Skip to main content

Does information and communication technology (ICT) empower teacher innovativeness: a multilevel, multisite analysis

Abstract

The strong connection between information and communication technology (ICT) and educational innovation has been acknowledged by literature, and previous studies have shown the effects of various ICT factors on teacher innovativeness, but international evidence seems to come much later. Based on a three-level research framework, this study uses data from 42 countries participating in the 2018 round of Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS) to examine the relationships between ICT-related factors and teacher innovativeness, and how ICT use for teaching mediates the relationships. The results of three-level modeling demonstrate those significant predictors, including ICT element in formal education, ICT element in professional development, ICT self-efficacy, and the ICT use for teaching, all at the teacher level but not the school or country level. The results of three-level mediation modeling support the mediation role of the ICT use for teaching and uncover three indirect paths at the teacher level. Implications for how to enhance teacher innovativeness by facilitating ICT integration are discussed.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Notes

  1. 1.

    In the TALIS 2018 database, the UNESCO International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) was used for indicating the educational levels, where ISCED level 1 refers to primary school, ISCED level 2 refers to lower secondary school, and ISCED level 3 refers to upper secondary school.

  2. 2.

    The alphabetical list of six economies excluded are: Alberta (Canada), Chinese Taipei, Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires (Argentina), England (United Kingdom), Shanghai (China).

  3. 3.

    The alphabetical list of 42 countries remaining in this analysi are: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Chile, Colombia, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Hungary, Iceland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Romania, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, United States.

  4. 4.

    Three exceptions are: Saudi Arabia (RMSEA = .084), Norway (RMSEA = .109), South Africa (SRMR = .115).

References

  1. Admiraal, W., Louws, M. L., Lockhorst, D., Paas, T., Buynsters, M., Cviko, A., Janssen, C., de Jonge, M., Nouwens, S., Post, L., van der Ven, F., & Kester, L. (2017). Teachers in school-based technology innovations: A typology of their beliefs on teaching and technology. Computers & Education, 114, 57–68.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Ainley, J. & Carstens, R. (2018). Teaching and learning international survey (TALIS) 2018 Conceptual framework. OECD education working papers no. 187

  3. Alt, D. (2018). Science teachers’ conceptions of teaching and learning, ICT efficacy, ICT professional development and ICT practices enacted in their classrooms. Teaching and Teacher Education, 73, 141–150.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Anderson, N., & West, M. A. (1998). Measuring climate for work group innovation: Development and validation of the team climate inventory. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19(3), 235–258.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Averill, T. B. (1967). Educational participation and innovativeness. Journal of Educational Research, 60(10), 448–449.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Bai, Y., Mo, D., Zhang, L., Boswell, M., & Rozelle, S. (2016). The impact of integrating ICT with teaching. Computers & Education, 96, 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Buske, R. (2018). The principal as a key actor in promoting teachers’ innovativeness—Analyzing the innovativeness of teaching staff with variance-based partial least square modeling. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 29(2), 262–284.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Cheung, F., & Lucas, R. E. (2014). Assessing the validity of single-item life satisfaction measures: Results from three large samples. Quality of Life Research, 23(10), 2809–2818.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Chou, C., Shen, C., Hsiao, H., & Shen, T. (2019). Factors influencing teachers’ innovative teaching behaviour with information and communication technology (ICT): The mediator role of organisational innovation climate. Educational Psychology, 39(1), 65–85.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Drent, M., & Meelissen, M. R. (2008). Which factors obstruct or stimulate teacher educators to use ICT innovatively. Computers & Education, 51(1), 187–199.

    Google Scholar 

  11. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Eteokleous, N. (2008). Evaluating computer technology integration in a centralized school system. Computers & Education, 51(2), 669–686.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Gardner, D. G., Cummings, L. L., Dunham, R. B., & Pierce, J. L. (1998). Single-item versus multiple-item measurement scales: An empirical comparison. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 58(6), 898–915.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Gil-Flores, J., Rodríguez-Santero, J., & Torres-Gordillo, J. (2017). Factors that explain the use of ICT in secondary-education classrooms: The role of teacher characteristics and school infrastructure. Computers in Human Behavior, 68, 441–449.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Gill, J. (2018). Comments from the new editor. Political Analysis, 26, 1–2.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Hanushek, E. A., & Woessmann, L. (2011). The Economics of international differences in educational achievement. In E. A. Hanushek, S. Machin, & L. Woessmann (Eds.), Handbook of the economics of education (Vol. 3, pp. 89–200). North-Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Hemphill, H. D. (1968). General theory of innovativeness. Alberta Journal of Educational Research., 14(2), 101–114.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Hilfiker, L. R. (1970). Factors relating to the innovativeness of school systems. Journal of Educational Research, 64(1), 23–27.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Hill, J. R., & Hannafin, M. J. (2001). Teaching and learning in digital environments: The resurgence of resource-based learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(3), 37–52.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Hu, X., Gong, Y., Lai, C., & Leung, F. K. (2018). The relationship between ICT and student literacy in mathematics, reading, and science across 44 countries: A multilevel analysis. Computers & Education, 125, 1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Hult, G. T. M., Hurley, R. F., & Knight, G. A. (2004). Innovativeness: Its antecedents and impact on business performance. Industrial Marketing Management, 33(5), 429–438.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Imbens, G. W. (2021). Statistical significance, p-values, and the reporting of uncertainty. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 35(3), 157–174.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Klassen, R. M., & Tze, V. M. (2014). Teachers’ self-efficacy, personality, and teaching effectiveness: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 12, 59–76.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Lim, C. P. (2007). Effective integration of ICT in Singapore schools: Pedagogical and policy implications. Educational Technology Research and Development, 55, 83–116.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Loogma, K., Kruusvall, J., & Imarik, M. (2012). E-learning as innovation: Exploring innovativeness of the VET teachers’ community in Estonia. Computers & Education, 58(2), 808–817.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Lun, V. M., & Bond, M. H. (2016). Achieving subjective well-being around the world: The moderating influence of gender, age and national goals for socializing children. Journal of Happiness Studies, 17(2), 587–608.

    Google Scholar 

  27. McGeown, V. (1980). Dimensions of teacher innovativeness. British Educational Research Journal, 6(2), 147–163.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Mueller, J., Wood, E., Willoughby, T., Ross, C., & Specht, J. (2008). Identifying discriminating variables between teachers who fully integrate computers and teachers with limited integration. Computers & Education, 51(4), 1523–1537.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Mushayikwa, E., & Lubben, F. (2009). Self-directed professional development—hope for teachers working in deprived environments? Teaching and Teacher Education 25(3), 375–382.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Neirotti, P., & Pesce, D. (2019). ICT-based innovation and its competitive outcome: The role of information intensity. European Journal of Innovation Management, 22(2), 383–404.

    Google Scholar 

  31. OECD. (2014). Measuring innovation in education: A new perspective. OECD Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  32. OECD. (2019). TALIS 2018 technical report. OECD Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Postmes, T., Haslam, S. A., & Jans, L. (2013). A single-item measure of social identification: Reliability, validity, and utility. British Journal of Social Psychology, 52(4), 597–617.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Preacher, K. J. (2011). Multilevel SEM strategies for evaluating mediation in three-level data. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 46(4), 691–731.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Preacher, K. J., & Kelley, K. (2011). Effect size measures for mediation models: Quantitative strategies for communicating indirect effects. Psychological Methods, 16(2), 93–115.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Preacher, K. J., Zhang, Z., & Zyphur, M. J. (2011). Alternative methods for assessing mediation in multilevel data: The advantages of multilevel SEM. Structural Equation Modeling, 18(2), 161–182.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Preacher, K. J., Zyphur, M. J., & Zhang, Z. (2010). A general multilevel SEM framework for assessing multilevel mediation. Psychological Methods, 15(3), 209–233.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Reyes, V., Reading, C., Doyle, H., & Gregory, S. (2017). Integrating ICT into teacher education programs from a TPACK perspective: Exploring perceptions of university lecturers. Computers & Education, 115, 1–19.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations (4th ed.). New York: The Free Press.

  40. Salajan, F. D. (2019). Building a policy space via mainstreaming ICT in European education: The European digital education area (re)visited. European Journal of Education, 54, 591–604.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Suarezrodriguez, J. M., Almerich, G., Orellana, N., & Diazgarcia, I. (2018). A basic model of integration of ICT by teachers: Competence and use. Educational Technology Research and Development, 66(5), 1165–1187.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Tang, Y. P. (2019). Immigration status and adolescent life satisfaction: An international comparative analysis based on PISA 2015. Journal of Happiness Studies, 20, 1499–1518.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Tezci, E. (2011). Turkish primary school teachers’ perceptions of school culture regarding ICT integration. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59, 429–443.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Thurlings, M., Evers, A. T., & Vermeulen, M. (2015). Toward a model of explaining teachers’ innovative teaching behavior: A literature review. Review of Educational Research, 85(3), 430–471.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Tschannenmoran, M., & Hoy, A. W. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(7), 783–805.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Vieluf, S., Kaplan, D., Klieme, E., & Bayer, S. (2012). Teaching practices and pedagogical innovation: Evidence from TALIS. OECD Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Vincent-Lancrin, S., Urgel, J., Kar, S., & Jacotin, G. (2019). Measuring innovation in education 2019: What has changed in the classroom? OECD Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Williams, D., Coles, L., Wilson, K., Richardson, A., & Tuson, J. (2000). Teachers and ICT: Current use and future needs. British Journal of Educational Technology, 31(4), 307–320.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Windschitl, M., & Sahl, K. (2002). Tracing teachers’ use of technology in a laptop computer school: The interplay of teacher beliefs, social dynamics, and institutional culture. American Educational Research Journal, 39(1), 165–205.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Wiseman, A. W., & Anderson, E. (2012). ICT-integrated education and national innovation systems in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries. Computers & Education, 59(2), 607–618.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Yang, S. C., & Huang, Y.-F. (2008). A study of high school English teachers’ behavior, concerns and beliefs in integrating information technology into English instruction. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(3), 1085–1103.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The author is grateful to the two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments and suggestions.

Funding

This research was supported by Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (Grant No. 2020ECNU-HLYT059).

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yipeng Tang.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The author declares no conflict of interest.

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

Tang, Y. Does information and communication technology (ICT) empower teacher innovativeness: a multilevel, multisite analysis. Education Tech Research Dev 69, 3009–3028 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-021-10052-1

Download citation

Keywords

  • Secondary education
  • ICT
  • Teacher innovativeness
  • TALIS
  • Three-level modeling