Overcoming Teachers’ Concerns—Where Are We in the Harnessing of Mobile Technology in K-12 Classrooms in Hong Kong?

Part of the Lecture Notes in Educational Technology book series (LNET)


The emergence of “Post-PC” iPads and Galaxy tablets as global heavyweights of mobile technologies have prompted a wave of educational technology advocates and policy makers to encourage teachers in the harnessing of mobile technology into K-12 classrooms. The actual level of implementation, however, has been reported as lagging far behind these research-led initiatives and slowed down the momentum envisaged by these policies, especially in many classrooms in the public sector. Teachers as individual innovation adopters are believed to play a crucial role in this innovation change process for the adoption of mobile technologies. To better understand the reluctance of teachers to adopt these mobile technologies into their classrooms, this study assessed teachers’ concerns over harnessing mobile technology in Hong Kong public sector K-12 classrooms. A total of 159 teachers participated in this study. Utilising the Stage of Concern framework, a mixed-method approach was taken. Data collection compiled self-reported Stage of Concern Questionnaires and Open-Ended Concerns Statement opinion polls. Preliminary descriptive analysis showed that teachers experienced all five categorical concerns over harnessing mobile technology in teaching practices. The Information construct underscored a more intense area of concern. From the findings, implications in terms of accessibility, time, support-related interventions, leadership issues, and further suggested interventions are discussed.


Teaching Practice Mobile Technology Educational Change Mobile Learning Individual Teacher 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Bellanca, J. A., & Brandt, R. S. (Eds.). (2010). 21st century skills: Rethinking how students learn. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.Google Scholar
  2. Carver, R. P. (1978). The case against statistical significance testing. Harvard Education Review, 48, 378–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cheung, D. (2002). Refining a stage model for studying teacher concerns about educational innovations. Australian Journal of Education, 46, 305–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cheung, D. (2005). Science teachers’ concerns about school-based curriculum development. Hong Kong Science Teachers’ Journal, 22, 1–7.Google Scholar
  5. Cheung, D., & Yip, D. Y. (2004). How science teachers’ concerns about school-based assessment of practical work vary with time: The Hong Kong experience. Research in Science & Technological Education, 22, 153–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Churchill, D., Fox, B., & King, M. (2012). Study of affordances of iPads and teachers’ private theories. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 2, 251–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Churchill, D., & Wang, T. (2014). Teacher’s use of iPads in higher education. Educational Media International, 51, 214–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Creswell, J. W. (2014). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Merrill.Google Scholar
  9. Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16, 297–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Education Bureau. (2007). Consultation document on the third strategy on information technology in education: Right technology at the right time for the right task. Retrieved April 26, 2015, from
  11. Education Bureau. (2014). Consultation document on the fourth strategy on information technology in education: Realising it potential, unleashing learning power, a holistic approach. Retrieved from
  12. Fullan, M. (2007). The new meaning of educational change (4th ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  13. Gibson, J. J. (1977). The theory of affordances. In R. Shaw & J. Bransford (Eds.), Perceiving, acting, and knowing: Toward an ecological psychology. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  14. Hall, G. E., George, A. A., & Rutherford, W. A. (1977). Measuring stages of concern about the innovation: A manual for use of the SoC questionnaire. Austin, TX: Research and Development Center For Teacher Education, University of Texas at Austin.Google Scholar
  15. Hall, G. E., & Hord, S. M. (1987). Change in schools: Facilitating the process. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  16. Hord, S. M., Rutherford, W. L., Huling, L., & Hall, G. E. (2006). Taking charge of change. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
  17. Johnson, L., Becker, S. A., Estrada, V., & Freeman, A. (2013). NMC Horizon report: 2013 K-12 edition. Retrieved 26 from
  18. Marshall, S. P. (1995). The vision, meaning, and language of educational transformation: How chaos, complexity, theory, and flocking behavior can inform leadership in transition. School Administrator, January 1, 1995, 8–15).Google Scholar
  19. Nikulin, M. S. (2001). Student test. In M. Hazewinkel (Ed.), Encyclopaedia of Mathematics. Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  20. Norman, D. A. (1988). The design of everyday things. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
  21. TNS (2011). TNS survey puts Hong Kong at forefront of expected global tablet sales explosion. Retrieved from
  22. Wang, T., Towey, D., & Jong, M. S. Y. (2014). Exploring young students’ learning experiences with the iPad: A comparative study in Hong Kong international primary schools. Universal Access in the Information Society, November 2014, 1–9.Google Scholar
  23. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge, U.K: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Yau, E. (2015). Schools without Wi-Fi, kids without computers in Hong Kong’s digital divide. South China Morning Post. Retrieved from

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Singapore 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Chinese University of Hong KongHong KongChina

Personalised recommendations