Skip to main content

Primary teachers’ self-assessment of their confidence in implementing digital technologies curriculum

Abstract

Technology has significantly impacted our work and leisure spaces, but education is still working to build a bridge between the technological knowledge and skills required for living now and preparing students for their future. Although a reduction in the cost of technology has led to increased access and connectivity within schools, where teachers now have a plethora of tools and resources available for them to use in teaching and learning, little has changed in classrooms. Teachers are attempting to provide effective instruction with and about digital technologies often with limited knowledge and skills themselves. This study investigated Australian primary teachers’ self-assessment of their digital technology proficiency. Through an online survey and interviews teachers were asked about their access to professional development and their knowledge and skills related to the digital technologies curriculum. This paper provides an analysis of their self-assessment. Barriers and enablers are identified along with practice implications to be considered.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Data availability

Data will not be made available as the researchers are still publishing from the data set.

References

  1. ACARA. (2015). Australian curriculum: Technologies. Retrieved from https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/f-10-curriculum/technologies/. Accessed 18 Feb 2020

  2. ACARA. (2019). Digital technologies: Sequence of content F-10. Retrieved from https://docs.acara.edu.au/resources/Digital_Technologies_-_Sequence_of_content.pdf. Accessed 18 Feb 2020

  3. ACARA. (2019). Digital technologies teacher self-assessment matrix. Retrieved from https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/media/5069/teachers-self-assessment-matrix-dt-19062019.docx. Accessed 18 Feb 2020

  4. ACARA. (n.d.). Digital technologies (work samples). Retrieved from https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/Search/?q=technologies&p=42605&t=ResourcePortfolio&s=42692. Accessed 18 Feb 2020

  5. Albion, P. R., & Tondeur, J. (2018). Information and communication technology and education: Meaningful change through teacher agency. In J. Voogt, G. Knezek, R. Christensen, & K.-W. Lai (Eds.), Second handbook of information technology in primary and secondary education (pp. 381–396). Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  6. Australian Council for Computers in Education. (2015). Digital technologies in the Australian curriculum. Australian Educational Computing, 30(1), 1–15.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Australian Government, Department of Education and Training. (2014). Review of the Australian curriculum. Retrieved from https://docs.education.gov.au/system/files/doc/other/review_of_the_national_curriculum_final_report.pdf. Accessed 18 Feb 2020

  8. Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership. (2011). Australian professional standards for teachers. Retrieved from https://www.aitsl.edu.au/teach/standards. Accessed 18 Feb 2020

  9. Berry, M. (2013). Computing in the national curriculum: A guide for primary teachers. Retrieved from https://www.computingatschool.org.uk/data/uploads/CASPrimaryComputing.pdf. Accessed 18 Feb 2020

  10. Blundell, C., Lee, K.-T., & Nykvist, S. (2016). Digital learning in schools: Conceptualising the challenges and influences on teacher practice. Journal of Information Technology Education Research, 15, 535–560. https://doi.org/10.28945/3578

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Curran, J. (2017). Introducing the digital technologies curriculum. Education Matters Magazine, 2017. Retrieved from https://www.educationmattersmag.com.au/digital-tech/. Accessed 18 Feb 2020

  12. Ertmer, P. A. (1999). Addressing first- and second-order barriers to change: Strategies for technology integration. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(4), 47–61. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02299597

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T. (2013). Removing obstacles to the pedagogical changes required by Jonassen’s vision of authentic technology-enabled learning. Computers & Education, 64, 175–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.10.008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Ertmer, P. A., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T., Sadik, O., Sendurur, E., & Sendurur, P. (2012). Teacher beliefs and technology integration practices: A critical relationship. Computers & Education, 59(2), 423–435. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.02.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Ertmer, P. A., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A., & York, C. S. (2006). Exemplary technology-using teachers: Perceptions of factors influencing success. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 23(2), 55–61. https://doi.org/10.1080/10402454.2006.10784561

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Etikan, I., Alkassim, R., & Abubakar, S. (2015). Comparison of snowball sampling and sequential sampling technique. Biometrics & Biostatistics International Journal, 3(1), 00055. https://doi.org/10.15406/bbij.2015.03.00055

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Harris, J., & Hofer, M. J. (2011). Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) in action: A descriptive study of secondary teachers’ curriculum-based, technology-related instructional planning. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 43(3), 211–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE). (2016). ISTE standards for students. Retrieved from https://conference.iste.org/uploads/ISTE2017/HANDOUTS/KEY_108218083/2016ISTEStandardsforStudents.pdf

  19. International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE). (2018). ISTE standards for students. Retrieved from https://www.k12.wa.us/sites/default/files/public/edtech/standards/pubdocs/k-12-edtech-standards-complete-2018.pdf

  20. International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE). (2020). ISTE standards for students. Retrieved from https://www.iste.org/standards/for-students. Accessed 18 Feb 2020

  21. Kaarakainen, M. T., Kivinen, O., & Vainio, T. (2018). Performance-based testing for ICT skills assessing: A case study of students and teachers’ ICT skills in Finnish schools. Universal Access in the Information Society, 17(2), 349–360. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-017-0553-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Karp, P., (2019). Coalition to review Australian education curriculum in bid to reverse fall in student results. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/dec/12/coalition-to-review-australian-education-curriculum-in-bid-to-reverse-fall-in-student-results. Accessed 18 Feb 2020

  23. Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge? Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 60–70.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Koehler, M. J., Shin, T. S., & Mishra, P. (2012). How do we measure TPACK? Let me count the ways. In R. N. Ronau, C. R. Rakes, & M. L. Niess (Eds.), Educational technology, teacher knowledge, and classroom impact: A research handbook on frameworks and approaches (pp. 16–31). IGI Global.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  25. Lawrence, J., & Tar, U. (2018). Factors that influence teachers’ adoption and integration of ICT in teaching/learning process. Educational Media International, 55(1), 79–105. https://doi.org/10.1080/09523987.2018.1439712

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. McLean, F. M., Dixon, R. M., & Verenikina, I. (2014). Bringing it to the teachers: Building a professional network among teachers in isolated schools. Australian and International Journal of Rural Education, 24(2), 15–22.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2007). Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK): Confronting the wicked problems of teaching with technology. In R. Carlsen, K. McFerrin, J. Price, R. Weber, & D. A. Willis (Eds.), Proceedings for the Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 2214–2226). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).

    Google Scholar 

  28. Niederhauser, D. S., Howard, S. K., Voogt, J., Agyei, D. D., Laferriere, T., Tondeur, J., & Cox, M. J. (2018). Sustainability and scalability in educational technology initiatives: Research-informed practice. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 23(3), 507–523. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-018-9382-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Prestridge, S., & Main, K. (2018). Teachers as drivers of their professional learning through design teams, communities, and networks. In J. Voogt, G. Knezek, R. Christensen, & K.-W. Lai (Eds.), Second handbook of information technology in primary and secondary education (pp. 433–447). Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  30. Redmond, P., Lock, J., & Danaher, P. (2015). Interrogating contemporary research in educational innovation. In P. Redmond, J. Lock, & P. Danaher (Eds.), Investigating innovation and issues in education (pp. 1–16). Hampshire, UK: Palgrave Macmillan

    Google Scholar 

  31. Sheffield, R., Blackley, S., & Moro, P. (2018). A professional learning model supporting teachers to integrate digital technologies. Issues in Educational Research, 28(2), 487–510.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Shulman, L. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Spiteri, M., & Rundgren, S.-N.C. (2018). Literature review on the factors affecting primary teachers’ use of digital technology. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 23, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-018-9376-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Sullivan, B. (2014). In Finland, coding is more important than long division. Computer Business Review. Retrieved from https://www.cbronline.com/news/in-finland-coding-is-more-important-than-long-division-4289008. Accessed 18 Feb 2020

  35. Vivian, R., & Falkner, K. (2018). A survey of Australian teachers’ self-efficacy and assessment approaches for the K-12 digital technologies curriculum. In Proceedings of the 13th Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education. https://doi.org/10.1145/3265757.3265762

  36. Voogt, J., Laferriere, T., Breuleux, A., Itow, R. C., Hickey, D. T., & McKenney, S. (2015). Collaborative design as a form of professional development. Instructional Science, 43(2), 259–282. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803611.2016.1247724

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Voogt, J., Westbroek, H., Handelzalts, A., Walraven, A., McKenny, S., Pieters, J., & de Vrier, B. (2011). Teacher learning in collaborative curriculum design. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27, 1235–1244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2011.07.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Wajcman, J. (2017). Automation: Is it really different this time? The British Journal of Sociology, 68(1), 119–127. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-4446.12239

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Wellington, J. (2000). Educational research: Contemporary issues and practical approaches. Continuum.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

No funding was received for this study.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection and analysis were performed by PR, VS, AP and PA. The first draft of the manuscript was written by PR and VS and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors have read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Petrea Redmond.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This study was approved by the Human Research Ethics committee of the University of Southern Queensland (Ethics Approval Number: H17REA145).

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Consent to publish

Not applicable, No identifying information was collected or is provided in the paper.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Redmond, P., Smart, V., Powell, A. et al. Primary teachers’ self-assessment of their confidence in implementing digital technologies curriculum. Education Tech Research Dev (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-021-10043-2

Download citation

Keywords

  • Primary teachers
  • ICT
  • Self-assessment
  • Proficiency
  • Digital technologies
  • Technology curriculum