence relationships, the
ability to represent unobserved concepts in these relationships and account for measurement
error in the estimation process.” Therefore, SEM is regarded a powerful statistical technique for
testing interactions in casual models because it provides total effects and a complete model’s
goodness of fit, making it possible to support a research model (Kyriazos, 2018).
98
I ran a structural equation model in AMOS 14, using it standard procedure of maximum
likelihood estimation. I used five fit indices to gauge the model fit: model chi-square (χ
2
),
relative chi-square (χ
2
/df), comparative fit index (CFI), Bentler-Bonett normed fit index (NFI),
and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA). If the proposed model fits well with the
observed data, χ
2
should not be significant and a relative chi-square (χ
2
value divided by the
degree of freedom (df)) value should fall in between 1.0 and 2.0 to be deemed acceptable
(Bentler, 1989; Kline, 2005). The tested structural model satisfies the first criteria with a non-
significant χ
2
(p-value larger than 0.05) and a χ
2
(23)/df (14) value (1.64) that is smaller than 2.
CFI close to 1 indicates a very good fit; “by convention, CFI should be equal to or greater than
0.90 to accept the model, indicating that 90% of the covariation in the data can be reproduced by
the given model” (Plaggenhoef, 2007, p. 124).
The structural model satisfies this second criterion with a CFI value of 0.96. Bentler and
Bonnet (1980) recommend NFI value greater than 0.90 as indicating a good fit. The structural
model satisfies this third criteria with NFI value of 0.92. For RMSEA, values of .08 or less
shows a good fit (Hooper, Coughlan, & Mullen, 2008) with an upper limit of .10 to provide a fair
fit (MacCallum, Browne, & Sugawara, 1996). The structural model moderately satisfies this final
criterion with a RMSEA value of 0.09. These data thus confirm that the hypothesized model is
supported and acceptable. The proposed model fits the data well: χ
2
= 23.0, df = 14, p >.05; χ
2
/df
= 1.64; NFI = .92; CFI = .96; RMSEA = .09. The standardized regression coefficient scores are
reported alongside the respective arrows indicating associations. Dotted arrows indicate
nonsignificant paths and the coefficient scores will not be reported. I present a path diagram of
the resultant structural model in Figure 6, and details on the associations and corresponding
standardized regression coefficients in Table 7.
1
Figure 8 Structural equation results of hypothesized model with standardized regression coefficients: (n = 82),
χ
2
= 23.00, df = 14, p > .05; χ
2
/df = 1.64; CFI = .96, NFI = .92, RMSEA = .09.
99
100
I present details on the relationships and elaborate the SEM results. It is important to note
that findings are based subjective assessments of teachers’ perceptions of school context and
basic needs satisfactions. These illustrate the extent to which teachers perceive their school
leaders as practicing structured leadership and perceive their peers as engaging in collegial
practices surrounding ICTI. The results on basic needs satisfaction reflect beliefs on the degree
to which their needs are satisfied. Despite the nature of the data, the findings are relevant to
answering my research question on the associations between school context and teachers’
motivation.
I explain the directions (positive or negative) guiding the associations between variables
and state if their relationship is significant or nonsignificant. I present the standardized regression
coefficient for each of the significant relationships. A standardized regression coefficient, called
beta (β), conveys the strength of the effect of an exogenous (independent) variable to an
endogenous (dependent) variable. Standardized coefficients coincide with changes in standard
deviation units. When β is positive, the relationship or correlation between two variables is
positive. When β is negative, the relationship or correlation between two variables is negative. In
other words, the standardized regression coefficient shows how much the value of an
endogenous variable increases or decreases when the value of exogenous variable goes up by one
standard deviation unit. An advantage of using standardized regression coefficients is that it
allows for a comparison of the relative strength of the coefficients. As Grønmo (2019, p.370)
explains, “the stronger the effect that the independent variable (x) has on the dependent variable
(y), the higher the absolute value of beta”. Therefore, the higher the beta coefficient, the stronger
is the correlational effect.
101
I present a summary of the study findings, respective standardized regression coefficients
of statistically significant results and hypothesized outcomes in the following tables before
interpreting results on the associations and respective coefficient scores. The hypotheses
suggested 18 possible effects. Results revealed 10 significant positive effects, 2 significant
negative effects contrary to the hypothesized paths, and 6 non-relations due to nonsignificant
effects (see Table 7). In Table 8, I highlight the results of significant relationships in a summary
of findings.
102
Table 7 Summary of hypotheses and outcomes
Hypotheses Results Standardized
Regression
Coefficient,
β
Direction if
significant
H1a: Structured leadership in ICT implementation
positively influences satisfaction of teachers’ basic
psychological needs for competence in computer-
assisted instruction.
Not
supported
H1b: Structured leadership in ICT implementation
positively influences satisfaction of teachers’ basic
psychological needs for autonomy in computer-
assisted instruction.
Supported .30 Positive,
p < .01
H1c: Structured leadership in ICT implementation
positively influences satisfaction of teachers’ basic
psychological needs for relatedness in computer-
assisted instruction.
Not
supported
-.28 Negative,
p < .05
H2a: Teacher collegiality in ICT implementation
positively influences the satisfaction of teachers’
basic psychological needs for competence in
computer-assisted instruction.
Supported .32 Positive,
p < .05
H2b: Teacher collegiality in ICT implementation
positively influences the satisfaction of teachers’
basic psychological needs for autonomy in
computer-assisted instruction.
Supported .52 Positive,
p < .01
H2c: Teacher collegiality in ICT implementation
positively influences the satisfaction of teachers’
basic psychological needs for relatedness in
computer-assisted instruction.
Supported .42 Positive,
p < .01
103
H3a1: Satisfaction of teachers’ basic psychological
needs for competence positively influences their
intrinsic motivation to perform when integrating
ICTs in instruction.
Supported .45 Positive,
p < .01
H3a2: Satisfaction of teachers’ basic psychological
needs for competence positively influences their
extrinsic motivation to perform when integrating
ICTs in instruction.
Not
supported
H4a3: Satisfaction of teachers’ basic psychological
needs for competence positively influences their
motivation to practice active usage when integrating
ICTs in instruction.
Supported .56 Positive,
p < .01
H4a4: Satisfaction of teachers’ basic psychological
needs for competence positively influences their
motivation to practice student-centered teaching
behavior when integrating ICTs in instruction.
Not
supported
H3b1: Satisfaction of teachers’ basic psychological
needs for autonomy positively influences their
intrinsic motivation to perform when integrating
ICTs in instruction.
Not
supported
H3b2: Satisfaction of teachers’ basic psychological
needs for autonomy positively influences their
extrinsic motivation to perform when integrating
ICTs in instruction.
Supported .57 Positive,
p < .01
H4b3: Satisfaction of teachers’ basic psychological
needs for autonomy positively influences their
motivation to practice active usage when integrating
ICTs in instruction.
Supported .40 Positive,
p < .01
104
H4b4: Satisfaction of teachers’ basic psychological
needs for autonomy positively influences their
motivation to practice student-centered teaching
behavior when integrating ICTs in instruction.
Supported .27 Positive,
p < .05
H3c1: Satisfaction of teachers’ basic psychological
needs for relatedness positively influences their
intrinsic motivation to perform when integrating
ICTs in instruction.
Not
supported
H3c2: Satisfaction of teachers’ basic psychological
needs for relatedness positively influences their
extrinsic motivation to perform when integrating
ICTs in instruction.
Not
supported
H4c3: Satisfaction of teachers’ basic psychological
needs for relatedness positively influences their
motivation to practice active usage when integrating
ICTs in instruction.
Not
supported
-.44 Negative,
p < .01
H4c4: Satisfaction of teachers’ basic psychological
needs for relatedness positively influences their
motivation to practice student-centered teaching
behavior when integrating ICTs in instruction.
Supported .24 Positive,
p < .05
105
The objective was to examine how internal communication practices specific to
structured leadership and teacher collegiality influence the perceived satisfaction of teachers’
needs of competence, autonomy and relatedness in using ICTI. Results pertaining to ICTI
implementation process suggest that interactions between teachers’ perception of school context
and perceived basic psychological needs. Consistent with the hypothesis (H2), the results indicate
that perceptions of teacher collegiality has significant positive effects on all three perceived basic
needs for (H2a) competence (β = .32, p < .01), (H2b) autonomy (β = .52, p < .01) and (H2c)
relatedness (β = .42, p < .01). Therefore, Hypothesis 2 is fully supported. The data suggests that
for one standard deviation increase in teacher collegiality leads to a 0.32 standard deviation
Table 8 Summary of significant findings
106
increase in perceived competence. The results suggest that positive perceptions of collegial
working relations among teachers using ICTI significantly predicts the perceived satisfaction of
their basic psychological needs. Of which, the satisfaction of teachers’ perceived need for
autonomy has the strongest association with their perception of teacher collegiality.
The results indicate that the hypotheses on structured leadership (H1), however, are not
fully supported due to mixed effects on needs satisfaction. While data revealed that teachers’
perception of structured leadership has a significant positive effect on their perceived need for
(H1b) autonomy (β = .30, p < .01), it is negatively associated with (H1c) perceived relatedness (β
= -.28, p < .05). Inconsistent with the hypothesis, the data shows that perception of structured
leadership does not satisfy teachers’ need for (H1a) competence (p > .05). With respect to the
ICTI implementation process that assesses the influence of school contextual factors on teachers’
needs satisfaction, it appears that perception of teacher collegiality is the only predictor of
perceived competence. Perceived autonomy is found to be better predicted by teacher collegiality
than structured leadership, since the former has a stronger correlational effect; β of 0.52 is
greater than 0.30. Interestingly, SEM analysis revealed that perceived satisfaction of the need for
autonomy is the only variable that is positively connected to the internal communication
practices of both teachers and school leaders. This conclusion cannot be made with other basic
needs since perceived competence is only predicted by collegiality, and relatedness has mixed
significant predictions. As for perceived relatedness, the more teachers perceive to engage in
collegial practices the more they perceive a sense of connectedness to their peers who also use
ICTI. However, perceptions of structured leadership approach appear to diminish their perceived
sense of belonging and closeness to one another. Yet, the results suggest that the positive effect
107
of perception of collegiality is stronger than the negative effect of perceived leadership on
perceived relatedness; β of (+)0.42 is greater than (-)0.28.
The findings on the ICT integration process will illuminate the interactions between basic
needs satisfaction and motivational outcomes related to performance and practice. With respect
to teachers’ intrinsic motivation to perform (H3,1), only one significant relationship was found.
The data indicates that (H3a1) competence is the only basic need that is significantly associated
with intrinsic motivation (β = .45, p < .01). This suggests that teachers who perceive stronger
mastery over their technical skillsets without feeling incompetent are those who are more likely
to engage in ICTI integration simply because they enjoy it. The satisfaction of teachers’ needs
for (H3b1) autonomy and (H3c1) relatedness have nonsignificant effects on their intrinsic
motivation. Hence, the degree to which teachers feel connected to their peers or consider
themselves as being self-regulated has no effect on them performing ICTI for the fun derived
from it. Instead, teachers who perceive themselves as more technologically competent or literate
will be more innately motivated without requiring an externally triggered push to get them to
incorporate ICTI. This result reinforces past conclusions that on-going teacher training is
essential for encouraging greater enjoyment in using ICTs (Cózar-Gutiérrez & Sáez-López,
2016; Hammond et al., 2009; Saltan, 2015). Since the study findings revealed that only
perception of collegial behaviors improve teachers’ sense of perceived competence, it is possible
to assume that teacher training that originates from peer interactions through communicative
practices built on promoting one-on-one mentoring or a school-wide initiative to improve
collaborative problem solving are more likely to satisfy their need for competence, which will in
turn positively influence their innate motivation to perform ICTI.
108
Results pertaining to extrinsic motivation show resemblance to the previous finding,
albeit with respect to a different need satisfaction. The data indicates that (H3b2) autonomy is the
only basic need that is significantly associated with extrinsic motivation (β = .57, p < .01). The
satisfaction of teachers’ perceived needs for (H3a2) competence and (H3c2) relatedness have
nonsignificant effects on their extrinsic motivation to use ICTI. Therefore, there is limited
support for Hypothesis 3. The results suggest that teachers who perceive to possess control and
freedom over their decisions to use ICTI thrive in an environment where they receive external
validation for their efforts. These validations can come in the form of rewards and salary
increments, recognition and encouragement from superiors, along with empathy and support
from peers. Hence, the more autonomous teachers feel, the more their ICTI behaviors will be
driven by eternally motivated factors. The perceptions of both leadership and collegiality are
found to positively influence feelings of autonomy. It can be assumed that promoting supportive
leadership that incorporates employee recognition techniques, and collegial practices that
emphasize awareness of and empathy for peer efforts to integrate ICTI will positively influence
teachers’ extrinsic motivation of perform ICTI.
When it comes to motivating teachers to practice ICTI integration, the results are not as
straightforward. Moderately consistent with the hypothesis (H4,3), the results indicate that
perceived satisfaction of (H4a3) competence (β = .56, p < .01) and (H4b3) autonomy (β = .40, p <
.01) are positively associated with teachers’ active use of ICTI. The findings suggest that
perceived competence is a stronger predictor of active use. Therefore, teachers who feel more
competent in their ICT skillset and knowledge are more likely to intend to continue using ICTI.
As such, it can be assumed that perceived competence that is satisfied by teachers’ perceptions of
collegial practices has a strong effect on their intrinsic motivation and willingness to sustain their
109
use of ICTI. Although perceived autonomy is not as strong a predictor, its effect on active use of
ICTI cannot be dismissed. Since autonomy is predicted by both leadership and collegiality, it can
be concluded that internal communication practices that support teachers’ independent use of
ICTI, where they can make choices and take control use, can increase their intentions to actively
use technology in their practice. This suggests that internal communication efforts should
prioritize teacher-autonomy and encourage self-regulated ICTI integration.
In contrast, (H4c3) perceived relatedness (β = -.44, p < .01) appears to have a significantly
negative effect on teachers’ motivation to actively use ICTI. Hence, H43 is partially supported,
revealing that perceived satisfaction of basic needs has mixed effects on teachers’ motivation to
practice active usage of technology. This negative association between perceived relatedness and
active use can be attributed to the negative effect of perceived structured leadership to this need.
While this is a possible explanation, it is also critical to note that perception of collegiality is
found to be a better predictor of relatedness. As such, this finding could mean that in addition to
structured leadership practices causing teachers to feel less connected with peers who use ICTI,
collegial practices could be bringing teachers together potentially due to a shared dislike for
using ICTI. This shared inclination could justify the resultant negative effect of perceived
relatedness on the intention to continue integrating ICTI. While this finding may not be
encouraging for sustained integration, it is helpful for understanding how aspects of internal
communication can be modified to motivate teachers to actively use in their practice.
The second part of the hypothesis (H4,4) relating to teachers’ motivation to practice
student-centric teaching behavior is also partially supported. The perceived needs for (H4b4)
autonomy (β = .27, p < .05) and (H4c4) relatedness (β = .24, p < .05) have significant positive
associations with student-centered behavior. It appears that both these needs dimensions have
110
comparable effects on teachers’ willingness to practice student-centric teaching behavior. Hence,
this suggests that the more teachers partake in collegial relations, they feel greater satisfaction of
their need for relatedness. As teachers feel greater satisfaction of this need, they are more likely
to engage in ICT-enabled instructional practices that prioritize students over a teacher-centered
approach. Unlike the previous finding relating to teachers’ motivation to engage in active ICT
use, the negative effect of perceived structured leadership on perceived relatedness is not
negatively affecting the need’s influence on this motivational outcome. This could either suggest
that the positive effect of perceived teacher collegiality on this need has a stronger effect on the
motivational outcome as opposed to that of leadership. Alternatively, the more leaders engage in
unstructured communication practices, teachers experience greater perceived sense of connection
with their peers which translates to their motivation to take on a more student-centered practice.
Consistent with the previous finding, teachers who perceive greater autonomy are more likely to
engage in teaching practices that support autonomous learning. Likewise, this effect can be
attributed to effective internal communication practices within the school context. Finally,
inconsistent with the hypothesis, the data shows that perceived need for competence has no
significant effect on teachers’ motivation to practice student-centered teaching behavior. This
suggests that whether teachers perceive themselves to be knowledgeable and competent in ICT
use does not translate to them engaging in teaching behaviors that move beyond a teacher-centric
focus to one that supports student-centric learning. Perhaps, teacher training sessions could
impart teachers with knowledge on ICTI as well as emphasize on the import of supporting
student autonomy in an ICT-enabled learning environment.
It is worth noting that with respect to ICTI integration, the perceived need for relatedness
does not affect motivation to perform, while perception of competence and autonomy have
111
effects on motivation to perform and practice. Additionally, the need for autonomy is the only
factor that positively effects both the motivational outcomes related to the practice of ICTI. With
respect to ICTI integration, the perceived satisfaction of teachers’ psychological needs appears to
have the weakest effect on their motivation to practice student-centered behavior (i.e. Autonomy
β of .27 and Relatedness β of .24). These values are the lowest compared to the rest of the effect
strengths of needs on motivation. The perceived satisfaction of teachers’ autonomy has the
greatest effect on motivation (i.e. β of .57 on extrinsic motivation), closely followed by the
satisfaction of competence (β of .56 on active use). Indeed, needs dimensions are powerful
mediators of the effect of organizational context on motivational outcomes, but they appear to
have mixed predictions. Since perception of relatedness appear to yield the most obscure effects,
I recommend that schoolwide internal communication strategies to motivate teachers to integrate
ICTI could focus on satisfying teachers’ needs to autonomy and competence instead. In the next
chapter, I report qualitative findings to contribute in two ways; to aid in explaining the
quantitative results and to inform the development of internal communication strategies. When
these strategies are discussed in the final chapter, I will revisit interpretations of the quantitative
results.
112
Chapter 6: Qualitative Findings
In this chapter, I present the qualitative findings under two main sections. The first
involves findings related to internal communication practices specific to teacher collegiality, and
the second is specific to structured leadership. The qualitative findings give important clues on
how I can fit the relationships found in the quantitative results. The qualitative findings are also
important in yielding ideas and directions for internal communication strategies that will be
proposed in the next chapter.
The findings suggest that increased collegial practices can lead to improved feelings of
competence and relatedness among teachers. Teachers expressed interest in learning from fellow
peers through structured activities and training sessions. The findings suggest that teachers’
perceptions of their peers, lab assistants and school leaders. The interviews with teachers
revealed that school leaders need to engage in more open dialogue with teachers in order to avoid
misunderstandings and increase their involvement in the schools’ ICT implementation efforts to
bring about positive impact to teachers’ integration experiences.
While teachers raised concerns over the function of lab assistants and the consequences
they had on facility and resource management, the findings point toward the need for school
leaders to take on more proactive roles in facilitating teachers’ ICTI integration. There is strong
evidence to suggest that teachers would benefit from a school context that acknowledges the
value of collective learning and active participation in establishing schoolwide ICTI policies,
regulations and guidelines. Finally, the findings suggest that principals should gain adequate
technical expertise. Indeed, their ICTI knowledge shapes teachers’ attitudes and responses to
technology implementation efforts
113
6.1. Internal Communication Practice in ICTI: Teacher Collegiality
The quantitative results revealed that collegial relations between teachers are beneficial to
their perceived psychological well-being. This supports a key argument put forth in this study
with respect to contextual factors influencing technology integration. It strengthens the merits of
addressing teachers’ collegial relations in the ICTI implementation phase, confirming the need
for implementation strategies that improve teachers’ relations for the betterment of their
psychological health.
Qualitative findings indicated that minimal attention has been given to how teachers
interact for effective implementation of ICT in schools. Findings confirmed that initiatives to
implement ICTs, whether initiated by the local education ministry, school heads or external
NGO bodies, often view teachers as individuals in their instructional efforts instead of
acknowledging the group-level impact they have on one another.
6.1a. Increased Collegiality for Increased Competence
There is a shared commitment among teachers to use ICTs for the benefit of students.
According to Teacher 4, “if we do not use ICTs in our practice, many opportunities can be
missed, and we are depriving students of the chance to know everything”. Teachers are keen “to
take advantage” of existing ICT facilities in the schools for lesson preparation, but there are
mixed circumstances. Teacher 7 shared that while some teachers actively used ICTs, a
substantial number of peers would engage in minimal ICT use with little interest in trying to
improve their knowledge and capacity. Teachers acknowledged that building their ICT capacity
is a personal decision that takes time and practice. Moreover, they recognized that it takes the
combined effort and “shared responsibility” of teachers to help one another build capacity.
114
While some may refrain from joint efforts, others are more willing to seek help from their
peers. Teachers reported working collaboratively to manage the “immense volume of
information available on the internet”. As Teacher 1 shared, “In the school, we interact with the
internet and with teachers too. We sit with other teachers to navigate the information online.
Because not all pages are educational, and we have to ensure that the content is appropriate”.
Teachers reported instances where they sought assistance from their peers to gather relevant
teaching materials from online resources. While there is some degree of collaborative work,
these joint efforts take place informally without being initiated by school leaders. It was clear
from the interviews that teachers have very positive opinions about ICT resources, especially
those available on the internet. They struggle with identifying sites that offer activities,
assessments and content that are relevant to the subjects they teach. Teachers are also aware that
the internet has more to offer for classroom content than video compilations from YouTube.
However, a gap exists in their perceived abilities to find relevant content to put together quality
lesson materials and the extent to which teachers work collaboratively. It is a matter of
increasing teacher collegiality to meet their need for competence. When teachers work together
to source educational content online, they can develop their individual expertise in preparing
instructional materials.
While some teachers have joined forces, a majority have highlighted the need for more
collective efforts. As Teacher 1 recalled, “There are colleagues who know a lot [about ICT], but
there are those who are still beginners. Unfortunately, we work as individuals and we do not
come together to care about advancing together. There is a climate of indifference among us,
which is a difficulty that we are facing.” Despite possessing prior ICT knowledge through
training and having some level of hands-on experience, teachers look upon their more
115
experienced peers as resources for collaborative learning. Teacher 4’s comment reflected this
sentiment, “Some of us have more experience with ICT use than others. Knowing is one thing
and putting it into practice is another. I can learn the technology but may not necessarily feel
confident enough to put it into practice. Teachers can share their knowledge and help those who
lack the experience. One way is to organize workshops to help train one another for using ICTs
in the classroom.”
Teachers emphasized the importance of communication amongst themselves. Teachers
shared that there is “no communication in order to share” their knowledge with one another. The
lack of communication among teachers is not acknowledged by the schools or ministries, hence
no consideration has been made to facilitate sharing among teachers.
Training and implementation programs, at institutional and national levels, need to
recognize the benefits of collaborative efforts and the impact it can have on ICTI. ICTI
implementation procedures could incorporate strategies to improve collegiality among teachers,
by prioritizing increased communication among teachers to enhance their ICT capacities as well
as to create an environment for shared knowledge and experience. One such strategy is the
initiation of teacher-mentoring programs.
Teachers suggested that they are keen to learn from their peers by “possibly sitting in
other teachers’ ICT classes”. As Teacher 16 stated, “It would be nice to see a model class. Just
observing how other teachers conduct their ICT classes can help us to improve ourselves.
Something like a training workshop where we can observe and even get immersed in the class to
help our instruction.” This reflects teachers’ interest in learning from their peers, along with the
potential benefits that engaging in collegial practices can have on their knowledge building. Such
116
collegial practices that are grounded in self-improvement could positively affect teachers’ sense
of control and independence over their own work.
Furthermore, teacher collegiality is not only confined to working collectively, but also
with having shared goals or orientation toward schoolwide ICT implementation. When teachers
are willing to take the effort to learn from one another, it reflects a common orientation toward
the school’s goal to implement ICTI.
6.1b. Training Programs involving Teachers, not DAIPs
Teachers expressed a strong need for continued learning by means of peer-mentoring
training programs to improve their competence in ICT usage. They acknowledged that initial
ICT training workshops organized by the Ministry were critical in exposing them to technology
as well as in acquiring new ICT skillsets useful to their practice. However, teachers expressed
that they need more help in determining relevant online content, troubleshooting, engaging
students and overall sense of confidence in using ICTI. Many teachers continue to feel
overwhelmed by the amount of online information available to them. They are also apprehensive
about “staying behind in the globalized world... because this knowledge society overwhelms us”.
“We are afraid of change and the transformation that technology is bringing to our teaching
practice, but it is our personal obligation as educators to overcome our fears and see how we can
help one another,” said Teacher 33.
As Teacher 12 added, “For me, getting training is very important. The government has
done its part of providing training courses in the beginning, but only a mere handful of teachers
in our school can confidently handle computers. These computer-savvy teachers can train us in
computer use. These colleagues can be assigned the role as “trainers” to teach us how to use
educational programs that can help us to develop our teaching materials for classes.... I know that
117
there are many things that can be accessed from the Internet, but it is hard to access these
materials when we do not know how to properly assess the content.” In addition, Teachers
expressed that by working collaboratively with one another, they would be able to pick up new
methodologies in ICTI. Without limiting their sharing to the ICT labs, teachers expressed interest
in sitting-in in a mentor’s computer-enabled classes to “see different ICTI methods adopted by
other instructors”.
When asked if the ministry-appointed ICT lab assistants, or Docente del Aula de
Innovación Educativa Peru (DAIPs), could mentor them, teachers expressed that their past
experiences with approaching DAIPs had not been pleasant. “It is not acceptable that DAIPs are
not sufficiently specialized in computers. DAIPs appointed to our school may know a little more
than us about computer use and troubleshooting, but they do not know enough to teach us or to
motivate us... Basically, they do not understand our experiences as teachers, so it is hard for them
to guide us. The little that we know and do is a result of our own efforts and have little to do with
the DAIPs being present in the labs,” claimed Teacher 3.
Beyond the limitation of not being able to relate to their work, teachers also revealed
feeling embarrassed to clarify doubts with DAIPs who belittle them when approached. As
Teacher 6 shared, “Instead of blaming us for not getting a certain aspect of the computer, the
DAIP could be a little more understanding that we are still learning. It is not easy for us to learn
fast as we only received limited ICT training, but the DAIP makes us feel ashamed to ask any
questions... Eventually, we decided that it was better to remain silent than to be shouted at and
get embarrassed in front of everyone in the lab.” These experiences with DAIPs have prompted
teachers to request for mentors with whom they share collegial relations with. Teachers are
generally in consensus that they would rather seek the assistance of their colleagues who can
118
relate to their work, and at the same time treat them with respect as equals engaged in ICTI.
Teacher 8 echoed a shared sentiment, “If a teacher is more computer-savvy, he or she can work
together with other colleagues who need help and have the interest to collaborate. Through
cooperation, we can achieve learning.” Teacher 24 suggested that mentors can mentor teachers
who teach similar subjects. He added, “Amongst us, we should organize groups by the subjects
we teach. The group mentor will be knowledgeable to the subject content and can more
effectively help the rest create and share educational materials [for ICTI].”
Teacher 33 stated that teachers prefer training sessions or workshops that are held within
the school premises, and favour acquiring practical over theoretical knowledge about ICT use in
classes. She explained, “As I said, training is important here in our school. We have the
computers, but we need constant training. I would suggest to the principals organize training
sessions within our premises. These classes should be practical workshops which teach us
different ways to apply internet tools in our practices.” Teacher 29 added, “Ideally, we should
learn from our more “expert” teachers, because they will know better than DAIPs what is
expected of teachers and how teaching materials can be catered to make ICT learning more fun
and useful for students.” It is important to note that teachers are not dismissing the value and
role of DAIPs in their ICTI efforts. They acknowledge that DAIPs have the expertise in
hardware maintenance and offer technical support when programs or internet connections
malfunction, but they are not able to relate effectively to the experiences and needs of teachers.
Hence, while teachers value the support, they receive from DAIPs, they expect principals to
understand their need for more training and to facilitate this need for competence with
appropriate efforts.
119
6.1c. Increased Collegiality for Increased Relatedness
Teachers view collaborative efforts as one that could extend beyond the confines of their
schools. An idea proposed by Teacher 8 illustrates how teachers perceive ICTI as enabling a
community of shared efforts, “We can join local communities to exchange ideas and information
with other teachers. This way, we can learn [ICTI] practices of other schools and see what
resources those teachers are accessing to benefit students.” By enabling teachers to form learning
communities with peers from schools at state and districts levels, both physically and virtually,
ICTI initiatives will connect teachers with a wider informational support system and allow for
interschool communication that could benefit teachers’ sense of relatedness with peers who
practice ICTI.
Positive collegial relations are found to help alleviate the relational stress that teachers
may feel from the actions of DAIPs. Especially since teachers feel closer in authority and
professional experience with their peers over DAIPs, teachers expressed that they feel freer to
share their fears, opinions, suggestions, and to ask questions about ICTI with their colleagues.
This shared confidence also makes it easier for teachers to openly communicate and understand
the personal and academic challenges that their fellow teachers face in integrating ICTI. Beyond
sharing experiences and knowledge, teachers look to their peers, as opposed to DAIPs, for
solutions to ICTI challenges. Indeed, peer-to-peer sharing prevents feeling of inferiority among
teachers and makes them feel understood and respected.
Findings also indicated that there were some efforts from more IT savvy teachers to offer
help and provide suggestions to their peers to improve their ICTI work. Teachers found such
inputs from colleagues useful but emphasized a need to make such efforts more structured, such
as offering weekly sessions for teachers to come together to learn from knowledgeable peers. As
120
Teacher 15 stated, “There are colleagues that help us and tell us how we can improve, and we
accept it. Some are more active in their help while others don’t help unless asked. But there is a
good climate in our school and there is respect between us.” Teacher 22 echoed this, “We can
have more regular peer learning sessions, and make it clear that there are five or six teachers
whom we can go to for help. This makes things a lot clearer, so that we do not inconvenience
others too.” While this relates to teachers building their competence through collegial
interactions, it also points to the potential of improved feelings of connectedness and mutual
respect resulting from peer to peer knowledge sharing.
6.2. Internal Communication Practice in ICTI: Structured Leadership
6.2a. More Dialogue Equals Less Misunderstanding
A central communication problem identified is the overall lack of two-way dialogue
between teachers and school leaders. Teachers shared various encounters where they were either
misunderstood by, disappointed with, or indifferent about the way their principals handled
various ICTI implementation strategies put in place at the school level. The feedback from
teachers points toward a need for principals to understand the daily challenges that teachers face
with respect to the execution of their ICTI duties. As Teacher 28 expressed, “There is an internal
problem in the school because of the lack of communication that distorts principals’
understanding of what we teachers are going through.”
Teachers expressed that not all teachers are equally enthused about school ICTI
implementation efforts. Various challenges that teachers face in adopting technology, from fear
of technology to reluctance to put in extra hours for ICT class preparations, could influence their
interest to embrace implementation efforts. As Teacher 19 said, “Using ICTs is not every
teacher’s cup of tea. Some of us are more open to it while others prefer to stick to traditional
121
teaching methods. But if the school wants to put something in place, the principals have to
enforce it.” Teacher 11 added that, “Principals do not need to coerce teachers into engaging in
ICTI, but they have to be more practical and executive in their approach.” Teacher 11’s
statement summed up this sentiment as, “Taking a practical approach means that principals must
first listen to teachers without ignoring us. If a teacher is not showing interest in using computers
principals as leaders must insist that we do.” He added, “The more principals talk with teachers
on their plans and ideas for ICTI, the more we can also get excited and involved.” This suggests
that principals need to understand that ICTI implementation involves two-way communication,
where it is crucial to listen to teachers’ input, be it in terms of ICT policies, rules or even ideas
on improving teaching methods.
The findings indicate that there are instances where teachers feel pressured by leaders to
implement ICTI. When expressing such instances, teachers highlighted that principals could
create an environment that encourages and facilitates ICTI instead of making it a compulsion.
They unanimously agreed that including teachers in decision making processes will give them a
stronger sense on involvement and control over their school’s ICTI implementation initiatives.
For such dialogue to happen, principals must be open to suggestions and engage in
communication strategies that prioritize inclusivity and sharing.
While listening is the first step to establishing dialogue, teachers highlighted that
principals should engage in conversations without feeling defensive or criticized. “The principals
have always been defensive,” remarked Teacher 18. She added that, “Even if we have something
positive to feedback on our school’s ICT efforts, principals automatically assume that we are
criticizing and cut off any conversation.” Teacher 43 shared a similar experience where “a
constructive criticism to help improve our ICTI practices were deemed as a destructive criticism
122
and were immediately resented by the principal, disrupting any flow of communication” between
teachers and school leaders. In order to gain teachers’ trust, principals could present an
approachable front and listen with an open mind without taking constructive comments as
personal attacks. Teacher 27 added that, “In the initial years when computers were introduced to
our schools, our principals would approach us for suggestions, and we supported each other.
Recently, I don’t know what happened. They are avoiding conversations about our ICT use,
more like they are not open to listening to us.” She continued, “The principals’ opinions are
respected, and they are also well respected among teachers. They just need to be more consistent
in their communication approaches with us, to receive feedback and involve teachers
consistently without being fickle about it.”
A willingness to listen to teachers’ needs, and doing so consistently, will enable leaders
to better understand the challenges that they are facing in their ICTI practice, and provide
solutions that facilitate their usage. This would also allow for teachers to get more involved in
the implementation process and feel that their voices are heard. As reflected in the study
findings, principals who communicate less with teachers fail to understand their extant needs for
emotional and informational support in ICTI. Unable to fulfil needs germane to teachers’ sense
of relatedness, structured leadership is found to negatively influence their psychological state of
connectedness.
6.2b. Principals must Step-In to Step-Up
Improved internal communication begins with increased communication between school
leaders and teachers. The lack of two-way open communication related to a school’s ICTI
implementation strategies has created a gap between teachers and school principals. Teachers
hold a perception that principals are forcing ICTI plans to them on, which involves longer work
123
hours dedicated to lesson preparations in the labs as well as having to manage the challenges of
navigating new technology. A distance between teachers could have resulted from a lack of open
communication about principal’s intentions to implement ICTI and a two-way discussion of how
the school can best support teachers in their ICTI endeavours.
Consequently, teachers could have been divided by the mixed feelings about leadership’s
intentions and actions. As Teacher 30 stated, teachers could initiate open communication with
principals without passively waiting for principals to open their doors. He added that engaging in
open communication with leadership begins with improved communication among teachers: “I
think we must cite the lack of interest from school leaders and acknowledge the lack of interest
from us. The more we share and talk amongst ourselves, the more we will be willing to share and
open up with principals too.” Teacher 9 echoed, “We are glad you opened our eyes to this. If we
all join efforts, go to the principal and say “Ms. Director, let’s put ICTI as a priority. It is
important to have a smooth functioning ICT classroom. It is very important to us that you ensure
that we get allotted hours to use the ICT labs. Because the more hours that we miss from not
utilizing the labs, the more classroom hours we are going to miss.” ... We can only do this if we
share with one another our needs so that they can be expressed to the leaders.”
Teachers place priority on their need for competence. They frequently expressed a keen
interest in improving their ICT skillsets and knowledge. When teachers reach out to school
leaders with ideas for continued learning and knowledge development that would benefit their
ICTI practices, principals would respond by asking them to explore the idea further but would
not follow-up or show any support in implementing these learning opportunities. Teacher 16
reflected on one such incident, “When I proposed the idea of downloading a free software that
teachers can use to make their lessons more interesting, the principals barely gave me any time to
124
share more information about the software or even listen to why it would benefit teachers. He
said that he will think about it and brushed it off after a while.” Similar instances were shared by
other teachers who failed to receive support from school leaders regarding opportunities to
improve their ICT capacities. Consequently, it is found that structured leadership has no effect on
teachers’ perceived sense of competence. Leaders seem to overlook that improving teachers’
ICTI capacities is part of their structured efforts to guide teachers in their actual ICTI work.
A central cause for teachers to perceive that leaders are triggering them to drift away
from the peers is the poor management of ICT resources by the assigned DAIPs. As middlemen
between principals and teachers, DAIPs control when teachers use the computer labs, what they
can access, how long and with whom they can use the recourses. Much concern was raised about
the poor management of lab resources by DAIPs. Since DAIPs are technically under the
supervision and instruction of school leaders, teachers associate the poor management to leaders’
lack of intervention and awareness of the challenges that they encounter. As exemplified by
Teacher 40’s experience, “We have an issue with the availability of the computer labs. During
our free time, we want to access the labs to do our work, but the DAIP stops us. I badly wanted
to use the lab because I had already organized an ICT session with my students the next day.
Instead the DAIP said that the principals gave clear orders not to allow anyone in the labs after
teaching hours or on days when the lab is closed because things could get lost or damaged. I said
that I will take any responsibility since I know how to handle the computers and I will even sign
any forms to indicate that I assessed the lab. Yet the DAIP clearly refused to open the lab.
Despite our pleas, the principal does not provide us with a solution to rectify this problem.
Simply having the DAIP control access without hearing our needs is unfair.”
125
Teacher 2 added, “If I were the principal, I would ask for teachers to sign a form
whenever they want to use the lab to indicate that they will be held accountable. But there must
be a meeting with the teachers to express this proposal. Our principal does not have such
meetings with us to talk about what we need, what our problems are and how we can solve them.
I understand that there are days when the labs are closed, but if principals coordinate better, we
can all access the labs with more ease.”
More than an issue of access, the drift between teachers was attributed to biased and
discriminatory behaviours of principal approved DAIPs. In terms of allocating ICT resources,
principals were perceived to display partiality among teachers by subjects-taught, making them
feel that they are not being treated equally. “While the DAIP allowed more access to the labs for
some teachers, he refused to allow others. When asked why, he says that is how the scheduling
was done. The principal does not see the schedules and does not intervene when not everyone is
given equal opportunities. Just because we do not teach English or Computation does not make
our subject any less a priority for ICTI,” reflected Teacher 32.
6.2c. Teachers are Perceived as Individuals, Not Groups
Discussions with teachers made it evident that leaders see teachers as individuals, with
little acknowledgement of the impact or influence that they encounter at a group-level. From the
initiation of ICTI plans and objectives, to the implementation of various internal communication
strategies, principals overlook the collective benefits and support that teachers can offer one
another in the ICTI process. When leaders fail to recognize teachers as collective groups of
peers, they overlook the implications of their interactions with one another. Consequently,
principals tend to dismiss the reality that teachers seek emotional support from their peers by
feeling close to them and being able to relate with one another on the grounds of their shared
126
ICTI experiences. When principals demonstrate a lack of awareness of group communication
and the impact that relatedness has on teachers’ motivation, their ICTI implementation strategies,
objectives and efforts are bound to be restricted at an individual level. As the study findings
suggest, such dispositions of principals negatively affect the extent to which teachers deem
leadership as satisfying their need for relatedness.
Teachers expressed that they are often instructed to independently design their ICTI
sessions by incorporating various online and offline programs. Although teachers have the basic
ICT knowledge, they shared the sentiment that they would rather receive clearly designed ICT
curriculum that they can follow instead of having to develop curriculums by themselves. Teacher
20 explained that teachers prefer to work with fellow teachers, preferably with those teaching the
same subject, to develop curriculum. However, teachers indicated that the reality is that teachers
are expected to look to DAIPs for assistance with class design. As found in various instances,
teachers either found DAIPs to be incompetent in guiding them or DAIPs shun their
responsibilities of assisting teachers, which is overlooked by the principals. Instead, teachers
expressed that principals seem hesitant to allow teachers to work together in groups because they
deem it a fruitless effort. “School leaders don’t see the value in us working with our peers when
it comes to ICT-related matters. They think that it should be handled on our own”, said Teacher
30. Teacher 17 echoed that, “what is missing is the empathy from school leaders that
collectively, we will be able to produce more effective teaching materials.”
When school leaders fail to recognize the group-level impact that teachers can have on
one another for the acquisition and development of their ICT knowhow, they are unable to
contribute to teachers’ sense of competence. Much of the discussion with teachers point toward
their interest to learn from one another in small groups as well as in collaborating with mentors
127
who can enrich their learning and overall ICTI experience. However, an internal communication
practice, due to an individualistic mentality, that does not recognize the potential of collective
work will not be able to leverage on teachers’ eagerness for collective group learning. And this
oversight has repercussions on teachers’ motivation to actively use ICTs in their practice. Hence,
positive change begins with an awareness that teachers are not just individuals struggling to
integrate ICTI, but groups who can depend on and work with their colleagues to facilitate and
improve the process.
6.2d. Knowledge Demands Respect
In order to create better structure in schoolwide ICTI implementation plans, school
leaders need to demonstrate that they are informed about every aspect of ICTI. Possessing
relevant information and demonstrating knowledge of the information help principals establish
their authority and credibility as leaders. While teachers trust their principals and their abilities
on other school matters, teachers across all schools but one expressed that they are not convinced
that their principals know how to manage ICTI implementation. Principals understand why ICTI
implementation is important, but in order to support it, they need to first and foremost know with
certainty their role in the implementation process. This doubt in leadership is triggered by several
reasons.
Principals demonstrate little understanding that teachers need someone to assist them in
their ICT work, let alone comprehend the urgency in requesting for a new DAIP when a previous
assistant has been absent for a significant time. As Teacher 8 expressed, “Principals have the
power to demand for a DAIP if the previous DAIP stops showing up. This happened in our
school before, but our principal does not take any follow-up measures. We had to remind him for
months before he finally requested, and we waited almost a year without a DAIP.” Teacher 12
128
added, “We can manage a little even if the DAIP is not around, but principal shuts downs the
ICT labs when there is no DAIP. This is a very big disadvantage. Because our principals do not
want to get involved in our ICTI practice, they rather resort to shutting down the labs.” “They
fail to understand that such responses are affecting students the most,” echoed Teacher 5. In this
case, principals need to be informed that teachers need the assistance of DAIPs, but more
importantly, they need their principals to keep the ICT labs accessible to teachers even in the
absence of a DAIP. And when a situation arises where a DAIP no longer works in the school,
principals should demonstrate that they are more proactive and quicker to follow-up with the
ministry for a replacement.
Leaders need to show that they are genuinely trying to get the ‘best’ DAIPs to assist their
teachers. Teacher 29 said, “We understand the DAIPs are assigned by the ministry, but principals
can make specific requests to the ministry indicating specific expectations.” Teacher 31 added
that to achieve this, “principals need to be knowledgeable about the limitations and challenges
that teachers are facing in order to help them.” “We need properly trained DAIPs who can assist
us, someone who can take care of scheduling our use in a more organized manner,” she added. In
terms of demonstrating knowledge, teachers expressed that their principals could take on more
aggressive measures when requesting for a DAIP who suits their needs. As Teacher 33 stated,
“The principals must be more thoughtful when accepting a DAIP. At least evaluate the DAIP to
assess if he can offer training to teachers, repair computers, and fairly allocate timeslots for our
use.” Hence, when principals are aware of what teachers need and expect of a DAIP, they can
have more control over the quality of DAIP assigned to them. Whilst this is related to increased
feedback from teachers, principals need to first have the awareness that they are central agents
who can bridge gaps between teachers and DAIPs. With greater knowledge of their role as
129
facilitators in ICTI implementation, principals can improve teachers’ need for training and
expertise, which are related to their needs for competence. The absence of such efforts from
leadership could explain the nonsignificant effect of leadership on teachers’ competence.
Beyond gaining knowledge of teachers’ needs, it is found that principals need to gain
knowledge of ICTs and its function in instruction in order to gain the respect of teachers. “The
principal very easily instructs us, “Use this program. Find information online. Bring your
students the ICT labs. Do that activity”, but my question is whether the principal even knows
what he is talking about?”, questioned Teacher 3. Other teachers chimed in agreement that their
school leaders do not have adequate knowledge about ICTs or how ICT-enabled classes should
be conducted to offer befitting advice and guidance to them. A statement by Teacher 6 reflected
the core of the problem, “Teachers have mandatory ICT training workshops that we have to
attend. These are organized by the ministry. But principals are not required to get ICT training.”
Teacher 15 added, “How can we seek school leaders for advice and guidance when they lack the
knowhow on the topic?” Teacher 21 summed up that principals are not adequately
knowledgeable of the technical aspects of ICTs as well as how to use technology in instruction.
Consequently, school leaders tend to remain less involved in implementation efforts or show
little interest in improving the school’s extant ICTI practices. Hence, when principals can
establish theoretical and technical proficiency in technology, they will be able to provide
practical guidance on ICTI with greater finesse.
6.2e. Hands-on involvement for Clearer Routines
Earlier, I stated the finding that teachers experienced relational stress as a result of
DAIPs’ biased and discriminatory behaviours. Although the action is initiated by DAIPs,
teachers attributed any negative consequences to principals’ lack of involvement because
130
principals have the responsibility of monitoring DAIPs. As reported earlier, Teacher 32 stated
that “the principal does not see the schedules and does not intervene when not everyone is given
equal opportunities.” This sentiment was echoed in various instances. As Teacher 12 stated,
“Scheduling of the lab facilities is extremely disorganized. The lab schedules are sporadically
circulated to us. We have to turn up to the labs and check availability.” Teacher 14 recalled an
incident that caused her students and herself inconvenience due to poor scheduling practices: “I
can understand when there isn’t set routines for teachers’ self-use, but the scheduling should
prioritize classroom sessions. We sometimes receive a timetable that indicates when we can
bring our students to the ICT labs. When I went with my class for our session, the DAIP
irresponsibly said that he gave my slot to another teacher who requested for it.”
Teacher 11 added that the issue with DAIP extends beyond that of improper scheduling:
“When we go to the ICT labs, the DAIP does nothing. The DAIP we had years ago facilitated,
supported and helped us, but the recent DAIPs that we have been receiving just stand there
without offering any assistance.” Although the role of DAIPs was not studied as a factor within
school context, their influence on teachers’ ICTI experience cannot be overlooked. Further
probing shed light on the perspectives of teachers on this matter. When problems or
dissatisfactions arouse with DAIPs, teachers associated setbacks to school leaders’ lack of
intervention. The less involved principals are in rectifying teachers’ problems with DAIPs, the
more teachers lack confidence in their abilities to lead effectively, because “principals are simply
standing back and letting the DAIP run the show”, said Teacher 27.
Teacher 14 added that, “There is no proper system in place because the DAIP does not
honour the scheduling. Worst still, our principal ignores our pleas for him to look into this
matter.” Teachers point to principals’ lack of involvement in DAIPs’ work because they take it
131
that the DAIP will handle all aspects of the ICT class, from maintaining equipment and
scheduling use to assisting teachers with lesson preparation. Instead, teachers expressed that
principals need to give them more freedom in indicating their preferred time slots for lab use. As
Teacher 8 suggested, “The school should allow us to use the ICT labs outside regular school
hours. We are open to staying back to use the computers, but we need the school to agree to us
scheduling according to our needs.”
In addition, teachers are concerned that inefficient facility planning is affecting student-
learning. As Physical Education teacher, Teacher 20, explained, “When we don’t get enough
time to prepare for our ICT classes, we cannot present the best materials to our students. At the
end of the day, we all want what is best for our students. We need a timetable that considers all
the teachers and classes and gives equal priority across every subject, even physical education.”
Techer 4 added, “For example, while the two History teachers get assigned two ICT classes each
a week, why is it that two Maths teachers are given one session a day? Someone should design a
fair plan and the principal has to be serious about it.” Teacher 4’s reflection echoed previously
mentioned concerns that ICT lab allocations are biased as not all school subjects are considered
equally. Although it is mandatory for ICT-enabled classes to be conducted across all subjects,
subjects such a physical education, art, and history are often not scheduled for a lab session.
Instead, subjects such as English, Science, and Maths are given preference. School need to have
clear policies in place with respect to ICT lab use. The weaker the efforts to rectify scheduling
issues, the more teachers are discerning inequality in resource allocation and distancing
themselves from others who they perceive as receiving preferential treatments. Thus, issues with
leadership is negatively affecting teachers’ need for relatedness.
132
Better allocation of ICT facilities would enable teachers to have more control over the
preparation and execution of lesson materials. This control is related to teachers’ sense of
autonomy. The results indicate the structured leadership is satisfying teachers’ need for self-
regulation and control (autonomy). Proper administrative planning of ICT facilities, however, is
beyond the scope of teachers’ current responsibilities. While the scope of structured leadership
includes the involvement of principals to facilitate resource use, the realities within the school
context in addition to challenges posed by DAIPs indicate otherwise. When principals hesitate to
get involved in monitoring the work of DAIPs, they are also withdrawing from designating
responsibilities to teachers. Perhaps, teachers’ interest and willingness to take charge of their
own use was not communicated to school leaders. As mentioned earlier, issues with resource
management resulted in unpleasant feelings among teachers who could have bonded over and
experienced relational satisfaction from their shared negative experiences in ICTI
implementation efforts. This phenomenon is found to negatively affect teachers’ motivation to
actively use ICTI. Instead, principals could shift the responsibilities of establishing clear class
routines to teachers themselves. Principals can demonstrate involvement by showing that they
understand the situation that teachers are in and are taking active steps to rectify things. By doing
so, principals are giving teachers more autonomy and control. They are also alleviating
potentially stressful relationships to create an environment for positive experiences.
A statement by Teacher 35 is pivotal to the findings. She claimed that school leaders
must be motivated to implement ICTI for teachers to be motivated to integrate ICTI. Other
teachers agreed that when principals have the technical knowhow, they might be more willing to
engage. Teacher 7 commented, “We have a great school, we are a group, but we are not a team.
In a team, the leader motivates.” He added, “the more motivated the leaders are, we can
133
overcome issues with the DAIPs and overcome individual differences with greater ease.” Hence,
a motivated leadership can engage in internal communication practices that nurture shared
enthusiasm for a schools’ ICTI implementation efforts, and eventually motivate teachers. In the
next chapter, I will discuss in-depth various internal communication strategies that are informed
by the quantitative and qualitative findings of this research. I discuss the practical and theoretical
implications of the findings and explore next steps for future research and practice on ICTI.
134
Chapter 7: Discussion
In this chapter, I bring together the quantitative results and qualitative findings to discuss
areas where they contradicted and merged. The qualitative findings give important clues on how
I can interpret the relationships found in quantitative results. Hence, I will discuss the
quantitative results considering the interview data presented in the previous chapter.
Subsequently, I propose internal communication strategies that are informed by study findings
and generated by teachers themselves during the interviews. The interviews provided a space for
teachers to share their thoughts and be heard. In the group setting, teachers could have felt a little
insecure to share insights on their personal challenges or weaknesses when using ICTI, but they
were open to providing suggestions for improvements that could benefit the rest of their peers.
Hence, the strategies were generated as a cumulative outcome from analyses of study findings
along with the expertise of teachers.
7.1. Discussion of Findings
The survey questionnaire captured perceptions of structured leadership in ICTI
implementation as the extent to which teachers perceived that leaders clearly explained the
school’s objectives and policies for technology-enabled classes. It also indicated leaders’ efforts
to clarify their expectations and provide clear guidance to teachers on how they could go about
incorporating technology in their instructional approach. Finally, structured leadership
encapsulated the extent to which leaders were perceived to offer clear scheduling information for
using ICT lab resources for class preparation and actual instruction. This aspect of school context
was found to satisfy teachers’ need for self-regulation and freedom in their work in addition to
being able to freely express their views and opinions on ICTI efforts. Extant leadership practices
were also found to support teachers’ engagement in the schools’ decisions on ICT matters.
135
The qualitative findings tend to partially contradict this phenomenon. The interviews
revealed that principals were perceived as being too distant and uninvolved in teachers’ ICTI
practices. Teachers raised concerns over the lack of opportunities to get their voices heard in
schools’ ICT plans, let alone being left out from decision-making processes. It was found that
whilst teachers attempted to express their opinions and feedback on implementation practices,
they were either shunned or discouraged from doing so. These findings pointed toward a need for
communication strategies that facilitate dialogue and inclusiveness in decision-making. Findings
also indicated that principals’ lack of familiarity with ICTs, resulting from an absence of
mandatory technology training for principals, serves as a barrier to them providing adequate
guidance to teachers in their ICTI practices.
Yet, it is accurate to assume that current leadership practices offer teachers almost
unrestricted freedom on how they plan and conduct their ICT-enabled classes. As teachers shared
during interviews, when the state-wide ICTI initiatives were initiated by the local government,
secondary schools in Lima were given the necessary equipment and infrastructure to implement
changes in their teaching practices. At this juncture about eight to nine years ago, school leaders
turned to technology trained teachers for suggestions on schoolwide implementation. At these
nascent stages of the implementation efforts, teachers witnessed that their thoughts were taken
into consideration, and felt that they had substantial input on the initiative. However, over the
years, little effort has been put in to improve the state of ICT-enabled classes because teachers’
recent efforts to raise their concerns on inefficient classroom scheduling or ways to improve their
instructional practices have been fruitless.
Teachers highlighted that when ICTs were deployed in schools, they were expected to
figure out how they could effectively integrate technology into their teaching practices. In other
136
words, they were given almost full control over how they intended to use ICTI, if they fulfilled a
specific number of required teaching hours. This was because principals presumed that the basic
technology training workshops that teachers attended were adequate in preparing them for in-
class teaching, and the technical support offered by DAIPs were deemed to be adequate.
Principals were not able to acknowledge that teachers needed continued training. Furthermore,
due to communication barriers, challenges that teachers faced with integration as well as with the
DAIPs could not be adequately communicated to school leaders. Nonetheless, findings suggest
that teachers continue to have significant control over how they use ICTI. Therefore, the survey
yielded results suggesting that structured leadership practices were positively associated with
teachers’ autonomy in using ICTI.
However, it is necessary to acknowledge that the two findings do not completely
synchronize. There are some contradictions between study findings related to leadership and
teachers’ sense of autonomy. It is possible that teachers’ responses to questions capturing this
relationship were based on their past experiences with leadership, as opposed to more recent
interactions. When schools rolled out their ICTI initiatives around 2011 (this does not include the
period when the One Laptop Per Child laptops were deployed for instruction and subsequently
discontinued due to various reasons), teachers were sought for insights on setting up the
initiative. It could have been possible that teachers responded to the survey questions with
reference to past experiences instead of more recent interactions. As revealed in the interviews,
over the years, teachers have faced various challenges from inability to access leaders to provide
feedback to conflicts with DAIPs. Additionally, principals’ lack of familiarity with ICT-enabled
pedagogical methods coupled with a lack of awareness of teachers’ needs possibly led teachers
to the current disarray they experience. These were not captured in the survey. The survey
137
questionnaire could have indicated a more specific timeframe within which teachers were
required to reflect. For instance, I could have stated in the questionnaire that answers should be
based on implementation efforts in the past six months or since the beginning of the academic
year. Doing so could ensure that responds are timelier and more appropriate to the current state
of internal communication practices in the schools and allow for the development of appropriate
strategies. I will discuss this study limitation later.
On the other hand, study findings merged as both results suggested that structured
leadership increases the likelihood of teachers drifting away from one another instead of
experiencing a sense of camaraderie or relational support with peers who also engage in ICTI.
The qualitative findings provided important clues to explain the negative influence of structured
leadership on relatedness. It is important to discern possible explanations because this negative
influence could be contributing to relatedness negatively affecting teachers’ motivation to
actively use of ICTI. The interviews pointed toward various reasons for the poor satisfaction of
relatedness. Leadership was held accountable for majority of the problems. As the analyses
suggest, teachers tended to collectively attribute negative consequences to poor leadership
practices.
There is the case of DAIPs creating some disorder in the system. DAIP’s lack of
diligence in scheduling ICT lab facilities in a fair and unbiased manner resulted in bitter feelings
among teachers. Teachers assumed that school leaders favoured certain subject-teachers over
others, while the expectation was for all subject teachers to be equally assigned resources and
ICT-enabled classes. The inequality in scheduling lab resources confirmed their assumptions
which manifested in discontent and envy. Aside from instigating a sense of inequality, DAIPs’
unpleasant treatment of teachers with disdain made it difficult for them to seek advice or help
138
regarding ICTI matters. Teachers seeking to improve their technological skills and knowledge,
especially related to improving class content and lesson materials, prefer to seek their fellow
peers for guidance. I discuss this further with respect to teacher collegiality.
As shared in the interviews, teachers are also lacking clear guidance on ways to improve
their pedagogical approaches because school leaders are not adequately equipped with necessary
technical skills and knowhow. It is not that principals do not know how to operate computers. As
I observed in the school visits, some principals used digital devices to carry out various
administrative work. They mentioned during our conversations that they do not know how ICTs
can be properly used to carry out instructional practices. Be it gathering online resources,
identifying subject-specific software and content, or presentation approaches to apply in ICT-
enabled classes, principals have limited knowledge on the usage of ICTs in instruction. Because
of this lack of expertise, leadership was found to be indifferent to the satisfaction of teachers’
need for competence. Qualitative findings confirmed this relationship. I gathered from
qualitative interviews that teachers were not opposed to input from principals, but ambivalent of
their abilities to provide constructive guidance. There is a possibility of improving this situation
if school leaders are equipped with the necessary tools and skillsets. I will discuss this further
when proposing internal communication strategies.
Findings suggest that structured leadership practices are often held responsible for
mishaps that teachers experience in their ICTI efforts. This does not necessarily insinuate a
negative school environment that blames principals for the issues that teachers experience.
Instead, it is indicative of a school context that values the role of its leaders and depends on the
efforts of its leadership. This is also established in the interviews where teachers shared that they
respected the school principals and appreciated their leadership on other matters related to their
139
instructional work. In terms of bringing about educational transformations through improved
internal communication practices that motivate teachers to integrate ICTI, there is much potential
for leaders to grow. I will discuss strategies for structured leadership practices in greater detail in
the following section.
Findings suggested that teachers would rather solicit guidance on ICTI matters from
fellow teachers who are better able to relate to their needs and experiences instead of
approaching assigned DIAPs. This is a positive indication of a school context that partakes in
collegial relations. Teachers reported in the surveys that they worked together and consulted one
another on matters related to their ICTI practices about two thirds of their time, but evidently,
these interactions were deemed insufficient. It could to possible that collegial interactions were
often limited to shared positive perceptions of ICTI and a common support for the schools’
implementation goals. While a handful of teachers mentioned that they worked together with
their peers in preparing ICTI class materials, a majority still refrained from working
collaboratively or consulting peers on ICTI matters. Findings provide a positive indication that
teachers want to engage in more collaborative activities, especially with peers who are more
ICT-savvy, to boost their ICT lesson content and improve their pedagogical techniques.
Perceived satisfaction of autonomy is the only variable that is positively connected to
internal communication practices of both teachers and school leaders. As previously discussed,
the satisfaction of autonomy is related to teachers being able to voice their suggestions and
opinions on ICTI plans, allowing them the capacity to engage in decision making and freedom to
decide how they plan to use ICTs in class. The results revealed that autonomous teachers are
more extrinsically motivated to perform ICTI. Extrinsically motivated teachers seek
compliments for their work and words of encouragement from principals, and value support and
140
empathy from colleagues. The type of extrinsic motivation examined was external regulation.
According to self-determination theory, externally regulated individuals engage in an activity for
the reward it garners, both tangible and intangible. It is also important to them that punishments
or negative consequences are avoided. For example, if school leaders engage in fear mongering
rhetoric, teachers will be less extrinsically motivated. Instead, they would seek ways to avoid
unpleasant reactions. Therefore, autonomous teachers will engage in ICTI because their efforts
get noticed.
Study findings suggested that teachers who find contentment in sharing their ideas and
giving feedback on ICTI matters, as well as in getting involved in the schools’ ICTI policy and
regulation decisions are those who value external rewards. Hence, teachers who actively
participate in ICTI implementation are those who are more likely to sustain ICTI use for the
encouragement and acknowledge that they receive from leaders and peers. The finding has
practical implications on internal communication practices within the school context. As
discussed earlier, structured leadership that encourages open dialogue and active participation in
decision making is more likely to satisfy teachers’ perceived need for autonomy. The satisfaction
of this need will increase the chances of teachers being inspired to integrate ICTI for the rewards
it offers. Practically, this pattern hints that school leaders should support the active participation
of teachers in ICTI implementation efforts and be open to praising and recognizing them for their
work. Fellow teachers should also encourage their peers to speak up when they have constructive
feedback on the schools’ ICTI efforts. Colleagues should show appreciation for teachers’ efforts
to integrate ICTI. The interview confirmed that teachers want recognition for the efforts they put
in to use ICTI.
141
In many instances during the interviews, teachers brought up the need for principals to
recognize their work. As raised in several instances, school leaders are not sufficiently engaging
teachers in discussions on ICTI for a variety of reasons. Consequently, teachers avoided bringing
up suggestions for changes and improvements fearing possible negative consequences. Some
mentioned being afraid that their salaries may get deducted, while others were concerned that
principals might reject their requests to apply for approved leave from school if teachers
offended them. I am proposing that since results show that structured leadership improves
teachers’ sense of involvement and engagement in ICTI implementation, school leaders should
communicate to teachers about their strategies to reward, instead of punishing, those who
demonstrate initiative and participate in the schools’ ICTI plans. Some suggestions for
favourable rewards that teachers brought up are extra ICT lab time for preparation and
instruction, salary increment, written or verbal praise, and performance awards. These are
important clues that will be incorporated in the proposed internal communication strategies that I
will discuss later.
Results indicated that teacher collegiality was the only predictor of competence, which in
turn was the only basic need that is significantly associated with intrinsic motivation. Teachers
who are intrinsically motivated will integrate ICTI for the pleasure derived from being proficient
in an activity. While extrinsically motivated teachers focus on the outcome of an activity,
intrinsically motivated teachers focus on the process. Congruent with other studies (Barkoukis,
Tsorbatzoudis, Grouios, & Sideridis, 2008; Hagger, Koch, & Chatzisarantis, 2015; Vallerand &
Reid, 1984), I found that feelings of competence increased involvement in an activity for hedonic
reasons. Therefore, teachers who perceive stronger mastery over their technical skillsets without
feeling incompetent are those who are more likely to engage in ICTI integration simply because
142
they enjoy it. This result reinforces past conclusions (Isiyaku, Ayub, & AbdulKadir, 2018) that
on-going teacher training is essential for encouraging greater enjoyment in using ICTs. This
result gives a clearer sense to qualitative findings that point to teachers wanting to improve their
technical and pedagogical knowledge simply because they find a need to improve themselves.
Since the study findings revealed that only collegial behaviors improve teachers’ sense of
competence, I propose that teacher training should originate from peer interactions. I suggest that
communicative practices built on promoting one-on-one mentoring or a school-wide initiative to
improve collaborative problem solving are more likely to satisfy their need for competence,
which will in turn positively influence their innate motivation to perform ICTI. Later, I discuss in
detail the proposed strategy to establish peer mentoring programs in schools.
With respect to teachers’ motivation to actively use ICTI, the results were a little
confusing. While competent and autonomous teachers were found to be more willing to engage
in active use, those who felt more connected with their peers were less interested in continued
use of ICTI. The findings gave important clues to explaining this relationship. The interviews
provided richer information on school context. Indeed, weak structured leadership practices
frustrated teachers on issues relating to poor lab scheduling, biased treatment of teachers based
on the subjects they taught, and condescending attitudes of DAIPs. As teachers reflected in the
interviews, these issues lead to a school climate that distanced teachers from one another because
of their contradictory attributions of extant problems. Although some teachers did report that
they were working together on ICTI matters, it was not a widely practiced bahavior. Hence,
despite the positive effect of collegial relations on feelings of relatedness, the negative influence
of perceived structured leadership had a greater impact on how teachers related to one another.
Structured leadership practices caused teachers to feel less connected with peers who use ICTI,
143
while collegial practices brought teachers together due to shared views on the school’s bleak
ICTI implementation efforts. Understandably, with the many ongoing issues affecting their
relations with one another, teachers did not feel motivated to continue using ICTI. While this
finding was not encouraging, it is helpful for understanding how aspects of internal
communication can be modified to motivate teachers to actively use in their practice. Hence, the
proposed strategies aim to to ameliorate negative feelings to foster a positive organizational
environment where teachers will be more motivated to actively engage in ICTI.
Finally, results revealed that the negative effect of structured leadership on perceived
relatedness was not negatively affecting their motivation to practice student-centered teaching
behavior. It is possible that this resulted from the stronger effect of teacher collegiality on
perceived relatedness as opposed to that of structured leadership. The findings revealed that
despite the challenges that teachers encountered, they consistently saw ICTs as benefitting
students and wanted for technology-enabled instruction to be advantageous to student learning.
The results are also consistent with several recent studies that found that autonomous teachers
practiced teaching behavior that supported the autonomy of students (Gurganious, 2017; Phan,
2012). It is necessary to note that interview findings on this motivational outcome were not very
comprehensive. I note this study limitation toward the end of this section. As for strategies,
teacher training sessions that impart teachers with knowledge on ICTI could also emphasize on
the importance of engaging in student-centric behavior in an ICT-enabled learning environment.
7.2. Proposed Internal Communication Strategies
I holistically analyse the quantitative results and qualitative findings to develop strategies
that can be applied toward improving internal communication practices. The findings imply that
in order to fix problems in structured leadership and teacher collegiality, strategies must
144
strengthen the positive influences of contextual factors on basic needs, along with ameliorating
the negative effects found in the study. When these meso-level practices are effectively
addressed, they will foster improved satisfaction of needs and improve teachers’ motivation to
integrate ICTs in instruction. The goal is to enable sustained ICTI integration by enhancing
internal communication in schools.
7.2a. Engage in Two-Way Communication to Facilitate Ongoing Dialogue
Two-way open communication is important not only for leaders to better gauge teachers’
reactions, but also for teachers to contribute to implementation efforts. Evidently, these two
parties are not adequately engaging in two-way dialogue. The underlying objective of ongoing
dialogue should be to for principals to demonstrate involvement and interest in teachers’ ICTI
efforts. A strategy recommends increased informal discussions between teachers and leaders.
These communicative spaces will allow for teachers to feel secure enough to ask their peers
questions about their ICTI approaches and express concerns to leaders without fear of reprisal.
The dialogues do not include DAIPs. Instead, the discussions will openly acknowledge the
challenges surrounding DAIPs so that teachers and leaders can work together to find solutions.
For example, principals can avoid teachers feeling discriminated if they clearly inform them of
their plans for scheduling the ICT lab facilities. By keeping teachers informed, principals can
reduce gossips that create distance between teachers which affects how they relate with their
peers.
Findings point to a possibility that teachers are relationally connecting with one another
on the grounds of their negative and unpleasant experiences in using ICTI. Leaders should
initiate efforts to encourage teachers to engage in ongoing dialogue and open communication
with one another. Findings point to a possibility that teachers are relationally connecting with
145
one another on the grounds of their negative and unpleasant experiences in using ICTI. Leaders
should initiate efforts to encourage teachers to engage in ongoing dialogue and open
communication with one another. These informal discussion sessions are spaces for teachers to
discuss ICT-specific issues, such as sharing their ICTI experiences, learning points, challenges,
expectation, areas for improvement in school policies, efforts, management, among others. These
spaces are for teachers to collaboratively work together to feedback on logistical problems
affecting their ICTI practice and brainstorm solutions. These informal discussion sessions are
spaces for teachers to discuss ICT-specific issues, such as sharing their ICTI experiences,
learning points, challenges, expectation, areas for improvement in school policies, efforts,
management, among others. These spaces are for teachers to collaboratively work together to
feedback on logistical problems affecting their ICTI practice and brainstorm solutions.
These gatherings will create spaces for teachers to come together informally to discuss
the challenges they face and to share their thoughts on ways to improve policy and regulations
that are put in place by school leaders. As teachers mentioned, such opportunities to share their
ICTI related concerns with peers will give them a better perspective of their needs and concerns,
to better express themselves to school leaders. The intention is to satisfy relatedness. Teachers
can share problems related to the ICTI experiences and discuss solutions for school management
to consider. This will help teachers to bond and find common grounds in their ICTI experiences.
In doing so, teachers could have a more positive impression on school leaders’ efforts, as one
that cares about them. As leaders work toward creating better guidance strategies to improve
teachers’ need for relatedness, their support and effort toward facilitating improved
communication between teachers could help satisfy teachers’ need for relatedness. Hence, it is
important for leaders to understand that providing guidance and expressing expectations on ICTI
146
involves a structured leadership approach that prioritizes relations. If leaders understand this
importance, they can better express this expectation to teachers and demonstrate their awareness
of the challenges that teachers encounter via concrete programs, such as these fortnightly
meetings.
The strategy is to assign a space or room for teachers to gather and talk. And this space
should be exclusively for teachers to discuss ICT matters only. It is important to respect spatial
constraints of a school. Ideally, schools should set up a ‘TIC-SalaDeChat’ or ‘ICT-chatroom’
within the school premises where teachers can gather and chat about ICT matters. In the most
ideal situation, perhaps soon when schools have more technical and financial resources, the ICT-
chatRoom can be equipped with a computer and internet connectivity for teachers to chat and
browse at the same time. For schools that do not have the luxury of space, they can transform
part of a current breakroom or staff room to make space for a ‘TIC-ZonaDeChat’ or ‘ICT-
chatZone’. If a school has a pre-existing breakroom or staff lounge, a space should be created
with some chairs and decoration to make it an ICT-chatZone where teachers should only talk
about ICT matters in this area. This space should be demarcated as a fun and inclusive space
where teachers will not be judged for their level of ICT expertise or competency. Instead, anyone
who is interested to share a piece of information, interesting finding, problem or even an
inspiring event that took place in an ICT class, should feel free to share their insights in these
spaces.
These spaces should also be a space for school leaders to partake in. Creating ongoing
dialogue also involves leaders being more open to criticisms or opinions of teachers without
being. This builds teachers’ trust in leaders and makes leaders more approachable. Leaders
should be open to teachers sharing their ICTI problems and suggestions for improvement,
147
without them taking things personally. In the interest of teachers’ comfort, school leaders should
visit the ICT-chatRoom or chatZone only once a week each. Meaning, the principal would visit
once, and the vice-principal would visit another time. If both principals wish to visit on the same
day, that is also encouraged. These meetings serve strategically as a point for interaction between
teachers and principals. The point is not to make these meetings too official or formal. By
making it informal, principals can be encouraged to let their guard down and take these sessions
as an opportunity for sharing. Therefore, principals would not find a need to be defensive by
assuming that teachers are there to complain about their work. Principals should allocate one
hour a week to meet with any teacher who attends the sessions.
During these meetings, principals should discuss what can be done to boost teachers’
motivation and demonstrate responsiveness to prior staff feedback or concerns with ICTI.
Having principals visit teachers in their spaces over having teachers come to principals’ offices
would give teachers a sense of ease and assurance that principals are taking the effort to get
involved in their ICTI efforts. Teachers should be encouraged to voice their opinions and
suggestions without fear of being ridiculed or punished. Principals should also use these spaces
to update teachers of their ICTI implementation plans as well as express that they are genuinely
interested in listening to teachers. This allows for teachers to be kept abreast of the principals’
ongoing efforts for sustained motivation to minimise uncertainty or insecurities on the extent of
leaders’ involvement in the schools ICTI efforts.
Principals can be more involved by being more attentive to the needs and expectations of
teachers integrating ICTI. Meetings can also focus on clarifying roles of lab assistants and to
bring up scheduling issues that teachers encounter. When teachers take an effort to suggest ways
to improve their ICT skillsets, principals could be more open in demonstrating support in the
148
form of encouragement and follow-up. Principals should establish a rule that they would follow-
up with teachers on the steps they have taken to address an issue raised. They should openly
declare to teachers that they would revert with a solution or action within a month at these
gatherings. Even if the problem remains unresolved, leaders should update teachers instead of
avoiding addressing it.
In terms of scheduling of ICT lab facilities, leaders need to clearly instruct their
expectations to both DAIPs and teachers. By ensuring that everyone is equally informed and on
the same page, leaders can avoid misunderstandings with teachers. If leaders intend for certain
core subjects, like Mathematics, Science and English, to focus more time on ICT-enabled
lessons, they should make it clear to teachers. To maintain fairness in distribution, all subject
classes must be allowed to use the labs for lessons at least thrice a week, for a minimum of one
hour each. Teachers would determine which group of students they intend to bring to the labs for
these sessions. Core subject classes that are identified by leaders should be allowed a maximum
of six sessions a week or up to ten instructional hours. Once these subjects are identified,
teachers should be allocated adequate time for class preparations.
Principals can be more obliging to teachers’ scheduling needs. They can be flexible to
allow them to use the computer labs during their free time, instead of limiting use only to
scheduled slots. This suggestion does not ignore the need to allocate fixed timeslots to teachers,
but it makes it possible for teachers to have more freedom in choosing to use the facilities when
time permits. Instead of limiting teachers’ lab use to timeslots when no ICT classes held, every
ICT lab should reserve one computer solely for teachers. Meaning, even when an ICT class is
on-going, another teacher would be able to enter without disrupting the class to do his or her
preparational work. To ensure that teachers do not hog the computer, a sign-in sheet should be
149
made available so that teachers’ use at any one time will be limited to two hours each. This will
also indicate to the next user when the computer will be available.
Furthermore, when teachers show interest and express need to use, leaders can provide
solutions that facilitate their usage instead of stifling use due to fear of safety of the equipment.
As one teacher brought up, teachers should be asked to complete a form if they wish to use the
lab facilities after school hours. Signing off on the form would indicate that the teachers is
willing to take any responsibility of loss or damage of items. It is highly likely that very few
teachers will be willing to take on the additional responsibility and possible financial
consequences that come with this strategy, but that is a secondary concern. The emphasis is on
providing teachers with greater flexibility in the use of facilities. This shows teachers that
principals are being supportive of their proactive efforts to use ICTs for lesson preparation.
In doing so, it is necessary to discharge DAIPs of their role as gatekeepers of the ICT
labs. School leaders need to clearly communicate with teachers that they will be supervising all
scheduling matters, and that teachers would not need to report to DAIPs. On top of leaders
demonstrating more involvement, they will also be better informed on the ICTI policies and
guidelines of the school to inform teachers in a more organized and structured manner. There
should be clear communication on the duties of a DAIP, and these should be determined by
teachers based on their needs and expectations. As the findings indicate, teachers are not keen on
seeking help from DAIPs to build their knowledge and skills. Instead, they want the support of
their peers in this area. I will elaborate on a strategy related to this later in the section. Instead,
teachers did report needing DAIPs for help with maintaining hardware and software, assist in
troubleshooting, provide help with technical aspects of using computers, such as helping convert
documents into PDF, or downloading applications or activities with which they may struggle. By
150
clearly communicating the functions of a lab assistant, principals can avoid misunderstandings or
taking the blame for DAIPs’ actions.
Principals should more openly communicate their recognition and praise for teachers’
ICTI work. This will allow those seeking external validation to hear directly from leaders that
they are doing a good job. Also, when teachers see leaders appreciating the work of their peers,
they might be motivated to work harder to receive compliments as well. Another possibility is
that teachers who witness their peers being praised for their work might also express words of
encouragement and applaud their peers for the efforts to integrate ICTI. It is certainly not an easy
feat for teachers to integrate ICTI on top of their current workload and expectations with
traditional classes. These efforts must be recognized and supported by leaders and peers. And the
easiest of communication strategies is to say, “Well done!” when teachers put in the extra effort
to excel in the ICTI work.
7.2b. Leaders Must Walk the Talk
Teachers shared that they are more willing to communicate openly with their peers
instead of DAIPs because their peers understand their personal and academic challenges in
integrating ICTI. This points to an opportunity for principals. Principals should also show or
demonstrate that they understand ICTI and the challenges that teachers face. Principals need to
establish that they are not just disseminating orders without having any awareness of the realities
of the challenges that teachers face. This way, they could gain the respect of principals as
informed equals who are competent and knowledgeable of ICT use and from whom they too can
learn from.
Instead of making empty promises, leaders can demonstrate their commitment with
greater participation in the ICTI implementation process. By demonstrating their ICT
151
competence and knowledge, along with an empathy for teachers’ experiences, principals can
show teachers that they too are aware of the intricacies of ICTI practice and the challenges that
teachers face. The fact is that principals were once practicing teachers, and the chances of them
understanding and relating to their practice would be higher than a DAIP. However, it is
important to note that most principals would have had little or no interaction with ICTs during
their stints as teachers, let alone using technology for instruction. Hence, more conscious effort
needs to be put in by principals to demonstrate that they can relate to teachers’ efforts to
integrate ICTI. Overall, a structured leadership approach that is built on active participation
could yield trust and improved teachers’ motivation.
Leaders should demonstrate to teachers that they are as capable in ICTI matters of the
school too. As leaders who provide structure by guiding teachers, principals should show that
they are active in the selection, retention and dismissal of DAIPs There needs to be an
established system where principals promptly inform the ministry when a DAIP fails to be
present in school. Instead of having teachers repeatedly pursue them for solutions, leaders should
be more proactive in addressing teachers’ needs. Principals must actively intervene when the
work performance of assigned DAIPs do not meet the expectations of the schools and its
teachers. Hence, beyond disseminating instructions or orders, leaders should show that they
know what needs to be done around the school to address the various needs of teachers
integrating ICTI. Teachers can be informed of these updates during the informal discussion
sessions mentioned earlier.
Another key strategy is for leaders to undergo mandatory ICT training. Whilst this is not
a strategy that can be achieved at the school-level alone, it is important that this need is
emphasized to principals. Ministry level support is required for this strategy to materialize.
152
Principals need to be technology trained so that they understand how to approach ICTI and gain
the respect of teachers who can see that principals know what they are preaching. It is true that
undergoing formal ICT training takes time, resources and logistical arrangements that are beyond
the control of principals. Moreover, over the years, principal training efforts in Peru have still
been overlooked. I emphasize that an urgent need for principal training should be strictly
conveyed to relevant authorities. Authorities should take prompt action for the plan to transpire.
Yet, this is should not be a reason for principals to delay or procrastinate on their training.
Schools should officiate and informal ICT training program for principals. These weekly
workshops should first focus on familiarising principals in ICT use. Principals must be
acquainted with the various software available to teachers. This includes becoming familiar with
almost all the applications that are teachers use in ICTI. As found through teachers’ survey
responses, the applications teachers range from Microsoft programs such as PowerPoint, Excel
and Word, to online websites and activities that teachers use. Regardless of the subject taught,
principals should be exposed to all the sites, online activities, online and offline programs, and
activities that teachers engage in for their respect subject classes. To initiate this, teachers should
take turns to organize weekly workshops with both head and vice principals. The workshops
should be held once a week for one hour after school hours at the ICT lab. The workshop should
begin with ICT initiation classes. Teachers in charge of Computation subject should take this
first few workshops that focus on equipping principals with fundamentals of ICT use in
instruction. Subsequently, teachers teaching the various subjects should each take turns to plan
and execute workshops.
The aim should be to make principals conversant with how the various subject teachers
use ICTI from gathering online resources, identifying subject-specific software for lesson
153
preparation to actual execution. Principals should also sit in at least one ICT-enabled class of a
subject of their choice to witness how teachers conduct their classes. These are not meant to be
evaluations of teachers but opportunities for principals to witness first-hand the efforts of
teachers to integrate ICTI. With greater knowledge, principals would be better able to appreciate
the work of teachers. When principals appreciate teachers’ efforts, they might be better able to
relate to their needs, which will be beneficial to their motivation for sustained use.
7.2c. Organize Small Group Mentorships
Teachers highlighted the need for more ICT training to facilitate their instructional
practices. However, due to governmental and institutional funding limitations, they are unable to
obtain continued ICT training. Finding suggests that teachers seek their peers for informational
support, especially from those perceived to be more technology-savvy and demonstrate greater
confidence in integrating ICTI. A peer mentoring program established schoolwide would require
careful planning with clear goals and objectives targeted toward optimizing teachers’ motivation
to integrate ICTI.
Principals should spearhead the mentorship initiative as central to the schools’ ICTI
implementation process. They can take charge of assigning mentor roles based on a pre-screen of
technical savviness, attitudes toward peer collaboration, and a genuine interest to support peers’
needs. Principals should set up a network that identifies teachers who “know” ICTs, beyond the
one or two Computation teachers in the school. This should be done via a nomination system
where teachers are asked to nominate up to three peers, indicating the subjects they teach, whom
they perceive as being exceptionally good with computers. At least one teacher from each
subject taught in the school should be elected as a mentor. Naturally, these teachers will be well-
respected among the peers who nominate them.
154
It is evident that teachers across the schools are collaborating with their colleagues.
However, this is happening only on a small scale where teachers work randomly in pairs without
a clear collaboration structure or system. Facilitating greater structure in peer communication
would enable schools to bring teachers together more effectively. The objective of the
mentorship program is to promote collegial relations so that teachers can learn from one another
and leverage on the knowledge of their peers to increase their ICT capacity.
The schoolwide peer mentoring program called ‘MiMentor-TIC’ or ‘MyMentor-ICT’
should be limited to a group size of one mentor to two mentees. In the first phase of the three-
month long program, the mentors should mentee teachers who teach similar subjects. In the
second phase, they should rotate include teachers of different subject expertise. This is to allow
for teachers teaching different subjects to gain some insights on the programs and methods from
varying perspective. The mentoring program will include weekly two-hour long sessions that
will be conducted during school hours. It is important to acknowledge that mentors must be
rewarded for their contributions. Each mentor should be awarded up to 200 soles a month for
their efforts. Schools that do not have available budget to pay mentors should free teachers from
any administrative duties and duties for extra-curricular activities. This would allow mentors
more time to prepare for mentorship sessions.
Mentors will be in charge of scheduling ICT lab facilities for their respective sessions.
They should also be required to develop lesson materials that are personalized to the different
learning needs of their mentees, which they should be required to find out in the initial meetings.
It is also important for school leaders to establish regular communication with mentors to
supervise and to cater to any specialised ICT trainings that mentors require to develop their
skills. This is one key area in internal communication practice where principals can take charge
155
and show their concern for the school community while demonstrating their involvement in
teachers’ ICTI efforts. School leaders need to put in place evaluation mechanisms to assess the
progress made and the overall usefulness the mentorship program. Fortnightly assessments will
be made via survey questionnaires. These questionnaires should be created by researchers who
are well-versed with evaluation techniques. Scholars doing education research at the Peruvian
research institute, El Instituto de Estudios Peruanos (IEP) should be approached for assistance
with creating the evaluations. These regular measurements will give school leaders valuable
insight into how well the mentorship programs are satisfying teachers’ psychological needs.
Reporting the progress will also give positive reinforcements to teacher mentors and mentees.
7.3. Limitations of the Study
The biggest limitation of the study is that the findings are reported four years after data
were collected in October 2015. There is a high possibility that many changes have taken place
in terms of school ICT infrastructure, leadership, teacher turnover, technology implementation
strategies and even the extent to which teachers have integrated ICTI. Nonetheless, this study
remains relevant because it addresses issues of motivation and psychological needs satisfaction
that are fundamental to the how a schoolteacher, an individual in a context, functions. And these
issues continue to affect sustained ICTI integration. The internal communication strategies
proposed in this study are germane to the context of urban Peru, because ICTI implementation
initiatives continue to downplay the need to address gaps in communication between teachers
and school leaders. The internal communication strategies proposed in this study are relevant in
enhancing teachers’ motivation for sustained ICTI integration, as well as identifying actions and
behavioural changes for the betterment of institutional realities that empower educators. Hence,
the study findings help explicate the nuances in the contextual and psychological aspects of
156
teacher-principal relationship in order to suggest ways to continue motivating teachers to practice
and perform ICTI for years to come.
As discussed earlier, there is a possibility that teachers responded to the survey questions
based on past interactions and experiences over more recent events. The survey questions could
have stated a more specific timeframe, such as instances that occurred in the past six months, in
order to capture a felicitous representation of the relationships tested. Only questions testing
teachers’ motivation to practice active use of ICTI asked for their intentions to continue using
ICTI in the next six months.
The exploratory nature of the study limits the conclusions that can be drawn regarding the
effectiveness of the proposed internal communication strategies. Especially since this study was
done at a single point in time, in one South American country, and in schools in one specific
region of Peru. Further research is needed to evaluate the plausibility of the proposed strategies
for optimizing teachers’ motivation to integrate ICTs in instruction. Once recommendation is to
do longitudinal experimental research to evaluate the proposed communication strategies in ICTI
implementation. I elaborate on this point in the next section.
It is possible that the survey questions lacked clarity in capturing the different functions
of teachers and school leaders the ICTI implementation process. The questions testing teachers’
perception of internal communication practices used a generic phrase “use ICTs to teach”. This
was used to capture their perceptions of how principals exercised their structural roles as well as
how teachers interacted collegially. Although the questions were pretested with teachers for
clarity in interpretation, the generic usage of the phrase “use ICTs to teach” could have posed
some limitations. The phrase was not able to capture differences in the roles of principals and
157
teachers in implementation as well as the wide spectrum of activities that are involved in using
ICTI in instruction.
For instance, teachers’ use of ICTI to teach involves them preparing teaching materials in
the school ICT labs, navigating online and offline educational content, pedagogical strategies to
engage students in the labs, keeping up with changes and opportunities in ICTs, understanding
how to balance traditional and ICT-enabled classes, determining methods for student assessment,
among other. In other words, there are many layers to ICTI that were not specified, and a generic
phrase “to use ICTs to teach” cannot capture practical nuances. Hence, questions were vaguely
left to the interpretation of respondents. Future research could improve on the question wording
by specifying the respective functions of school leaders and teachers. This would allow for
respondents to make more accurate assessments.
Across all focus group interview sessions, I was not able to prompt discussion of matters
relating to teachers’ motivation to practice student-centric behavior. In the interest of time, this
topic had to be omitted during discussions with teachers. I could have practiced better time
management during interviews so that this topic could be adequately covered. However, despite
multiple attempts, it was difficult to keep to time because discussions on topics related to internal
communication were prioritized. As the findings indicated, teachers’ perception of their
competence in technology use did not translate to them engaging in teaching behaviors that move
beyond a teacher-centric focus to one that supports student-centric learning. Detailed discussions
on student-centric behavior. Future research could better explore teachers’ motivational outcome
in order to develop strategies that are better catered to address student-centric behavior.
158
7.4. Future Research
This study suggested that teachers should organize small group mentorships whereby
grouped by subject-taught to facilitate sharing of online materials for content preparation.
Mentorship programs can factor in the advantages and disadvantages of small and large group
collaboration among teachers. Future research can explore the collegial patterns and small group
dynamics of teachers grouped by subjects-taught against teachers to work in larger groups (inter-
subject teachers). Exploring benefits and downsides of communication patterns in these settings
can inform how group dynamics affect teachers’ needs and motivation.
Although this study attempted to garner quantitative and qualitative insights from the
perspective of teachers, it runs the risk of yielding biased or one-sided information that lacks the
perspective of school leaders who are equally vital in the communication practices and its
influence on ICTI. Future research on ICTI could include school leaders in the conversation to
gain a more holistic understanding of issues related to schoolwide internal communications. In
addition to acquiring information on principals’ expectations, plans, and challenges related to
ICTI implementation, it is important to learn how leaders understand teachers’ motivation, and
the relevance of teachers’ psychological well-being to their sustained motivation and
pedagogical approach.
Get the perspectives of principals - this study only gathers data from teachers; their
perceptions of how they are treated, what they thought about principals, and how ICTs were
implemented in schools. It does not have the perspectives of principals or school leaders to share
the realities of why they behave and undertake the actions that they do. We need to know how
principals feel about ICTI, the challenges and pressure they face as school leaders trying to put in
place ICTI, their perceptions of teachers, their interactions with peers, their ICTI work and even
159
an appraisal of their teachers in their efforts to integrate ICTI. We need to know how leaders
structure their leadership, what their concerns are, how they perceive teachers’ needs, and what
they understand to be their role in the implementation process.
One is to hear the leaders’ side of the story. Another is to get their inputs on the strategies
that can be implemented to improve how teachers integrate ICTI. Future research can analyse
leaders’ data against that of teachers, both through qualitative interviews and quantitative
surveys. This will provide richer information on the realities of the internal communication
between teachers and leaders in a more unbiased manner, allowing for the development of
strategies that take a holistic consideration of the concerns of all key agents within the school
context.
The findings in this study have very practical implications. The proposed strategies must
be applied in a school context in order to create a difference in a school’s ICTI efforts. Even if
the results are reported in a journal article or submitted to the Peruvian ministry for
consideration, the value of the findings and suggestions can only be appreciated and assessed if
they are implemented in current practices. When future research can conclusively demonstrate
the relevance of the proposed internal communication strategies in enhancing teachers’
integration motivation, the results of the improved approach and be presented with more viability
to other south American countries.
I propose a follow-up study to be conducted in the exact seven schools that participated
in this research. I would coordinate with the local NGO again and access the schools with a
proposed research project that can help the leaders and teachers improve their ICTI efforts. I will
include surveys and interviews with school leaders as well as teachers, to do a pre- post-
160
experimental research to test if schools that adopt the proposed internal communication strategies
have an impact on teachers’ motivation to perform and practice ICTI.
Longitudinal experimental research can be conducted to assess the impact of revised
communication strategies in ICTI implementation. This assessment could include schools from
other urban cities in Peru, such as Arequipa and Cusco. Implementing the proposed strategies
over a substantial period may help inform the relationship between behavioural patterns of the
school community and motivation that influence ICTI integration. Empirical assessment of the
ICTI strategies can prompt the creation of large-scale initiatives to improve internal
communication practices in Peruvian schools.
With respect to experimental design of future studies, I suggest running two separate
SEM analyse that divide schools into two to three groups along principals’ familiarity with ICTs.
This approach would aid in drawing clearer conclusions on the influence of principals’
technology engagement on their structured leadership practices. The findings on ICT
engagement of school leaders could better support my proposed strategies for principals to
receive ICT training.
7.5. Concluding Thoughts
I mentioned in the first chapter that a genuine appreciation for educators around the world
is the cornerstone of this study. Motivating teachers to strive further in their contribution to
student learning is an on-going effort that holds great promise for a brighter future for millions of
young minds. Encouraging teachers to excel in their ICT-enabled instruction is just one building
block in an initiative toward educational transformation.
This research is a step forward in a direction to acknowledge that institutional level
environmental structures are fundamental to sustaining the contributions of teachers. It takes
161
collective and conscious endeavor to accomplish growth and development. Enhancing internal
communication strategies has the potential to bring people together to excel in their work and
life, making their classrooms, schools and the world a better place for future generations of
learners and instructors.
162
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Acevedo, M. (2005). ICT and secondary education: changing learning patterns. In Dublin
Global Forum of the United Nations ICT Task Force. Harnessing the Potential of ICT
for Education: A Multistakeholder Approach (pp. 25-223). New York, NY: United
Nations ICT Task Force.
Albion, P. R., Tondeur, J., Forkosh-Baruch, A., & Peeraer, J. (2015). Teachers’ professional
development for ICT integration: towards a reciprocal relationship between
research and practice. Education and Information Technologies, 20(4), 655-673.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-015-9401-9
Albrini, A. (2007). The crisis of educational technology, and the prospect of reinventing
education. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 10(1), 227-236.
Ale, K., Loh, Y. A.-C., & Chib, A. (2017). Contextualized-OLPC education project in rural
India: measuring learning impact and mediation of computer self-efficacy. Educational
Technology, Research and Development, 65(3), 769-794.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-017-9517-2
Almerich, G., Orellana, N., Suarez-Rodriguez, J., & Diaz-Garcia, I. (2016). Teachers’
information and communication technology competences: a structural approach.
Computers & Education, 100(1), 110–125.
Amabile T. M., & Pratt M. G. (2016). The dynamic componential model of creativity and
innovation in organizations: making progress, making meaning. Research in
Organizational Behavior, 36(1), 157–183. doi: 10.1016/j.riob.2016.10.001
163
Ames, P. (2015). Researching ICT in Latin American schools: unequal results in the aftermath
of 1 to 1 models. In L. G., A. L. Martinez & I. C. Torres (Eds.), EDULEARN15
Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Education and New Learning
Technologies (pp. 6368-6375). IATED Academy.
https://library.iated.org/publications/EDULEARN15
Andoh-Baidoo, F. (2017). Context-specific theorizing in ICT4D research. Information
Technology for Development, 23(2), 195-211. doi: 10.1080/02681102.2017.1356036
Aoun, L. B., & Dubrocard, A. (2012). Does ICT enable innovation in Luxembourg? An
empirical study. In S. Allegrezza & A. Dubrocard (Eds.), Internet Econometrics (pp.
313-335). London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Arbuckle, J. L. (2003). AMOS 5.0 [Computer Software]. Chicago: SPSS.
Argenti, P. A. (2003). Corporate Communication (3rd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Assor, A., Kaplan, H., & Roth, G. (2002). Choice is good, but relevance is excellent:
autonomy enhancing and suppressing teacher behaviours predicting students’
engagement in schoolwork. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, 261-278.
Atkinson, M., & Kydd, C. (1997). Individual characteristics associated with World Wide Web
use: an empirical study of playfulness and motivation. ACM SIGMIS: The DATABASE
for Advances in Information Systems, 28(2), 53-62.
https://doi.org/10.1145/264701.264705
Awan, S. A. (2015). Development of attitude towards teaching among prospective teachers of
Punjab, Pakistan. International Journal of Current Research and Academic Review,
3(1), 2347-3215.
164
Ayscough, P. B. (1976). Computer assisted learning in chemistry: an exercise in evaluation.
Computers & Education, 1(1), 47-53. https://doi.org/10.1016/0360-1315(76)90008-7
Baard, P. P., Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2004). Intrinsic need satisfaction: a motivational
basis of performance and well-being in two work settings. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 34(10), 2045–2068. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2004.tb02690.x
Bakker, A. B., Albrecht, S. L., & Leiter, M. P. (2011). Key questions regarding work
engagement. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 20(1), 4-28.
Barkoukis, V., Tsorbatzoudis, H., Grouios, G., & Sideridis, G. (2008). The assessment of
intrinsic and extrinsic motivation and amotivation: validity and reliability of the Greek
version of the academic motivation scale. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy
& Practice, 15(1), 39-55.
Barnett, K., & McCormick, J. (2003). Vision, relationships and teacher motivation: a case
study. Journal of Educational Administration, 41(1), 55-73. doi:
10.1108/09578230310457439
Barnett, W. S. (1995). Long-term effects of early childhood program on cognitive and school
outcomes. The Future of Children, 5(3), 25-50. doi: 10.2307/1602366
Barrable, A., & Arvanitis, A. (2018). Flourishing in the forest: looking at Forest School
through a self-determination theory lens. Journal of Outdoor and Environmental
Education, 22(1), 39-55. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42322-018-0018-5
Bebell, D., Russell, M., & O’Dwyer, L. (2004). Measuring teachers’ technology uses. Journal
of Research on Technology in Education, 37(1), 45-63. doi:
10.1080/15391523.2004.10782425
165
Behar, A., & Mishra, P. (2015). ICTs in schools: why focusing policy and resources on
educators, not children, will improve educational outcomes. In S. Dutta, T. Geiger, &
B., Lanvin. (Eds.), The Global Information Technology Report 2015: ICTs for
Inclusive Growth (pp. 73-78). Geneva: World Economic Forum.
http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Global_IT_Report_2015.pdf
Bello, G., & Jakada, M. (2017). Monetary reward and teachers’ performance in selected public
secondary schools in Kano state. Journal of Education and Practice. 8(7), 1-4.
Bentler, P. M., & Bonnet, D. C. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis
of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88(3), 588-606.
Bentler, P.M. (1989). EQS structural equations program manual. Encino, CA: Multivariate
Software, Inc.
Bianchi, L., & Laborde, S. (2014). Buenas prácticas de la Comunidad Ceibal. El Plan Ceibal
como generador de iniciativas de Desarrollo Humano Local. Programa de las
Naciones Unidas para el Desarrollo (PNUD).
http://digital.fundacionceibal.edu.uy/jspui/handle/123456789/148
Bingimlas, K. A. (2009). Barriers to successful integration of ICT in teaching and learning
environments. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education,
5(3), 235-245.
Blau, I., & Hameiri, M. (2010). Implementing technological change at schools: the impact of
online communication with families on teacher interactions through learning
management system. Interdisciplinary Journal of E-Learning and Learning Objects.
6(1), 245-257.
166
Blau, I., & Peled, Y. (2012). Teachers’ openness to change and attitudes towards ICT:
comparison of laptop per teacher and laptop per student programs. Interdisciplinary
Journal of E-Learning and Learning Objects, 8(1), 73-81.
Blau, I., & Shamir-Inbal, (2017). Digital competences and long-term ICT integration in school
culture: the perspective of elementary school leaders. Education and Information
Technologies, 22(1), 769-787. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-015-9456-7
Boateng, G. O., Neilands, T., Frongillo, E., Melgar-Quiñonez, H., & Young, S. (2018). Best
practices for developing and validating scales for health, social, and behavioral
research: a primer. Frontiers in Public Health, 149(6), 1-18. doi:
10.3389/fpubh.2018.00149
Booth, P., Guinmard, I., & Lloyd, E. (2017). The perceptions of a situated learning experience
mediated by novice teachers’ autonomy. The EUROCALL Review, 25(1), 76-91.
https://doi.org/10.4995/eurocall.2017.7081
Bovee, C. L., & Thill, J. V. (2000). Business Communication Today (6
th
ed.). Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bracey, B., & Cluver, T. (2005). Harnessing the Potential of ICT for Education: A Multi-
Stakeholder Approach. NY: The United Nations Information and Communication
Technologies Task Force.
Brady, S. T. et al. (2016). The psychology of the affirmed learner: spontaneous self-
affirmation in the face of stress. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108(3), 353.
https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000091
Brock, E. (2001). Integrating real practices experience in ICT education. Journal of
Information Systems Education, 12(3), 133 – 14.
167
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A.
Bollen and J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136-162).
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Buabeng-Andoh, C. (2019). Factors that influence teachers’ pedagogical use of ICT in
secondary schools: a case of Ghana. Contemporary Educational Technology, 10(3),
272-288. doi: 10.30935/cet.590099
Bulman, G., & Fairlie, R. W. (2015). Technology and education: computers, software, and the
internet. Handbook of the Economics of Education, 5(1), 239-280.
https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-63459-7.00005-1
Butler, R. (2007). Teachers’ achievement goal orientations and associations with teachers’
help seeking examination of a novel approach to teacher motivation. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 99(2), 241–252. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.2.241
Cakir, R. (2012). Technology integration and technology leadership in schools as learning
organizations. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 11(4), 273-282.
Cameron, G. T., & McCollum, T. (1993). Competing corporate cultures: a multi-method,
cultural analysis of the role of internal communication. Journal of Public Relations
Research, 5(4), 217-250. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532754xjprr0504_01
Campbell, R. et al. (2015). Examining the role of psychological need satisfaction in sleep: a
self-determination theory perspective. Personality and Individual Differences, 77(1),
199-204.
Carneiro, R., Lefrere, P., Steffens, K., & Underwood, J. (Eds). (2011). Self-Regulated
Learning in Technology Enhanced Learning Environments - A European
Perspective. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
168
Carrasco, M. R., & Torrecilla, J. M. (2012). Learning environments with technological
resources: a look at their contribution to student performance in Latin American
elementary schools. Educational Technology Research and Development, 60(6), 1107–
1128. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-012-9262-5
Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2013). Does Money Really Affect Motivation? A Review of the
Research. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2013/04/does-money-really-
affect-motiv
Chandra, P., & Bliss, M. (1988). Introducing computers into a school-management issues.
Computers & Education, 12(1), 57-61. https://doi.org/10.1016/0360-1315(88)90055-3
Chatzistamatiou, M., Dermitzaki, I., & Bagiatis, V. (2014). Self-regulatory teaching in
mathematics: relations to teachers’ motivation, affect and professional commitment.
European Journal of Psychology of Education, 29, 295–310.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-013-0199-9
Chávez, A. (in press). Gestión de las TIC en las aulas de innovación pedagógica de un centro
básico alternativo Ceba piloto de la ciudad del Cusco [ICT management in the
pedagogical innovation classrooms of a Ceba pilot alternative basic center of the Cusco
city]. Revista Peruana De Computación Y Sistemas [Peruvian Journal of Computing
and Systems].
Chen P. D., Lambert, A. D., & Guidry, K. R. (2010). Engaging online learners: the impact
of Web-based learning technology on college student engagement. Computers &
Education, 54(4), 1222-1232.
Chen, C. (2008). Why do teachers not practice what they believe regarding technology
integration? Journal of Educational Research, 102(1), 65-75.
169
Chen, K., & Jang, S. (2010). Motivation in online learning: testing a model of self-
determination theory. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(4), 741–752. doi:
10.1016/j.chb.2010.01.011
Church, A. T. et al. (2013). Need Satisfaction and well-being: testing self-determination theory
in eight cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 44(4), 507-534.
Cicchetti, D. V., & Sparrow, S. S. (1981). Developing criteria for establishing interrater
reliability of specific items: applications to assessment of adaptive behavior. American
Journal of Mental Deficiency, 86, 127-137.
Corbalan, G., Pass, F., & Cuypers, H. (2010). Computer-based feedback in linear algebra:
effects on transfer performance and motivation. Computers & Education, 55(2), 692-
703. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.03.002
Corkin, D. M., Ekmekci, A., & Parr, R. (2018). The effects of the school-work environment on
mathematics teachers’ motivation for teaching: a self-determination theoretical
perspective. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 43(6), 50-66.
http://dx.doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2018v43n6.4
Cox, M. J., Preston, C., & Cox, K. (1999, September 2-5). What Motivates Teachers to use
ICT? British Educational Research Association Annual Conference. Brighton: United
Kingdom. http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/00001329.htm
Cox, M., Rhodes, J., & Hall, J. (1988). The use of computer assisted learning in primary
schools: some factors affecting the uptake. Computers & Education, 12(1), 173-178.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0360-1315(88)90074-7
170
Cózar-Gutiérrez, R., & Sáez-López, J. M. (2016). Game-based learning and gamification in
initial teacher training in the social sciences: an experiment with MinecraftEdu.
International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 13(2), 1-11.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-016-0003-4
Creswell, J. W., Plano Clark, V. L., Gutmann, M. L., & Hanson, W. E. (2003). Advanced
mixed methods research designs. In A.Tashakkori & C.Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of
mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 209–240). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Cristia, J., Czerwonko, A., & Garofalo, P. (2014). Does Technology in Schools Affect
Repetition, Dropout and Enrolment? Evidence from Peru. IDB Working Paper Series,
No. IDB-WP-477. Inter-American Development Bank.
Cristia, J., Ibarraran, P., Cueto, S., Santiago, A., & Severin, E. (2017). Technology and child
development: evidence from the One Laptop per Child program. American Economic
Journal, 9(3), 295-320. doi: 10.1257/app.20150385
Cullen, T. A., & Greene, B. A. (2011). Preservice teachers’ beliefs, attitudes, and motivation
about technology integration. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 45(1), 29-
47.
Curran, P. J., West, S. G., & Finch, J. F. (1996). The robustness of test statistics to
nonnormality and specification error in confirmatory factor analysis. Psychological
Methods, 1(1), 16–29. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.1.1.16
171
Darling-Hammond, L., Flook, L., Cook-Harvey, C., Barron, B., & Osher, D. (2019).
Implications for educational practice of the science of learning and development.
Applied Developmental Science, 23(1), 1-44.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10888691.2018.1537791
Davies, R., Nyland, R., Bodily, R., Chapman, J., Jones, B., & Young, J. (2016). Designing
technology-enabled instruction to utilize learning analytics. TechTrends, 61(2), 155-
161. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-016-0131-7
Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1992). Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation to
use computers in the workplace. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22(14), 1111-
1132. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1992.tb00945.x
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human
Behavior. New York: Plenum.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: human needs and
the self-determination theory. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227-268.
Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (1999). A meta-analytic review of experiments
examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological
Bulletin, 125, 627-668
Deci, E. L., Vallerand, R. J., Pelletier, L. G., & Ryan, R. M. (1991). Motivation and education:
the self-determination perspective. Educational Psychologist, 26(3), 325-346.
Derndorfer, C. (2010). OLPC in Uruguay: impressions of Plan Ceibal’s primary school XO
Laptop saturation. Educational Technology Debate (ETD).
https://edutechdebate.org/olpc-in-south-america/olpc-in-uruguay-impressions-of-plan-
ceibal/
172
Devos, C., Dumay, X., Bonami, M., Bates, R., & Holton, E. (2007). The learning transfer
system inventory (LTSI) translated into French: internal structure and predictive
validity. International Journal of Training and Development, 11(3), 181–199. doi:
10.1111/j.1468-2419.2007.00280.x
Dexter, S. L., Anderson, R. E., & Becker, H. J. (1999). Teachers’ views of computers as
catalysts for changes in their teaching practice. Journal of Research on Computing in
Education, 31(3), 221–238. https://doi.org/10.1080/08886504.1999.10782252s
Diseth, A., Breidablik, H. J., & Meland, E. (2018). Longitudinal relations between perceived
autonomy support and basic need satisfaction in two student cohorts. Educational
Psychology, 38(1), 99-115.
Donnelly, D., McGarr, O., & O’Reilly, J. (2011). A Framework for teachers’ integration of
ICT into their classroom practice. Computers & Education, 57, 1469-1483.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.02.014
Dörnyei, Z., & Ushioda, E. (2013). Teaching and Researching: Motivation (2nd edition).
London, UK: Routledge.
Douglas, L., & Megan, B. (2013). Culture in the classroom. Phi Delta Kappan, 95(4), 64-67.
https://doi.org/10.1177/003172171309500414
Education Review Office. (2012). Teaching as Inquiry: Responding to Learners.
https://www.ero.govt.nz/assets/Uploads/Teaching-as-Inquiry-Responding-to-
Learners.pdf
Egbert, J., & Thomas, M. (2001). The new frontier: a case study in applying instructional
design for distance teacher education. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education,
9(3), 391-405.
173
Eisenberg, E. M., & Goodall, H. L. (2004). Organizational Communication: Balancing
Creativity and Constraint (4
th
ed.). Boston, MA: Bedford.
Ersoz, G. (2016). An examination of motivational regulations, dispositional flow and social
physique anxiety among college students for exercise: a self-determination theory
approach. College Student Journal, 50(2), 159-170.
Ertmer, P. A. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: the final frontier in our quest for
technology integration. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4),
25-39.
Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T. (2010). Teacher technology change: how
knowledge, confidence, beliefs, and culture intersect. Journal of Research on
Technology in Education, 42(3), 255-284. doi: 10.1080/15391523.2010.10782551
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.
Eyal, O., & Roth, G. (2011). Principals’ leadership and teachers’ motivation: self-
determination theory analysis. Journal of Educational Administration, 49(3), 256-275.
doi: 10.1108/09578231111129055
Farrington, B. (1982). Computer based exercises for language learning at university level.
Computers & Education, 6(1), 113-116. https://doi.org/10.1016/0360-1315(82)90020-
3
Fenton, S., Duda, J., & Barrett, T. (2016). Optimising physical activity engagement during
youth sport: a self-determination theory approach. Journal of Sports Sciences, 34(19),
1874-1884.
174
Fernet, C., Guay, F., Senecal, C., & Austin, S. (2012). Predicting intraindividual changes in
teacher burnout: the role of perceived school environment and motivational factors.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(1), 514-525.
Fidalgo-Neto, A. A., Tornaghi, A., Meirelles, R. M., & Berçot, F. (2009). The use of
computers in Brazilian primary and secondary schools. Computers & Education, 53(3),
677-685. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2009.04.005
Fischer, C., Malycha, C., & Schafmann, E. (2019). The influence of intrinsic motivation and
synergistic extrinsic motivators on creativity and innovation. Frontiers in Psychology,
10(1), 1-15. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00137
Fraillon, J., Ainley, J., Schulz, W., Friedman, T., & Gebhardt, E. (2014). School environments
for teaching and learning computer and information literacy. In Preparing for Life in a
Digital Age: The IEA International Computer and Information Literacy Study
International Report (pp. 167-193). Switzerland: Springer International Publishing
AG. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-14222-7_7
Frederick, C. M., & Ryan, R. M. (1995). Self-determination in sport: a review using cognitive
evaluation theory. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 26, 5-23.
Furtak, E. M., & Kunter, M. (2012). Effects of autonomy-supportive teaching on student
learning and motivation. The Journal of Experimental Education, 80, 284–316.
Gagné, M. et al. (2014). The multidimensional work motivation scale: validation evidence in
seven languages and nine countries. European Journal of Work and Organizational
Psychology, 24(2), 178-196. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2013.877892
Gagné, M., & Deci, E. L. (2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 26, 331-362.
175
Georgsen, M., & Zander, P-O. (2013). Changing education through ICT in developing
countries. Denmark: Aalborg University Press.
Ghavifekr, S., Afshari, M., Siraj, S., & Seger, K. (2013). ICT application for administration
and management: a conceptual review. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences,
103(26), 1344-1351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.10.705
Gibson, D. (2009). Digital Simulations for Improving Education: Learning Through Artificial
Teaching Environments: Learning Through Artificial Teaching Environments.
Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Gill, A. (2017). Role of ICT in effective curriculum transaction and evaluation. International
Journal of Applied Research, 3(1), 432-437.
Global Partnership for Education. (2020). Teaching Quality.
https://www.globalpartnership.org/what-we-do/teaching-quality
Gouseti, A. (2010). Web 2.0 and education: not just another case of hype, hope and
disappointment? Learning, Media and Technology, 35(3), 351-356.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2010.509353
Graça, J., Calheiros, M. M., & Barata, M. C. (2013). Authority in the classroom: adolescent
autonomy, autonomy support, and teachers’ legitimacy. European Journal of
Psychology of Education, 28(1), 1065–1076. doi:10.1007/s10212-012-0154-1
Grag, P., & Rastogi, R. (2006). A new model for job design: motivating employee’s
performance. Journal of Management Development, 25(6), 572–587.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02621710610670137
Grassetti, M., & Brookby, S. (2016). Advancing Next-Generation Teacher Education through
Digital Tools and Applications. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
176
Groff, J. S. (2013). Technology-Rich Innovative Learning Environments. Organisation for
Economic Co-operation and Development-Centre for Educational Research and
Innovation (OECD-CERI) Innovative Learning Environment Project.
http://www.oecd.org/education/ceri/Technology-
Rich%20Innovative%20Learning%20Environments%20by%20Jennifer%20Groff.pdf
Grolnick, W. S., & Ryan, R. M. (1987). Autonomy in children’s learning: an experimental and
individual differences investigation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
52(5), 890–898.
Grolnick, W. S., Deci, E. I., & Ryan, R. M. (1997). Internalization within the family: the self-
determination theory perspective. In J. E. Grusec & L. Kucynski (Eds.), Parenting and
children’s internalization of values: A handbook of contemporary theory (pp. 135 –
161). New York: Wiley.
Grønmo, S. (2019). Social Research Methods: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods
Approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Gunnell, K. E., & Gaudreau, P. (2015). Testing a bi-factor model to disentangle general and
specific factors of motivation in self-determination theory. Personality and Individual
Differences, 81(1), 35-40.
Gurganious, J. (2017). The Relationship Between Teacher Autonomy and Middle School
Students’ Achievement in Science [Doctoral dissertation]. Walden Dissertations and
Doctoral Studies Collection at ScholarWorks.
https://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=
5095&context=dissertations
177
Gutterman, B., Rahman, S., Supelano, J., Thies, L., & Yang, M. (2009). White paper:
Information Communication and Technology (ICT) in Education for Development.
New York: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.
Guzman, A., & Nussbaum, M. (2009). Teaching competencies for technology integration in
the classroom. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25(5), 453-469. doi:
10.1111/j.1365-2729.2009.00322.x
Hadhri, W., Ayadi, M., & Youssef, A. B. (2012). Difference between adoption and access
frequency to internet and consumer surplus. In S. Allegrezza & A. Dubrocard (Eds.),
Internet Econometrics (pp. 107-129). London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Hagger, M. S., Koch, S., & Chatzisarantis, N. L. (2015). The effect of causality orientations
and positive competence-enhancing feedback on intrinsic motivation: a test of additive
and interactive effects. Personality and Individual Differences, 72(1), 107–111. doi:
10.1016/j.paid.2014.08.012
Haivas, S., Hofmans, J., & Pepermans, R. (2013). Volunteer engagement and intention to quit
from a self‐determination theory perspective. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,
43(9), 1869-1880.
Halili, S. H., & Sulaiman, H. (2018). Factors influencing the rural students’ acceptance of
using ICT for educational purposes. Kasetsart Journal of Social Sciences, 40(3), 574-
579. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.kjss.2017.12.022
Hamilton, D., Way, N., & Chen, J. (2009). Understanding complexities of
inferences. Psychological Inquiry, 20(1), 53-57.
178
Hammond, M. et al. (2009). Why do some student teachers make very good use of ICT? An
exploratory case study. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 18(1), 59-73.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14759390802704097
Hargie, O., & Tourish, D. (2002). How are we doing? Measuring and monitoring
organizational communication. In D. Tourish, & O. Hargie (Eds.), Key Issues in
Organizational Communication (pp. 234-251). London, UK: Routledge.
Hauge, T. E., & Norenes, S. O. (2014). Collaborative leadership development with ICT:
experiences from three exemplary schools. International Journal of Leadership in
Education, 18(3), 340-364. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2014.963689
Heeks, R. (2002). Information systems and developing countries: failure, success, and local
improvisations. The information society, 18(2), 101-112. doi:
10.1080/01972240290075039
Hendry, D., Crocker, P., & Hodges, N. (2014). Practice and play as determinants of self-
determined motivation in youth soccer players. Journal of Sports Sciences, 32(11),
1091-1099.
Hennessy, S. & London, L. (2013). Learning from international experiences with interactive
whiteboards: the role of professional development in integrating the technology.
OECD Education Working Papers, No. 89. Paris: OECD Publishing.
https://doi.org/10.1787/5k49chbsnmls-en.
Hennessy, S., Deaney, R., & Ruthven, K. (2005). Emerging Teacher Strategies for Supporting
Subject Teaching and Learning with ICT. Cambridge: University of Cambridge.
Hildebrand, D. K. (1986). Statistical Thinking for Behavioural Scientists. Boston: Duxbury
Press.
179
Hilty, L., & Huber, P. (2017). Motivating students on ICT-related study programs to engage
with the subject of sustainable development. International Journal of Sustainability in
Higher Education, 19(3), 642-656. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-02-2017-0027
Hinostroza, E., Jara, I., & Brun, M. (2011). Case study: Uruguay. In R. Kozma (Ed.),
Transforming education: The power of ICT policies (pp. 133-172). Paris: UNESCO.
Hodal, K. (2016, October 5). UN warns universal education goal will fail without 69 million
new teachers. The Guardian: Global Education. https://www.theguardian.com/global-
development/2016/oct/05/un-universal-education-goal-fail-69-million-new-teachers-
unesco
Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., & Mullen, M. R. (2008). Structural equation modelling: guidelines
for determining model fit. The Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6(1),
53-60.
Hornstra, L., Mansfield, C., van der Veen, I., Peetsma, T., & Volman, M. (2015). Motivational
teacher strategies: the role of beliefs and contextual factors. Learning Environments
Research, 18(3), 363–392. doi: 10.1007/s10984-015-9189-y
Howard, S. K., & Thompson, K. (2016). Seeing the system: dynamics and complexity of
technology integration in secondary schools. Education and Information Technologies,
21, 1877– 1894. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-015-9424-2
Howard, S. K., Chan, A., Mozejko, A., & Caputi, P. (2015). Technology practices:
confirmatory factor analysis and exploration of teachers’ technology integration in
subject areas. Computers & Education, 90(1), 24–35.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.09.008
180
Hoy, A. W. (2008). What motivates teachers? Important work on a complex question.
Learning and Instruction, 18(5), 492–498.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.06.007
Hsu, S. (2010). Developing a scale for teacher integration of information and communication
technology in Grades 1–9. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(3), 175–189.
https://doi-org.libproxy2.usc.edu/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2010.00348.x
Hu, L. & Bentler, P. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indices in covariance structure analysis:
conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modelling, 6, 1-55.
Huges, G. D. (2012). Teacher retention: teacher characteristics, school characteristics,
organizational characteristics, and teacher efficacy. The Journal of Educational
Research, 105(4), 245–255. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2011.584922
Imberman, S. A. (2015). How effective are financial incentives for teachers? Linking teacher
pay to student performance has become popular, but evidence on its effectiveness is
mixed. IZA World of Labor: Evidence Based Policy Making, 158, 1-10. doi:
10.15185/izawol.158
Inan, F. A., & Lowther, D. L. (2010). Factors affecting technology integration in K-12
classrooms: a path model. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(2),
137-154. doi: 10.1007/s11423-009-9132-y
infoDev. (2010). Quick Guide: Low-Cost Computing Devices and Initiatives for the
Developing World. India: infoDev.
International Telecommunication Union. (2016). Fast-Forward Progress: Leveraging Tech to
Achieve the Global Goals. https://www.spacefordevelopment.org/wp-
content/uploads/2018/06/UN-Fast-forward_progress_report_414709-FINAL-1.pdf
181
Isiyaku, D. D., Ayub, M. A., & AbdulKadir, S. (2018). Antecedents to teachers’ perceptions of
the usefulness of ICTs for business education classroom instructions in Nigerian
tertiary institutions. Asia Pacific Education Review, 19(1), 337-352.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-018-9525-x
Jacobi, L. (2018). What motivates students in the online communication classroom? An
exploration of self-determination theory. Journal of Educators Online, 15(2), 59-74.
Jamieson-Proctor, R., Watson, G., Finger, G., Grimbeek, P., & Burnett, P. C. (2007).
Measuring the use of information and communication technologies (ICTs) in the
classroom. Computers in the Schools, 24(1), 167–184. doi: 10.1300/J025v24n01_11
Jarzabkowski, L. (2002). The social dimensions of teacher collegiality. Journal of Educational
Enquiry, 3(1), 1-20.
Jo, S., & Shim, S. W. (2005). Paradigm shift of employee communication: the effect of
management communication on trusting relationships. Public Relations Review, 31(2),
277-280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2005.02.012
Jones, M. (2006). Teaching self-determination: empowered teachers, empowered students.
TEACHING Exceptional Children, 39(1), 12-17.
https://doi.org/10.1177/004005990603900102
Judd, T., Kennedy, G., Cropper, S. & Cropper, S. (2010). Using wikis for collaborative
learning: assessing collaboration through contribution. Australasian Journal of
Educational Technology, 26(3), 341-354.
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.
182
Kaiser, H. F. (1960). The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educational
and Psychological Measurement, 20(1),141–151.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/001316446002000116
Kalla, H. K. (2005). Integrated internal communications: a multidisciplinary perspective.
Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 10(4), 302-314. doi:
10.1108/13563280510630106
Kaplan, D. (2000). Structural Equation Modelling: Foundations and Extensions. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Karanges, E. R., Beatson, A., Johnston, K. A., & Lings, I. (2014). Optimizing employee
engagement with internal communication: asocial exchange perspective. Journal of
Business Market Management, 7(2), 329-253.
Karanja, S. (2015, December 19). Knut files appeal in Supreme Court over teachers’ salary
dispute. Daily Nation. https://www.nation.co.ke/news/Knut-files-appeal-in-Supreme-
Court-over-teachers--salary/1056-3001950-10prm3k/index.html
Kasser, T., Davey, J., & Ryan, R. M. (1992). Motivation and employee-supervisor
discrepancies in a psychiatric vocational rehabilitation setting. Rehabilitation
Psychology, 37(1), 175–187. doi: 10.1037/h0079104
Katartzi, E., & Vlachopoulos, S. (2011). Motivating children with developmental coordination
disorder in school physical education: the self-determination theory approach.
Research in Developmental Disabilities, 32(6), 2674-2682.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2011.06.005
183
Kerssen-Griep, J., & Witt, P. L. (2012). Instructional feedback II: how do instructor
immediacy cues and facework tactics interact to predict student motivation and fairness
perception? Communication Studies, 63, 498–517. doi:10.1080/10510974. 201
Khan, F., & Ghadially, R. (2010). Empowerment through ICT education, access and use: a
gender analysis of Muslim youth in India. Journal of International Development,
22(5), 659–673.
Kim, C., Kim, M. K., Lee, C., Spector, J. M., & DeMeester, K. (2013). Teacher beliefs and
technology integration. Teaching and Teacher Education, 29(1), 76-85.
King, P., & Witt, P. (2009). Teacher immediacy, confidence testing, and the measurement of
cognitive learning. Communication Education, 58(1), 110–123.
doi:10.1080/036345208025112331.632660
Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. New York: The
Guilford Press.
Klopfer, E., Osterweil, S., Groff, J. S., & Haas, J. (2009). Using the Technology of Today, in
the Classroom Today: The Instructional Power of Digital Gaming and Social
Networking and How Teachers Can Leverage It. Cambridge, MA: The Education
Arcade, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Kocakaya, S., & Kocakaya, F. (2014). A structural equation modeling on factors of how
experienced teachers affect the students’ science and mathematics achievements.
Education Research International, 2014, 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/490371
Koh, J. H. L., & Frick, T. W. (2010). Implementing autonomy support: insights from a
Montessori classroom. International Journal of Education, 2(2), 1–15.
184
Kolleck, N. (2019). Motivational aspects of teacher collaboration. Frontiers in Education,
Systematic Review, 122(4), 1-20. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2019.00122
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feduc.2019.00122/full
Kopcha, T. J. (2012). Teachers’ perceptions of the barriers to technology integration and
practices with technology under situated professional development. Computers &
Education, 59(4), 1109-1121. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.05.014
Kraemer, K. L., Dedrick, J., & Sharma, P. (2009). One laptop per child: vision vs. reality.
Communications of the ACM, 52(6), 66-73. doi:10.1145/1516046.151606
Krosnick, J. A., & Presser, S. (2009). Question and questionnaire design. In J. D. Wright & P.
V. Marsden (Eds.), Handbook of Survey Research (pp. 263-313). San Diego, CA:
Elsevier.
Kyriazos, T. A. (2018). Applied psychometrics: writing-up a factor analysis construct
validation study with examples. Psychology, 9(11), 2503-2530.
https://doi.org/10.4236/psych.2018.911144
Lai, E. (2011). Motivation: A literature Review. London, UK: Pearson.
https://images.pearsonassessments.com/images/tmrs/Motivation_Review_final.pdf
Law, N., & Chow, A. (2008). Pedagogy and ICT use in schools around the world. In N. Law,
W.J. Pelgrum & T. Plomp (Eds.), Findings from the IEA SITES 2006 study (pp. 121–
179). CERC Studies in comparative education. Hong Kong: Comparative Education
Research Centre, The University of Hong Kong, and Dordrecht: Springer.
Li, F. (1999). The exercise motivation scale: its multifaceted structure and construct validity.
Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 11(1), 97-115.
185
Liang, C., Hsu, Y., Huang, Y., & Chin, S-C. (2012). How learning environments can stimulate
student imagination. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 11(4),
432-441.
Little, J. W. (1999). Organizing school for teacher learning. In L. Darling-Hamnod & G. Skyes
(Eds.), Teaching as the Learning Profession: Handbook of Policy and Practice (pp.
233-262). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Liu, T-Y, & Chu, Y-L. (2010). Using ubiquitous games in an English listening and speaking
course: impact on learning outcomes and motivation. Computers &
Education, 55(2), 630-643. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.02.023
Liu, W. C., Wang, C. K., Kee, Y. H., Koh, C., Lim, B. S., & Chua, L. (2014). College
students’ motivation and learning strategies profiles and academic achievement: a self-
determination theory approach. An International Journal of Experimental Educational
Psychology, 34(3), 338-353. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2013.785067
Livingstone, S. (2012). Critical reflections on the benefits of ICT in education. Oxford Review
of Education, 38(1), 9-24. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2011.577938
Lohmann, J., Muula, A. S., Houlfort, N., & De Allegri, M. (2018). How does performance-
based financing affect health workers’ intrinsic motivation? A self-determination
theory-based mixed-methods study in Malawi. Social Science & Medicine, 208(3), 1-8.
doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2018.04.053
Loxley, W., & Julien, P. (2004). Information and Communication Technologies in Education
and Training in Asia and the Pacific. Manila, Philippines: Asia Development Bank.
https://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/publication/28989/ict-education-training.pdf
186
Lu, Z., Hou L., & Huang, X. (2010). A research on a student-centred teaching model in an
ICT-based English audio-video speaking class. International Journal of Education and
Development using Information and Communication Technology, 6(3), 101-123. doi:
10.24093/awej/vol6no1.15
Lynch, M. (2013). Attachment, autonomy, and emotional reliance: a multilevel model. Journal
of Counseling & Development, 91(3), 303-312. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-
6676.2013.00098.x
MacCallum, R. C., Browne, M. W., & Sugawara, H. M. (1996). Power analysis and
determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological
Methods, 1(2), 130-49.
Mahdizadeh, H., Biemans, H., & Mulder, M. (2008). Determining factors of the use of e-
learning environments by university teachers. Computers & Education, 51(1), 142-154.
doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2007.04.004
Marcinkiewicz, H. R. (1993). Computers and teachers: factors influencing computer use in the
classroom. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 26, 220-237.
Marsh, H. W., Hau, K.-T., Balla, J. R., & Grayson, D. (1998). Is more ever too much? The
number of indicators per factor in confirmatory factor analysis. Multivariate
Behavioral Research, 33(2), 181-220. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr3302_1
Mateu, M., Cobo, C., & Moravec, J. (2018). Plan Ceibal 2020: future scenarios for technology
and education—the case of the Uruguayan public education system. European Journal
of Futures Research, 6(6), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40309-018-0134-z
Mausethagen, S., & Mølstad, C. (2015). Shifts in curriculum control: contesting ideas of
teacher autonomy. Nordic Journal of Studies in Education Policy, 1(3), 30-41.
187
Mazzei, A. (2010). Promoting active communication behaviours through internal
communication. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 15(3), 221-
234. https://doi.org/10.1108/13563281011068096
Medalia, A., & Saperstein, A. (2011). The role of motivation for treatment success.
Schizophrenia Bulletin, 37(2), 122-128. doi: 10.1093/schbul/sbr063
Men, L. R., & Yue, C. A. (2019). Creating a positive emotional culture: effect of internal
communication and impact on employee supportive behaviors. Public Relations
Review, 45(3), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2019.03.001
Men, R. L., & Bowen, S. A. (2017). Excellence in Internal Relations Management. New York,
NY: Business Expert Press.
Milner, S. D., & Wildberger, A. M. (1977). Determining appropriate uses of computers in
education. Computers & Education, 1(2), 117-123.
Mitrofan, N., & Bulborea, A. (2013). The role of organizational communication in structuring
interpersonal relationships. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 76(1), 511-515.
Moeller, B., & Reitzes, T. (2011). Integrating technology with student-centered learning.
Quincy, MA: Nellie Mae Education Foundation.
Mooij, T., & Smeets, E. (2001). Modelling and supporting ICT implementation in secondary
schools. Computers & Education, 36(3), 265-281. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-
1315(00)00068-3
Mora-Ruano, J. G., Gebhardt, M., & Wittmann, E. (2018). Teacher collaboration in German
schools: do gender and school type influence the frequency of collaboration among
teachers? Frontiers in Education, 55(3), 1. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2018.00055
188
Mortan, M., Veres, V., & Suciu, L. (2010). Communication particularities in educational
organizations. Managerial Challenges of the Contemporary Society, 1, 127-130.
Motl, R. W. (2007). Theoretical models for understanding physical activity behavior among
children and adolescents - social cognitive theory and self-determination theory.
Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 26(1), 350-357.
Muianga, X., Klomsri, T., Tedre, M., & Mutimucuio, I. (2018). From teacher-oriented to
student-centred learning: developing an ICT-supported learning approach at the
Eduardo Mondlane University, Mozambique. The Turkish Online Journal of
Educational Technology, 17(2), 46-54.
Mumtaz, S. (2000). Factors affecting teachers’ use of information and communications
technology: a review of the literature. Journal of Information Technology for Teacher
Education, 9(3), 319-342. https://doi.org/10.1080/14759390000200096
Munyengabe, S., Zhao, Y., Haiyan, H., & Hitimana, S. (2017). primary teachers’ perceptions
on ict integration for enhancing teaching and learning through the implementation of
One Laptop Per Child program in primary schools of Rwanda. Eurasia Journal of
Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 13(11), 7193-7204.
https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/79044
Murphy, C., & Greenwood, L. (1998). Effective integration of information and
communication technologies in teacher education. Journal of Information Technology,
for Teacher Education, 7(3), 413-429.
Naik, G., Chitre, C., Bhalla, M., & Rajan, J. (2020). Impact of use of technology on student
learning outcomes: evidence from a large-scale experiment in India. World
Development, 127, 1-28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2019.104736
189
Nardi, B., & O’Day, V. (1999). Information Ecologies: Using Technology with Heart.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Nayar, A. (2012). Social Networking as a Means for Enhancing Technology Competencies of
Teacher Trainees: Case Study of an ICT Based Pedagogy. Paper presented at the 6th
International Technology, Education and Development Conference, Valencia, Spain,
2012.
Ng, J. Y. et al. (2012). Self-determination theory applied to health contexts: a meta-analysis.
Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(4), 325-340. doi:
10.1177/1745691612447309
Nia, J., Southworth, G., & Yeomans, R. (1989). Staff Relationships in the Primary School: A
Study of Organizational Cultures. London, UK: Cassell.
Niemiec, C. P., & Ryan, R. M. (2009). Autonomy, competence, and relatedness in the
classroom. Applying self-determination theory to educational practice. Theory and
Research in Education, 7(2), 133-144. doi: 10.1177/1477878509104318
Nuñez, J. L., & León, J. (2015). Autonomy support in the classroom a review from self-
determination theory. European Psychologist, 20(4), 275-283. doi: 10.1027/1016-
9040/a000234
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Pyschometric Theory. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Office of Educational Technology. (2017). Reimagining the Role of Technology in Education:
2017 National Education Technology Plan Update. Washington D.C.: U.S.
Olafsen, A. H., Deci, E. L., & Halvari, H. (2018). Basic psychological needs and work
motivation: a longitudinal test of directionality. Motivation and Emotion, 42(2), 178-
189. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-017-9646-2
190
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD]. (2018). PISA 2021 ICT
Framework. https://www.oecd.org/pisa/sitedocument/PISA-2021-ICT-framework.pdf
OECD. (2014). PISA 2012 Technical Report. Paris: OECD Publishing.
https://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproducts/PISA-2012-technical-report-final.pdf
OECD. (2015a). Students, Computers and Learning: Making the Connection. PISA, OECD
Publishing. https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/integrating-information-and-
communication-technology-in-teaching-and-learning_5jrw7k026ptl.pdf
OECD. (2015b). Teaching with technology. Teaching in Focus, No. 12. Paris: OECD
Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/5jrxnhpp6p8v-en.
OECD. (2016a). Digital technologies in education. In OECD, Innovating Education and
Educating for Innovation: The Power of Digital Technologies and Skills (pp. 67-86).
Paris: OECD Publishing.
OECD. (2016b). PISA 2015 Results (Volume II) Policies and Practices for Successful Schools:
Policies and Practices for Successful Schools. Paris: OECD Publishing.
Pachler, N., & Daly, C. (2006). Professional teacher learning in virtual environments. E-
Learning and Digital Media, 3(1), 62-74. doi: 10.2304/elea.2006.3.1.62
Pallant, J. (2007). SPSS Survival Manual. SPSS Survival Manual (10th ed.). Buckingham,
Philadelphia: Open University Press.
Park, D., Gunderson, E. A., Tsukayama, E., Levine, S. C., & Beilock, S. L. (2016). Young
children’s motivational frameworks and math achievement: Relation to teacher-
reported instructional practices, but not teacher theory of intelligence. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 108(3), 300–313. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000064
191
Parker, G. (2015). Teachers’ autonomy. Research in Education. 93(1), 19-33.
https://doi.org/10.7227/RIE.0008
Paul, R. W. (1992). Critical thinking: What, why, and how? New Directions for Community
Colleges, 77(1), 3–24. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cc.36819927703
Pelgrum, W. J., & Plomp, T. (1993). The worldwide use of computers: a description of main
trends. Computers & Education, 20(4), 323-332. https://doi.org/10.1016/0360-
1315(93)90011-7
Pelletier, L. G., & Rocchi, M. (2015). Teacher’s motivation in the classroom. In W. C. Liu, J.
C. Wang, & R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Building Autonomous Learners: Perspectives from
Research and Practice using Self-Determination Theory (pp. 107-125). Boston, MA:
Springer.
Phan, T. T. (2012). Teacher autonomy and learner autonomy: an East Asian’s perspective.
International Journal of Social Science and Humanity, 2(6), 468-471.
Plaggenhoef, W. (2007). Integration and Self Regulation of Quality Management in Dutch
Agri-food Supply Chains: A Cross-chain Analysis of the Poultry Meat, the Fruit and
Vegetable and the Flower and Potted Plant Chains. Wageningen, Netherlands:
Wageningen Academic Pub.
Prestridge, S. (2012). The beliefs behind the teacher that influences their ICT practices.
Computers & Education, 58(1), 449-458.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.08.028
Pugh, S. D., & Dietz, J. (2008). Employee engagement at the organizational level of analysis.
Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1(1), 45-48.
192
Purpura, J. E. (1997). An analysis of the relationships between test takers’ cognitive and
metacognitive strategy use and second language test performance. Language Learning,
47, 289-325.
Raley, S., Shogren, K., & McDonald, S. (2018). How to implement the self-determined
learning model of instruction in inclusive general education classrooms. TEACHING
Exceptional Children, 51(1), 62-71. https://doi.org/10.1177/0040059918790236
Reeve, J. (2009). Why teachers adopt a controlling motivating style toward students and how
they can become more autonomy supportive. Educational Psychologist, 44, 159–175.
Reeve, J., Jang, H., Carrell, D., Jeon, S., & Barch, J. (2004). Enhancing Students' Engagement
by Increasing Teachers' Autonomy Support. Motivation and Emotion, 28(2), 147–169.
https://doi.org/10.1023/B:MOEM.0000032312.95499.6f
Richardson, P. W., & Watt, H. M. (2010). Current and future directions in teacher motivation
research. In S. Karabenick & T. Urdan (Eds.), Decade Ahead: Applications and
Contexts of Motivation and Achievement (pp. 139-173). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group
Publishing Limited.
Rivers, D. J. (2011). The Role of Japanese National Identification in English as a Foreign
Language Learner Motivation: A Structural Equation Modeling Approach [Doctoral
dissertation, University of Leicester]. Unpublished PhD thesis, School of Education,
University of Leicester, UK.
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/d84e/f399d9ffbafea37f7f592bfb89d39f8a4ef1.pdf
193
Rocchi, M., & Pelletier, L. G. (2017). The antecedents of coaches’ interpersonal behaviors: the
role of the coaching context, coaches’ psychological needs, and coaches’ motivation.
Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 39(5), 366-378.
https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.2016-0267
Rogers, R. (2017). The motivational pull of video game feedback, rules, and social interaction:
another self-determination theory approach. Computers in Human Behavior, 73(1),
446-450.
Roth, G., Assor, A., Kanat-Maymon, Y., & Kaplan, H. (2007). Autonomous motivation for
teaching: how self-determined teaching may lead to self-determined learning. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 99(4), 761-774. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.99.4.761761
Russo, S., & Stattin, H. (2017). Self-determination theory and the role of political interest in
adolescents’ sociopolitical development. Journal of Applied Developmental
Psychology, 50(1), 71-78.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000a). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic
motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68-78.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000b). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: classic definitions and
new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 54–67.
https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1020
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2018). Self-Determination Theory: Basic Psychological Needs in
Motivation, Development, and Wellness. New York, NY: Guilford Publications.
194
Ryan, R. M., Deci, E. L., & Grolnick, W. S. (1995). Autonomy, related-ness, and the self:
their relation to development and psychopathology. In D. Cicchetti & D, J. Cohen
(Eds.), Developmental Psychopathology: Theory and Methods (pp. 618-655). New
York: Wiley.
Salas-Pilco, S. Z. (2014). ICT in Peruvian education: An overview of its development. In N.
Cheung, L. Fang & L. Jiang (Eds.), Research Studies in Education (pp. 92-101). Hong
Kong: The University of Hong Kong.
Saltan, F. (2015). Development and validation of information technology mentor teacher
attitude scale: a pilot study. Participatory Educational Research, 2(1), 79-90.
https://doi.org/10.17275/per.15.04.2.1
Schaeffer, K. (2019, July 1). About one-in-six U.S. teachers work second jobs – and not just in
the summer. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-
tank/2019/07/01/about-one-in-six-u-s-teachers-work-second-jobs-and-not-just-in-the-
summer/
Schunk, D., Meece, J., & Pintrich, P. (2014). Motivation in Education: Theory, Research, and
Applications (4
th
ed.). London, UK: Pearson.
Schwarzer, R., & Greenglass, E. (1999). Teacher burnout from a social-cognitive perspective:
a theoretical position paper. In R Vandenberghe & A. M. Huberman (Eds.).
Understanding and Preventing Teacher Burnout: A Sourcebook of International
Research and Practice (pp. 238-246). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sheldon, K. M., Turban, D. B., Brown, K. G., Barrick, M. R., & Judge, T. A. (2003). Applying
self-determination theory to organizational research. Research in Personnel and
Human Resources Management, 22, 357-393.
195
Shroff, R. H., Vogel, D. R., & Coombes, J. (2008). Assessing individual-level factors
supporting student intrinsic motivation in online discussions: a qualitative study.
Journal of Information Systems Education, 19(1), 111–126.
Shurygina, J., Aleshina, E., & Prokhorova, N. (2018). research competence of training for
students with locomotors apparatus diseases in the system of Russian general
education. In V. Mkrttchian & L. Belyanina (Eds.), Handbook of Research on
Students’ Research Competence in Modern Educational Contexts (pp. 432-453).
Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi: 10.4018/978-1-5225-3485-3
Somekh B. (2008). Factors affecting teachers’ pedagogical adoption of ICT. In J. Voogt &
G. Knezek (Eds.), International Handbook of Information Technology in Primary
and Secondary Education (pp. 449-460). Springer International Handbook of
Information Technology in Primary and Secondary Education. Boston, MA:
Springer.
Sørebø, Ø., Halvari, H., Gulli, V. F., & Kristiansen, R. (2009). The role of self-determination
theory in explaining teachers’ motivation to continue to use e-learning technology.
Computers & Education, 53(1), 1177-1187. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2009.06.001
Souza, E. A., Garcia, L. G., Silvia, J. C., Garcia, L. G., & Moreira, P. L. (2017). A review of
the use of information technology in Brazilian schools from 2010 to 2014.
International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 7(4), 284-290. doi:
10.18178/ijiet.2017.7.4.882
Standage, M., Duda, J., & Ntoumanis, N. (2005). A test of self-determination theory in school
physical education. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 75(3), 411-433. doi:
10.1348/000709904X22359
196
Stefanou, C. R., Perencevich, K. C., DiCintio, M., & Turner, J. C. (2004). Supporting
autonomy in the classroom: ways teachers encourage student decision making and
ownership. Educational Psychologist, 39(2), 97-110.
Sung, Y-T., Chang, K-E., & Liu, T-C. (2016). The effects of integrating mobile devices with
teaching and learning on students’ learning performance: a meta-analysis and research
synthesis. Computers & Education, 94(1), 252-275.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.11.008
Tan, F., Whipp, P., Gagné, M., & Van Quaquebeke, N. (2018). Expert teacher’s use of
respectful inquiry and feedback to enhance learning. Social Psychology of Education,
22(1), 169-187.
Tanaka, M. (2013). Examining Kanji learning motivation using self-determination theory.
System, 41(3), 804-816.
Teixeira, P. J., Carraça, E.V., Markland, D., Silvia, M., & Ryan, R. (2012). Exercise, physical
activity, and self-determination theory: a systematic review. International Journal of
Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 9(1), 1-30.
Teo, T. S. H., Lim, V. K. G., & Lai, R. Y. C. (1999). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in
internet usage. Omega, 27(1), 25-37. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-0483(98)00028-0
Tessmer, M., & Richey, R. C. (1997). The role of context in learning and instructional design.
Educational Technology Research and Development, 45(2), 85-115.
The World Bank. (2007). Toward High-quality Education in Peru Standards, Accountability,
and Capacity Building. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank.
http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/986491468294641770/pdf/405570PE0Edu
ca1LIC0disclosed0Aug221.pdf
197
The World Bank. (2019). The Education Crisis: Being in School is Not the Same as Learning.
https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/immersive-story/2019/01/22/pass-or-fail-how-
can-the-world-do-its-homework
Therias, E., Bird, J, & Marshall, P. (2015). Más tecnología, más cambio? Investigating an
educational technology project in rural Peru. Proceedings of the 33
rd
Annual CHI
Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems: Crossings, (pp. 447-456).
Association for Computing Machinery (ACM).
https://doi.org/10.1145/2702123.2702595
Thomaes, S., Sedikides, C., van den Bos, N., Hutteman, R., & Reijntjes, A. (2017). Happy to
be “me?” Authenticity, psychological need satisfaction, and subjective well-being in
adolescence. Child Development, 88(1), 1045–1056. doi: 10.1111/cdev.12867
Tondeur, J., van Braak, J., Ertmer, P., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. (2015). Understanding the
relationship between teachers’ pedagogical beliefs and technology use in education: a
systematic review of qualitative evidence. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 65(1), 555-575. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-016-9481-2
Torkzadeh, G., Koufteros, X., & Pflughoeft, K. (2003). Confirmatory analysis of computer
self-efficacy. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 10(2), 263–
275.
Touré-Tillery, M., & Fishbach, A. (2014). How to measure motivation: a guide for the
experimental social psychologist. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 8(7),
328–341. doi: 10.1111/spc3.12110
198
Trad, L., Katt, J., & Neville, A. (2014). The effect of face threat mitigation on instructor
credibility and student motivation in the absence of instructor nonverbal immediacy.
Communication Education, 63(2), 136–148. doi:10.1080/0363 4523.2014.889319
Trucano, M. (2005). Knowledge Maps: ICTs in Education. Washington, DC: infoDev and
World Bank.
Trucano, M. (2012, March 23). Evaluating One Laptop Per Child (OLPC) in Peru. World
Bank, EduTech. http://blogs.worldbank.org/edutech/olpc-peru2
Trucano, M. (2015, January 5). How Brazil is improving education. World Economic Forum.
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2015/01/how-brazil-is-improving-education/
Tüzün, H., Yilmaz-Soyla, M., Karakuş, T., İnal, Y., & Kızılkaya, G. (2009). The effects of
computer games on primary school students’ achievement and motivation in
geography learning. Computers & Education, 52(1), 68-77.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2008.06.008
U.S. Department of Education. (2016). Reimagining the Role of Technology in Education:
2017 National Education Technology Plan Update. Office of Educational Technology.
https://tech.ed.gov/files/2017/01/NETP17.pdf
UNESCO Institute for Statistics. (2016). The World Needs Almost 69 million New Teachers to
Reach the 2030 Education Goals. Paris: UNESCO.
https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000246124
UNESCO Institute for Statistics. (2019a). World Teachers’ Day 2019: Fact sheet.
https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000370921
199
UNESCO Institute for Statistics. (2019b). Equity: 4.a.1 Proportion of Schools with Access to
Basic Facilities, All Schools.
http://data.uis.unesco.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=edulit_ds
UNESCO International Bureau of Education. (2018). Comparative Analysis of the National
Curriculum Frameworks of Five Countries: Brazil, Cambodia, Finland, Kenya and
Peru. Geneva: UNESCO-IBE.
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0026/002638/263831e.pdf
UNESCO Office in Brazil. (2017). ICT Use in Brazilian Education.
http://www.unesco.org/new/en/brasilia/communication-and-information/digital-
transformation-and-innovation/ict-in-education/
UNESCO. (2011a). Transforming Education: The Power of ICT Policies. Paris, France:
UNESCO. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000211842
UNESCO. (2011b). UNESCO ICT Competency Framework for Teachers. Paris, UNESCO.
https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000213475
United Nations. (2015). Transforming our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable
Development. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/post2015/transformingourworld
United Nations. (2016). The Sustainable Development Goals Report 2016.
https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/report/2016/
United Nations Development Programme [UNDP]. (2003). Human Development Report 2003,
The Millennium Development Goals: A Compact Among Nations to End Human
Poverty. New York: Oxford University Press.
UNDP. (2005). Promoting ICT for Human Development in Asia: Realizing the Millennium
Development Goals. Gurgaon, India: Elsevier.
200
UNDP. (2019). Human Development Reports. Human Development Indicators, Peru.
http://hdr.undp.org/en/countries/profiles/PER United Nations. (2019). Country
classifications. World Economic Situation and Prospects. United Nations.
https://www.un.org/development/desa/dpad/wp-
content/uploads/sites/45/WESP2019_BOOK-web.pdf
Urdan, T. (2001). Contextual influences on motivation and performance: an examination of
achievement goal structures. In Salili F., Chiu C.Y., Hong Y.Y. (Eds.), Student
Motivation (pp. 171-201). Boston, MA: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-
4615-1273-8_9
Vallerand, R. J., & Reid, G. (1984). On the causal effects of perceived competence on intrinsic
motivation: a test of cognitive evaluation theory. Journal of Sport Psychology, 6, 94–
102.
Vegas, E., & Umansky, I. (2005). Improving Teaching and Learning through Effective
Incentives: What Can We Learn from Education Reforms in Latin America?
Washington, D.C.: The World Bank.
https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/8694
Verčič, A. T., Verčič, D., & Sriramesh, R. (2012). Internal communication: definition,
parameters, and the future. Public Relations Review, 38(2), 223-230.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2011.12.019
Voogt, J., Knezek, G., Cox, M., Knezek, D., & Brummelhuis, A. (2013). Under which
conditions does ICT have a positive effect on teaching and learning? A Call to Action.
Journal of Computer Assisted learning, 29(1), 4–14.
201
Waddell, G., & Williamon, A. (2019). Technology use and attitudes in music learning.
Frontiers in ICT, 6(11), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.3389/fict.2019.00011
Wang, C. K. J., & Liu, W. C. (2008). Promoting intrinsic motivation in physical education: the
role of beliefs, goals, and self-determination. In P. A. Towndrow, C. Koh, H. S. Tan, &
D. F. Chan. (Eds.). Motivation and Practice for the Classroom (pp. 129-142). The
Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
Wang, C. K., Woon, C. L., Ying, H. K., & Chian, L. K. (2019). Competence, autonomy, and
relatedness in the classroom: understanding students’ motivational processes using the
self-determination theory. Heliyon, 5(7), 1-6.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2019.e01983
Wang, J., Liu, R-D., Ding, Y., Xu, L., Liu, Y., & Zhen, R. (2017). Teacher’s autonomy
support and engagement in math: multiple mediating roles of self-efficacy, intrinsic
value, and boredom. Frontiers in Psychology, 8(1006), 1-10. doi:
10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01006
Wang, P. Y. (2013). Examining the digital divide between rural and urban schools: technology
availability, teachers’ integration level and students’ perception. Journal of Curriculum
and Teaching, 2(2), 127-139. doi: https://doi.org/10.5430/jct.v2n2p127
Watt, H. M. (2006). The role of motivation in gendered educational and occupational
trajectories related to math. Educational Research and Evaluation, 12(4), 305–322.
Wehmeyer, M. L., Abery, B. H., Mithaug, D. E., & Stancliffe, R. J. (2003). Theory in Self-
Determination: Foundations for Educational Practice. Springfield, IL: Charles C
Thomas Publisher.
202
Wermke, W., Olason, S., & Salokangas, M. (2018). Decision-making and control: perceived
autonomy of teachers in Germany and Sweden. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 51(3),
306-325. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2018.1482960
Wichadee, S. (2014). Students’ learning behavior, motivation, and critical thinking in learning
management systems. Journal of Educators Online, 11(3), 1–21.
Williams, B., & Burden, R. (1997). Motivation in language learning: a social constructivist
approach. Cahiers de l’APLIUT, 16(3), 19-27.
Willingham, D. T. (2007). Critical thinking: why is it so hard to teach? American Educator,
31(2), 8–19.
Witt, P. L., & Kerssen-Griep, J. (2011). Instructional feedback I: The interaction of facework
and immediacy on students’ perceptions of instructor credibility. Communication
Education, 60(1), 75–94. doi:10.1080/03634523.2010.507820
World Education News and Review. (2015, April 6). Education in Peru.
https://wenr.wes.org/2015/04/education-in-peru
Xie, K, & Ke, F. (2011). The role of students’ motivation in peermoderated asynchronous
online discussions. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(6), 916–930. doi:
10.1111/j.14678535.2010.01140.x
Xie, K. (2013). What do the numbers say? The influence of motivation and peer feedback on
students’ behavior in online discussions. British Journal of Educational Technology,
44(2), 288-301. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2012.01291.x
203
Xuan, X. et al. (2019). Relationship among school socioeconomic status, teacher-student
relationship, and middle school students’ academic achievement in China: using the
multilevel mediation model. PLoS ONE, 14(3), 1-16.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0213783
Yeager, D. S. et al. (2011). Using design thinking to improve psychological interventions: the
case of the growth mindset during the transition to high school. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 108(3), 374-391. doi: 10.1037/edu0000098
Yurdakul, K. I., & Coklar, A. N. (2014). Modeling preservice teachers’ TPACK competencies
based on ICT usage. Journal of Computer Assisted learning, 30(4), 363–376.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12049
Zhao, J. (2008). The Internet and Rural Development in China: The Socio-Structural
Paradigm. Bern: Peter Lang AG.
Zhu, C., Devos, G., & Li, Y. (2011). Teacher perceptions of school culture and their
organizational commitment and well-being in a Chinese school. Asia Pacific Education
Review, 12, 319–328
Zhu, C., Devos, G., & Tondeur, J. (2014). Examining school culture in Flemish and Chinese
primary schools. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 42(4), 557-
575. doi:10.1177/1741143213502190
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
The present research uses self-determination theory to assess teachers’ motivation to integrate technology into their instruction, and how structured leadership and teacher collegiality satisfy the basic psychological needs of teachers, in turn affecting their motivation. The study explores two research questions. The first examines the relationships between internal communication practices in schools, and teachers’ motivation to integrate ICTs in instruction. I explicate these relationships through a twofold process that captures social and psychological mechanisms. These include meso-level factors within the school context, as well as micro-level psychological factors. The first part of this process, the Implementation of ICTI, concerns institutional communication practices such as peer-interactions among teachers and school leaders, as well as the influence these practices have on the satisfaction of individual-level needs. The second part of this process, the Integration of ICTI, assesses the effects of psychological mechanisms on motivation to use ICTI and engage in student-centred behaviours, as well as their influence on teachers' intrinsic and extrinsic motivation to perform. ❧ Data gathered from fieldwork conducted in 2015 include responses from focus groups discussions and surveys with 82 secondary school teachers. Structural Equation Modelling analysis tested the proposed model to uncover the relationships between ICTI implementation and ICTI integration processes. This analysis supported the hypothesis that contextual factors influence teachers’ motivation to integrate ICTI, mediated by the satisfaction of their basic psychological needs. It revealed that internal communication practices have mixed effects on the satisfaction of teachers’ psychological needs. Additionally, the qualitative findings suggest that school principals should gain adequate technical expertise. Indeed, their ICTI knowledge shapes teachers’ attitudes and responses to technology implementation efforts. The findings suggest internal communication strategies that could improve teachers’ motivation for sustained ICTI integration. The first recommends that schools support two-way communication to facilitate ongoing dialogue among teachers. The second urges leaders to practice what they preach, and the third proposes small group mentorships. Study limitations and directions for future research are also discussed.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Collaborative instructional practice for student achievement: an evaluation study
PDF
Building teacher competency to work with middle school long-term English language learners: an improvement model
PDF
A case study of technology-embedded instruction: a student-centered approach to enhance teaching and learning in a K-12 school
PDF
Training qualified rural area teachers in Malawi using synchronous virtual learning (SVL) information and communication technologies (ICTs) platforms
PDF
The role of international school teacher leaders in building leadership capacity within their teams
PDF
The use of differentiation in English medium instruction in Middle Eastern primary schools: a gap analysis
PDF
Teacher retention in an urban, predominately Black school district: an improvement study in the Deep South
PDF
The role of leadership in using data to inform instruction: a case study
PDF
Employee engagement in a post-COVID era: the mediating role of basic psychological need satisfaction in remote and hybrid work environments
PDF
Foreign-language teachers' needs to achieve better results: the role of differentiated instruction
PDF
The interaction of teacher knowledge and motivation with organizational influences on the implementation of a hybrid reading intervention model taught in elementary grades
PDF
School leaders' use of data-driven decision-making for school improvement: a study of promising practices in two California charter schools
PDF
Quality literacy instruction in juvenile court schools: an evaluation study
PDF
Allocation of educational resources to improve student learning: case studies of California schools
PDF
A case study in best practices: how engaging and respectful communication practices in a K-8 school lead to positive outcomes for students
PDF
Allocation of educational resources to improve student learning: case studies of California schools
PDF
The knowledge, motivation, and organization influences affecting the frequency of empathetic teaching practice used in the classroom: an evaluation study
PDF
Improving foundational reading skills growth in middle school: a promising practices study
PDF
Technology integration and its impact on 21st century learning and instruction: a case study
PDF
Examining the impact of LETRS professional learning on student literacy outcomes: a quantitative analysis
Asset Metadata
Creator
Ale-Valencia, Komathi
(author)
Core Title
Examining internal communication practices to improve teachers’ motivation to use ICTs in instruction: a case study of Peruvian secondary schools
School
Annenberg School for Communication
Degree
Doctor of Philosophy
Degree Program
Communication
Publication Date
04/20/2020
Defense Date
02/27/2020
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
active use,autonomy,basic psychological needs,competence,education,extrinsic motivation,ICT,ICT in education,ICT use,ICTD,information and communication technologies,instruction,instructional communication,internal communication,intrinsic motivation,mixed methods,motivation,needs,OAI-PMH Harvest,organizational communication,Peru,principals,relatedness,self-determination theory,SEM,structural equation modeling,structural equation modelling,structured leadership,teacher collegiality,teachers
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Bar, François (
committee chair
), Clarke, Peter (
committee member
), Cody, Michael (
committee member
)
Creator Email
komathi.ale.is@gmail.com,komathia@usc.edu
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-282981
Unique identifier
UC11674221
Identifier
etd-AleValenci-8267.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-282981 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-AleValenci-8267.pdf
Dmrecord
282981
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Ale-Valencia, Komathi
Type
texts
Source
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 a...
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
Tags
active use
autonomy
basic psychological needs
competence
education
extrinsic motivation
ICT
ICT in education
ICT use
ICTD
information and communication technologies
instruction
instructional communication
internal communication
intrinsic motivation
mixed methods
motivation
needs
organizational communication
principals
relatedness
self-determination theory
SEM
structural equation modeling
structural equation modelling
structured leadership
teacher collegiality
teachers