Papanastasiou, E. C., & Angeli, C. (2008).

Evaluating the Use of ICT in Education: Psychometric Properties of the Survey of

Factors Affecting Teachers Teaching with Technology (SFA-T3). Educational Technology & Society, 11 (1), 69-86.

Evaluating the Use of ICT in Education: Psychometric

Properties of the Survey of Factors Affecting Teachers
Teaching with Technology (SFA-T3)
Elena C. Papanastasiou
University of Nicosia, Cyprus // papanast@msu.edu

Charoula Angeli
Department of Education, University of Cyprus, Nicosia 1678, Cyprus, Tel: +357 227 53 772 // cangeli@ucy.ac.cy
ABSTRACT
There are a number of measurement instruments in the field of education whose aims are to measure various
aspects of educational technology. However, the psychometric properties of such instruments are not always
determined, and their use is not always appropriate. The aim of this study was to determine the psychometric
properties of the survey of factors affecting teachers teaching with technology (SFA-T3) when used with a
sample of Greek Cypriot teachers. The results of this study show that the reliability evidence obtained from the
responses to the questionnaire was satisfactory. The construct validity evidence was also determined based on a
factor analysis that created ten easily interpretable factors. Some gender differences have also appeared in the
teachers responses on the various factors, which is in accordance with similar literature that exists in other
countries as well.

Keywords

Assessment of ICT, SFA-T3 instrument, Psychometric

properties

Introduction
Countries all over the world have identified the significant role of information and communication technology (ICT)
in improving education (Kozma & Anderson, 2002; Pelgrum, 2001; Hennessy, Ruthven, & Brindley, 2005;
Goodison, 2003; Kangro & Kangro, 2004), and have invested heavily in increasing the number of computers in
schools and in the networking of classrooms (Pelgrum, 2001). Furthermore, many researchers have predicted that the
importance of educational technology in the classroom will continue to increase (Becker & Ravitz, 2001). However,
the integration of technology in the school curriculum continues to be a complex and challenging process (Cooper,
1998), and the seamless integration of computers in teaching and learning has yet to be achieved (Kozma &
Anderson, 2002).
The teachers role in the integration of computers in schools is obviously very important, and every educational
reform effort should take into consideration teachers knowledge, skills, beliefs, and attitudes (Cuban, 2000). Shahan
(1976) argues that one important concept of school reform is the human element, which embraces emotions, feelings,
needs, beliefs, and pedagogical assumptions. Similarly, Fullans (1982, 1991, 2000) theory of school change also
emphasizes that the alteration of mindsets, such as pedagogical assumptions, values, and beliefs, is a key factor to
any educational change effort. Watt (1980) states that beliefs and attitudes play a fundamental role in the way that
teachers deal with ICT in the classroom. In other words, dealing effectively with ICT relates not only to knowledge
of the capability, limitations, applications, and implications of ICT, but also to individuals attitudes and perceptions
regarding ICT tools. Veen (1993) stated that the effective implementation of ICT depends upon users having a
positive attitude towards it. He showed that schools can go only so far to encourage ICT use, and that actual take-up
depends largely on teachers personal feelings, skills, and attitudes towards ICT. This implies that teachers who have
positive attitudes toward ICT and perceive it to be useful in promoting learning will evidently integrate ICT in their
classroom more easily than others (Becker & Riel, 2000; Cox, Preston, & Cox, 1999; Pedretti, Smith-Mayer, &
Woodrow, 1999; Sandholtz, Ringstaff, & Dwyer, 1997).
Unfortunately, research evidence (Cuban, 2000; Becker & Ravitz, 1999; Bosch & Cardinale, 1993; Brush, 1998;
Darling-Hammond, 1990; Ely, 1995; Hunt & Bohlin, 1995) indicates that technology reform efforts have failed
because teachers beliefs, skills, and attitudes were never taken into consideration. Teacher behavior, though, is not
only a function of their abilities, skills, and attitudes, but also a function of their surrounding work environment.
ISSN 1436-4522 (online) and 1176-3647 (print). International Forum of Educational Technology & Society (IFETS). The authors and the forum jointly retain the
copyright of the articles. Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies

69

are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by
others than IFETS must be honoured. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, to republish, to post on servers, or to redistribute to lists, requires prior
specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from the editors at kinshuk@ieee.org.

Social informatics is an area of research that systematically examines the design, uses, and consequences of
technology by taking into consideration the context of the organization, the people who work within the
organization, and the interactions between people and technology (Denning, 2001; Friedman, 1998; Kling, 2000).
One key idea of social informatics is that ICT in practice, is not set apart and viewed as if it had a life of its own,
independent of social intentions, power, and privilege (Apple, 1986, p. 105), but is socially shaped. The uses of
technology in an organization are contingent upon several social and technical dependencies. The concept of sociotechnical systems is used to describe the interdependencies between technology and people, and to explain that the
culture of an organization and peoples beliefs, attitudes, and feelings play an important role in shaping the
organizations mood and determining the effectiveness of the integration of technology in the organization (Kling
& Lamb, 2000; Kling, 2000; Markus & Benjamin, 1987). Also, as Hoy and Miskel (2001) point out, the style of
leadership in an organization will also play an important factor in successfully integrating ICT in work practices, so
in the context of a school system, a principal who encourages the use of ICT in teaching and allows teachers to create
collaborations within the school and between schools for the exchange of ideas will play a significant role in
successfully institutionalizing the change effort.
Thus, the effective use of technology in different organizational settings is directly associated with the intertwining
of technical and social elements (Friedman, 1998; Heracleous & Barrett, 2001; Kling, 2000; Mulkeen, 2003; Senteni,
2006), and undoubtedly the mere focus of most studies on what students learn from technology has left a gap in
understanding why and how teachers use or do not use technology to teach in schools. From this perspective, we
constructed the survey of factors affecting teachers teaching with technology (SFA-T3), the aim of which is to
examine factors that may possibly impede teachers efforts to teach with technology in the school. Such factors are
those of (a) teachers knowledge of technology tools, (b) teachers frequency of using technology for personal
purposes, (c) teachers frequency of using technology for instructional purposes in different content areas, (d)
teachers attitudes toward technology, (e) teachers self-confidence in using technology in teaching and learning, and
(f) school climate. In this paper, we seek to determine the psychometric properties of SFA-T3, and more specifically,
to determine the reliability and validity evidence of the instrument, in addition to an examination of the item
statistics. It is likely that these factors will help to shed light on some of the factors that may affect teachers who
teach with technology.
The timing of this study is particularly important since large amounts of funding are currently being placed in
schools in Cyprus in an effort to equip all classrooms with computers. Therefore it is imperative to determine
specifically where the teachers in Cyprus stand in relation to computer technology to ensure that the integration of
computers in schools is effective. However, the psychometric properties of the instrument first need to be established
before the technology is more widely used, and before the data are analyzed more deeply.

Methodology
The sample of this study included 578 teachers who were teaching in the public elementary schools of Cyprus during
the academic year 20032004. The average age of the teacher participants was 31.98 years of age, with a minimum
age of 22 years and a maximum age of 59 years. On average, the teachers in the sample had 10.21 years of work
experience, with a maximum of 39 years of experience. For five teachers (0.9% of the sample), the data were
collected in their first year of teaching. Almost 78% of the teachers in the sample were females (which is quite
representative of the gender breakdown in elementary schools in Cyprus [Statistical Service, 2003]), while the
remaining 22.2% were males.
In terms of computer usage and experience, 96.2% of the teachers in the sample indicated that they had a computer
in their homes. In addition, 70.1% indicated that they had completed professional development courses related to
basic computing skills.
Description of the SFA-T3
The questionnaire consisted of seven sections. The first section included demographic data related to teachers age,
teaching experience, educational background, number of computer labs in each school, number of computers in each
70

lab and teachers classrooms, teachers ownership of a personal computer, gender, and teachers participation in an
ICT professional development training program. The other six sections were used to obtain information related to (a)
teachers knowledge of computer software, (b) teachers frequency of software use for personal purposes, (c)
teachers attitudes towards integrating ICT in teaching and learning, (d) teachers self-confidence in integrating ICT,
(e) teachers frequency of using ICT for instructional purposes in the classroom, and (f) school climate and support.
More specifically, the second section of the questionnaire used a Likert-type scale from 1 to 5 (with response options
as follows: I cannot use it, I can use it to a small extent, I can use it satisfactorily, I can use it well, I can use it very
well) to measure teachers knowledge of various software. The third section used a 5-point Likert-type scale to
measure the frequency of software use for personal purposes. The response options were those of never, once or
twice a semester, once or twice a month, once or twice a week, almost every day. Similarly, the fourth and fifth
sections measured the teachers attitudes and self-confidence with a 5-point Likert-type scale (completely disagree,
disagree, neither disagree nor agree, agree, completely agree). The sixth section, which measured the teachers
frequency of using various computer programs in classroom practices, teachers had to write how many times a week
they typically used software in their teaching. Finally, the last section of the questionnaire measured school climate
and support based on a 5-point Likert-type scale that ranged from completely disagree to completely agree. The
SFA-T3 is shown in Appendix 1.

Results
Item properties and characteristics
As a first step in the analyses, descriptive statistics were performed for each of the variables of the questionnaire to
determine whether there were any floor or ceiling effects in the questionnaire. The majority of the items on the
questionnaire performed well on this test. Therefore, on the Likert scale, for items that could range from 1 to 5, the
average response for each item ranged from 1.09 to 4.33. However, one section of the questionnaire, the one dealing
with the frequency of specific software use in specific content areas, had very strong floor effects, and therefore, very
small variance. Because of the very low frequency with which software programs are actually used in various school
subjects in schools in Cyprus, these average amounts of use per week ranged from 0 to 0.86 times. This could partly
be due to the small number of computers that exist in the public elementary classrooms in Cyprus. The most
frequently occurring cell for this series of questions was that of word-processing use for the subject of Greek, which
had a maximum number that equaled 20 times per week. The least frequently occurring cell was that of using ModelIt in the subject of English, in which no teachers had used it.
Because of these floor effects, it was considered more appropriate to create new items by combining the items with
the low means. The one category of new items included the total frequency with which any type of software was
used in specific content areas (e.g., how many times computers were being used in mathematics per week). The other
category of new items included the total frequency of specific software uses for all content areas altogether (e.g.,
how frequently Word was being used each week).
The examination of the item means was now acceptable. The means for software usage ranged from 0.29 to 2.076
(Table 1). On average, English was the subject in which software programs were used the least, while Greek was the
subject in which software programs were used the most.
Table 1. Descriptive statistics of computer software use in different content areas per week
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Std. Deviation
English
0
15
0.29
1.17
Science
0
15
0.34
1.12
Religion
0
15
0.39
1.26
Geography
0
12
0.60
1.38
History
0
23
0.78
1.91
Mathematics
0
17
1.14
2.29
Greek
0
21
2.08
3.04
71

However, floor effects existed for the items that measured specific software usage since the means ranged from 0.02
to 1.6 (Table 2). The lowest mean was for the use of a modeling software, Model-It, while the most frequently used
software was Word.
Table 2. Descriptive statistics of specific software use per week
Minimum
Maximum
Modeling software (e.g., Model-It)
0
3
Database software (e.g., Access)
0
2
Authoring software (e.g., HyperStudio)
0
7
Teleconferencing software
0
5
Concept mapping software (e.g., Kidspiration)
0
10
Spreadsheets (e.g., Excel)
0
10
Presentation software (e.g., PowerPoint)
0
10
Internet
0
21
Educational CDs
0
28
Word processing software (e.g., Word)
0
25

Mean
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.05
0.10
0.31
0.71
1.23
1.52
1.61

S.D.
0.18
0.21
0.33
0.37
0.68
0.98
1.45
2.46
2.75
2.78

Construct validity
In order to determine the construct validity of the constructs measured in this questionnaire, an exploratory factor
analysis was performed with SPSS 12.0. Since the questionnaire was divided into distinct sections that were not
comparable to each other, and which also had different measurement scales, the factor analysis was performed
separately for each section of the questionnaire. The varimax rotation was used in these analyses for the clearer
interpretation of the factors, while the eigenvalues cut-off point for the creation of the factors was set to 1.1. The
results are shown in Table 3.
Computer software knowledge
The first factor analysis that was performed was based on 14 items that asked the teachers to do a self-report on their
knowledge regarding various computer software programs. The analysis produced two factors that explained 58.07%
of the variance of these 14 items. The first factor that explained 31.98% of the variance is composed of six items that
measure teachers self-reported ability to use common-use software applications. These common-use applications are
those that one is most likely to learn how to use in a technology training course or a basic computing course. Such
computer programs include Word, Internet, Email, PowerPoint, Excel, and Paint.
The second factor that explained 26.65% of the variance included eight items that measured teachers skills in using
specialized software applications (e.g., Model-It, Stagecast Creator, Kidspiration, and Hyperstudio), or generalpurpose applications (e.g., Access, FrontPage, and Publisher), which teachers infrequently use because either they do
not know how to use them or they do not have a need for them.
Frequency of personal computer software use
The second factor analysis that was performed examined 15 items that measured the frequency of using computer
software for personal purposes, as it was reported by the teachers themselves. The results are shown in Table 4. This
analysis also produced two factors, which explained 48.86% of this sections variance. The overall breakdown of the
factors was very similar to the factor breakdown of the knowledge of computer software section of the questionnaire.
The first factor that was composed of eight items accounted for 25.11% of the total variance. This factor, called use
of common applications, included the email, the Internet, educational CDs, Word, etc. The second factor was
composed of seven items and accounted for 23.74% of the variance of this section of the questionnaire. This factor,
which was labelled use of specialized applications, included the use of more specialized applications such as
Stagecast Creator, FrontPage, Kidspiration, Model-It, etc.

72

Table 3. Rotated component matrix of knowledge of computer software factors

Internet
Email
Word
PowerPoint
Excel
Paint
Model-It
Stagecast Creator
Kidspiration
HyperStudio
Access
FrontPage
Publisher
Logo

Knowledge of common software

applications
.878
.847
.827
.746
.720
.674
.004
.075
.157
.273
.357
.481
.409
.381

Knowledge of specialized software

applications
.082
.128
.075
.311
.399
.361
.768
.732
.711
.705
.580
.548
.520
.450

Table 4. Rotated component matrix of frequency of personal computer software use factors
Frequency of using:
Use of common applications
Use of specialized
applications
Internet
.818
.040
Email
.817
.152
Word
.697
.041
Educational CDs
.626
.141
Excel
PowerPoint
Paint
Educational games
Stagecast Creator
Model-It
HyperStudio
FrontPage
Logo
Kidspiration
Publisher

.614
.607
.527
.514
.016
.003
.168
.315
.101
.183
.308

.360
.322
.379
.092
.820
.797
.787
.593
.567
.545
.481

Other factors
As shown in Table 5, the remaining items of the questionnaire produced six factors that explained 55.83% of the
variance. The first factor, Confidence in using ICT, was composed of eight items that measured teachers
confidence in using the computer for instructional and learning purposes in the classroom. This factor explained
13.43% of the total variance. Items that composed this factor included I feel confident that I can select appropriate
software to use in my teaching, I feel confident that the computer will help students understand concepts better, I
feel confident that I can use the Internet in my lessons to meet certain learning goals, I feel confident that I can use
email to communicate with my students, I feel confident that I can teach my students how to make their own web
pages, I feel confident that I can design technology-enhanced learning activities for my students, I feel confident
that I can use PowerPoint in my class, and I feel confident that I can teach my students to select appropriate
software to use in their projects.

73

The second factor, Encouragement from colleagues, included eight items that explained 12.41% of the variance of
this section of the questionnaire. Some items included in this factor were I often exchange ideas about technology
integration with other teachers, Other teachers encourage me to integrate computers in teaching and learning,
The inspector encourages me to integrate computers in teaching and learning, The principal encourages me to
integrate computers in teaching and learning, There are other teachers in my school who use computers in teaching
and learning, Often in our faculty meetings we discuss the subject of integrating computers in the school
curriculum, The ICT coordinator encourages me to integrate computers in teaching and learning, and Teachers
in my school are well informed about the value of computers in teaching and learning.
The third factor, called the anxiety factor, measured teachers comfort level in using the computer with students.
This factor was composed of five items that explained 9.93% of the variance of this section of the questionnaire.
Such items included The use of computers in teaching and learning scares me, The use of computers in teaching
and learning stresses me out, If something goes wrong I will not know what to do to fix it, I feel comfortable
with the idea of the computer as a tool in teaching and learning, and The idea of using a computer in teaching and
learning makes me skeptical.
The fourth factor, labelled Beliefs about the value of the computer, was composed of seven items that explained
8.40% of the variance. Items included in this factor were The computer helps students learn because it allows them
to express their thinking in better and different ways, The computer helps students understand concepts in more
effective ways, The computer helps teachers to teach in more effective ways, Whatever the computer can do, I
can do equally well, The use of the computer as a learning tool excites me, The computer is not conducive to
student learning because it is not easy to use, and The computer is not conducive to good teaching because it
creates technical problems.
The fifth factor measured the technology infrastructure in the school. This factor explained 6.67% of the variance
and was composed of four items, which included The technical support in my school is adequate, The technical
infrastructure in my school is adequate, A variety of computer software is available for use in my school, and
The instructional support in my school is adequate.

infrastructure Technology

.098

.184

.132

.106

.024

.779

.081

.255

.102

.003

.102

.711

.085

.250

.154

.141

.103

.702

.018

.025

.111

.078

.001

.699

.099

.046

.059

.027

.078

.698

.119

.307

.160

.138

.088

.792

Anxiety

Encouragement from

I feel confident that I can select appropriate software to

use in my teaching
I feel confident that the computer will help students
understand concepts better
I feel confident that I can use the Internet in my lessons to
meet certain learning goals
I feel confident that I can use email to communicate with
my students
I feel confident that I can teach my students how to make
their own web pages
I feel confident that I can design technology-enhanced
learning activities for my students

Confidence in using

Table 5. Rotated component matrix of computer attitudes and integration factors

Component

The computer as an
agent for change

computer

Beliefs about the

value of the

The last factor, which was composed of only three items, explained 5.00% of the variance and was labelled The
computer as an agent for change since it measured teachers beliefs on such issues. Items included The computer
will change the way students learn in my classes, The computer will change the way I teach, and The computer
is a valuable tool for teachers.

74

I feel confident that I can use PowerPoint in my class

I feel confident that I can teach my students to select
appropriate software to use in their projects
I often exchange ideas about technology integration with
other teachers
Other teachers encourage me to integrate computers in
teaching and learning
The inspector encourages me to integrate computers in
teaching and learning
The principal encourages me to integrate computers in
teaching and learning
There are other teachers in my school who use computers
in teaching and learning
Often times in our faculty meetings we discuss the subject
of integrating computers in the school curriculum
The ICT coordinator encourages me to integrate
computers in teaching and learning
Teachers in my school are well informed about the value
of computers in teaching and learning
The use of computers in teaching and learning scares me
The use of computers in teaching and learning stresses me
out
If something goes wrong I will not know what to do to fix
it
I feel comfortable with the idea of the computer as a tool
in teaching and learning
The idea of using a computer in teaching and learning
makes me skeptical
The computer helps students learn because it allows them
to express their thinking in better and different ways
The computer helps students understand concepts in more
effective ways
The computer helps teachers to teach in more effective
ways
Whatever the computer can do, I can do equally well
The use of the computer as a learning tool excites me
The computer is not conducive to student learning
because it is not easy to use
The computer is not conducive to good teaching because
it creates technical problems
The technical support in my school is adequate
The technical infrastructure in my school is adequate
A variety of computer software is available for use in my
school
The instructional support in my school is adequate
The computer will change the way students learn in my
classes
The computer will change the way I teach
The computer is a valuable tool for teachers

.666
.574

.081
.142

.289
.394

.059
.123

.061
.145

.106
.138

.013

.821

.024

.014

.083

.064

.120

.747

.034

.021

.139

.018

.105

.746

.156

.079

.153

.112

.125

.727

.095

.084

.065

.075

.086

.722

.056

.030

.108

.060

.090

.610

.079

.021

.156

.026

.109

.601

.100

.060

.344

.064

.032

.530

.076

.068

.278

.002

.135
.313

.014
.087

.768
.696

.078
.163

.092
.009

.176
.034

.299

.057

.628

.121

.071

.104

.482

.088

.622

.129

.049

.122

.174

.120

.584

.162

.042

.009

.146

.082

.036

.779

.075

.138

.164

.103

.087

.773

.037

.164

.130

.109

.190

.704

.056

.288

.071
.222
.036

.022
.116
-.062

.055
.360
.378

.537
.509
.467

.007
.023
.107

.040
.175
.020

.099

.032

.386

.417

.015

.113

.043
.029
.108

.235
.224
.266

.003
.112
.023

.004
.013
-.011

.775
.680
.651

.025
.001
.092

.047
.042

.385
.011

-.035
.130

.018
.101

.648
.072

.070
.794

.171
.033

.087
.057

.139
.447

.189
.167

.108
.051

.697
.538

Inter-factor correlations
The intercorrelations of the ten factors that were created in this questionnaire were also examined. According to the
overall results of this analysis, as shown in Table 6, with the exception of seven pairs of factors, the rest of the factor
75

pairs were significantly correlated with each other. The highest correlation between pairs of factors was between the
factor of use of common applications with the factor of knowledge of common applications (r = 0.789). This is
understandable since one has to have a good knowledge of computer software programs to be able to use them for
personal or professional matters. The second highest correlation was between the factor of use of specific
applications with the factor of knowledge of specialized applications (r = 0.695). The rational for this relationship
is the same as the rational presented for the common software applications.
The technology infrastructure in the school was one of the variables that was correlated with very few factors. It was
correlated with the factor of encouragement from colleagues (r = 0.561), with computer confidence (r = 0.182), with
computer anxiety (r = 0.141) and correlated with teachers beliefs about the value of the computer (r = 0.085)
although this correlation is extremely small. This indicates that the technological infrastructure in a school is closely
related to the support that teachers have from their colleagues to use computers, while it is slightly related to the
teachers computer confidence and anxiety.
Computer anxiety is one of the factors that was significantly correlated with all of the remaining factors. The highest
correlations were with the factors of utilization of common software (r = 0.648) and with the factor of knowledge of
common software (r = 0.618).
The factor of computer confidence was significantly correlated with all of the other factors. It was correlated among
others with the factor of knowledge of common software (r = 0.625), of specialized software (r = 0.481), use of
common (r = 0.640) and specialized software (r = 0.346), as well as with the factors of computer anxiety (r = 0.599),
and teachers beliefs about the value of the computer (r = 0.420).

Knowledge of specialized
software applications
Use of common
applications

.618**
.789**

.600**

Use of specialized
applications

.359**

.695**

.473**

Computer confidence
Encouragement by
colleagues
Computer anxiety

.625**
.142**

.481**
.108*

.640**
.236**

.346**
.039

.272**

.618**

.421**

.648**

.283**

.599**

.230**

Beliefs about the value of

the computer
The computer as an agent
for change
Technology infrastructure

.333**

.240**

.370**

.170**

.420**

.196**

.496**

.245**

.168**

.285**

.043

.270**

.155**

.316**

.394**

.079

.015

.071

.045

.182**

.561**

.141**

.085*

The computer as an agent

for change

Beliefs about the value of

the computer

Computer anxiety

Encouragement by
colleagues

Computer confidence

Use of specialized
applications

Use of common
applications

Knowledge of specialized
software applications

Knowledge of common
software applications

Table 6. Intercorrelations of the 11 factors of the questionnaire

.057

** p < 0.01 level (2-tailed)

* p < 0.05 level (2-tailed)

76

Internal consistency
After creating each factor, we estimated its internal consistency with Cronbachs alpha. The reliability estimate of
the knowledge of common software applications was 0.90. The reliability of the knowledge of specialized software
applications was 0.83, which is also considered a high reliability estimate. The next factor, which measured the use
of specific applications, equaled 0.78 which is adequate, while the reliability of the factor that measured the use of
common software applications equaled 0.84.
The reliability of the computer confidence factor equaled 0.89. The reliability of the encouragement from colleagues
factor equaled 0.86. The reliability of the computer anxiety factor was 0.82. The reliability for teachers beliefs about
the value of the computer and the technology infrastructure in the school were both 0.76. The reliability of the factor
determining the computer as an agent of change was the only low reliability and was found to be 0.59. This was most
likely because this factor was composed of only three questionnaire items. The reliability estimates of all factors are
presented in Table 7.
Background differences
Additional analyses were performed to determine if there were gender differences on the subscales of this
questionnaire based on the respondents gender. Previous research has found that male teachers tend to use
computers and technology more frequently than females. What remains to be seen is if such a relationship also holds
true for teachers in Cyprus. For that, we rely upon this questionnaire.
Table 7 includes a series of ten separate ANOVAs that were performed to determine if gender affected these ten
factors. An alpha level of 0.01 was used for these analyses to avoid the existence of inflated alpha estimates. Overall,
six of the factors demonstrated with statistical significance that there were gender differences in relation to computer
use and attitudes. More specifically, the males in the sample were more knowledgeable about common software (F =
6.28, p = 0.012), as well as more specialized software than were the females in the sample (F = 11.89, p = 0.001).
The males in the sample also used common software (F = 21.69, p < 0.000) and specialized software (F = 13.75, p <
0.000) more frequently than did the females. In terms of the factor of computer anxiety, males had higher levels of
computer anxiety than females (F = 24.69, p < 0.000). Finally, males regarded the computer as a tool in teaching and
learning more highly than did females (F = 8.87, p = 0.003).

Factor
Knowledge of common
software applications
Knowledge of specialized
software applications
Use of common
applications
Use of specialized
applications
Computer confidence
Encouragement from
colleagues
Computer anxiety
Beliefs about the value of
the computer
The computer as an agent
for change
Technology infrastructure

Table 7. Tests of between-subject effects

Type III
df
Mean
F
Sig.
Sum of
square
squares
8.118
1
8.118
6.280
.012*

Females

Males

Reliabi
lity

.011

3.185

3.475

.90

6.812

6.812

11.894

.001*

.021

1.687

1.954

.83

14.428

14.428

21.690

.000*

.038

2.629

3.015

.84

2.292

2.292

13.753

.000*

.024

1.216

1.369

.78

4.356
.800

1
1

4.356
.800

4.966
1.289

.026
.257

.009
.002

2.948
3.211

3.160
3.302

.89
.86

16.711
2.449

1
1

16.711
2.449

24.698
8.878

.000*
.003*

.042
.016

3.511
3.747

3.927
3.906

.82
.76

.001

.001

.004

.951

.000

3.949

3.953

.59

1.542

1.542

2.132

.145

.004

2.988

3.115

.76

77

Discussion
ICT has become an integrated part of our daily lives, so it wont be long before it also becomes an inseparable part of
students and teachers lives. However, the integration of technology in the school curriculum is a complex and
challenging process (Cooper, 1998) that needs to take into account numerous socio-technical factors such as
teachers computer skills, confidence, and attitude toward ICT, the use of ICT in teaching and learning, technology
infrastructure in the school, school climate, etc.
This study deals with the results and the psychometric properties of the instrument SFA-T3, whose aim is to examine
factors that may impede teachers efforts to teach with computers in the school. Despite the fact that there are
different instruments in the field of educational technology that can be used to collect data about various aspects of
teachers use of computers, at the moment there is not a single instrument that can be used to attain information
about all aspects of this area. Moreover, none of the pre-existing instruments have been adapted and validated on a
Greek sample of teachers. In addition, the existing instruments do not holistically examine the intertwining of
technical and social factors in a school system and only measure isolated elements such as, for example, teachers
attitudes toward computers. Finally, the psychometric properties of many of these tests are not always determined,
thus their appropriateness of use is not always existent. Undoubtedly, the use of one instrument to collect information
related to all aspects of technology integration will not only be easier for teachers to complete due to its length, but it
will also enable researchers to attain complete information about various aspects of teachers attitudes toward ICT as
well as use of ICT.
The results of this study show that the responses to the questionnaire have a reliability coefficient that is adequately
high. In addition, the construct validity evidence is based on a factor analysis that created ten easily interpretable
factors, namely, (a) knowledge of common software applications, (b) knowledge of specialized software
applications, (c) use of common applications, (d) use of specialized applications (e) computer confidence, (f)
encouragement by colleagues, (g) computer anxiety, (h) beliefs about the computers value, (i) the computer as an
agent for change, and (j) technology infrastructure. However, the results of this study also show that important
factors that do play a role in the successful integration of ICT in schools are those of teachers actual knowledge and
use of various computer software for professional and personal purposes, teacher confidence and attitudes toward
technology, the technology infrastructure and support in the schools, as well as teachers beliefs about the use of
technology as an agent for change.
A distinctive but not surprising result of this study is the large amount of variance that is accounted for by the factors
dealing with teachers frequency of computer use and their confidence in using computers for instructional purposes.
This result can have significant implications for the amount of exposure to computers that teacher-education students
can have. If the frequency of computer use, even on a personal level, can have significant effects on the successful
integration of ICT in the school classroom, then it might be important for teacher-education programs to increase the
number of educational technology courses that students must take during their studies. It is possible that teachers
who become more familiar with the use of computer technology in teaching and learning during their studies could
also develop more positive attitudes towards ICT and might therefore be more likely to use it in their real
classrooms. Finally, this could also result in teachers providing higher levels of support to each other in relation to
computer use in their classrooms.
Increased ICT exposure at the college level is also likely to decrease the magnitude of gender differences that exist in
relation to computer use and attitudes. The results of this study are consistent with those of the international
bibliography that found that male teachers reported greater levels of confidence with computers than did female
teachers (Russell & Bradley, 1997). This result might be due to the fact that males are more likely to use computers
for personal use. However, by exposing both males and females to educational technology within university course
settings, such differences are bound to decrease.
A limitation of this study lies in the fact that this was a self-report, and it is likely that some of the teachers may have
responded in socially desirable ways. It would be useful and interesting to perform a test-retest reliability on the
questionnaire. Cross-validation is also essential to establish the congruence between the teachers beliefs about their
ICT skills and ICT use with the opinion of an external observer. Once congruence is established, more detailed
research would have to be performed on this dataset to determine how ICT can be integrated in schools more
effectively.
78

References
Apple, M. W. (1986). Teachers and Texts: A political economy of class and gender relations in Education. New
York & London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Becker, H. J. & Ravitz, J. L. (1999). The influence of computer and Internet use on teachers pedagogical practices
and perceptions. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 31(4), 356384.
Becker, J. H. & Ravitz, J. L. (2001). Computer use by teachers: Are Cubans predictions correct? Paper presented at
the 2001 annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, Washington.
Becker, J. H. & Riel, M. M. (2000). Teacher professional engagement and constructivist compatible computer use.
Report no. 7, Teaching, Learning and Computing Project. Retrieved March 10, 2001, from
www.crito.uci.edu/tlc/findings/report 7.
Bosch, K. A. & Cardinale, L. (1993). Pre-service teachers perceptions of computer use during a field experience.
Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 10(1), 2327.
Brush, T. A. (1998). Teaching pre-service teachers to use technology in the classroom. Journal of Technology and
Teacher Education, 6(4), 243258.
Cooper, J. R. (1998). A multidimensional approach to the adoption of innovation. Management Decision, 36(8),
493502.
Cox, M., Preston, C., & Cox, K. (1999). What factors support or prevent teachers from using ICT in their
classrooms? Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association Annual Conference, University of
Sussex, Brighton.
Cuban, L. (2000). So much high-tech money invested, so little use and change in practice: How come? Paper
presented for the Council of Chief State School Officers Annual Technology Leadership Conference, Washington,
DC.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1990). Instructional policy into practice: The power of the bottom over the top.
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12(3), 233241.
Denning, P. J. (2001). The IT schools movement. CACM, 44(8), 1922.
Ely, D. P. (1995). Technology is the answer! But what was the question? ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
381 152.
Friedman, B. (Ed.). (1998). Human values and the design of computer technology. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Fullan, M. D. (1982). The meaning of educational change. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Fullan, M. D. (1991). The new meaning of educational change. New York, NY: Teachers College Record.
Fullan, M. D. (2000). The three stories of educational reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 81(8), 581584.
Goodison, T. (2003). Integrating ICT in the classroom: a case study of two contrasting lessons. British Journal of
Educational Technology, 34 (5), 549566.
Hennessy, S., Ruthven, K. & Brindley, S. (2005). Teacher perspectives on integrating ICT into subject teaching:
commitment, constraints, caution, and change. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 37(2), 155192.

79

Heracleous, L. & Barrett, M. (2001). Organizational change as discourse: Communicative actions and deep
structures in the context of informational technology implementation. Academy of Management Journal, 44(4), 755
778.
th

Hoy, K. W. & Miskel, G. C. (2001). Educational Administration: Theory, Research, and Practice (6 ed.). New
York: McGraw Hill, Inc.
Hunt, N. P. & Bohlin, R. M. (1995). Events and practices that promote positive attitudes and emotions in computing
courses. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 11(3), 2123.
Kangro, A. & Kangro, I. (2004). Integration of ICT in Teacher Education and Different School Subjects in Latvia.
Educational Media International, 41(1), 3137.
Kling, R. (2000). Learning about information technologies and social change: The contribution of social informatics.
The Information Society, 16(3), 217232.
Kling, R. & Lamb, R. (2000). IT and organizational change in digital economies: A socio-technical approach. In B.
Kahin & E. Brynjolfsson (Eds.), Understanding the digital economy: Data, tools, and research. MA: MIT Press.
Kozma, R. & Anderson R. E. (2002). Qualitative case studies of innovative pedagogical practices using ICT. Journal
of Computer Assisted Learning, 18, 387394.
Markus, M. L. & Benjamin, R. I. (1987). The magic bullet theory in IT-enabled transformation. Sloan Management
Review, 38(2), 5568.
Mulkeen, A. R. (2003). What can policy makers do to encourage integration of information and communications
technology? Evidence from the Irish school system. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 12(2), 277294.
Pedretti, E., Smith-Mayer, J. & Woodrow, J. (1999). Teaming technology enhanced instruction in the science
classroom and teacher professional development. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 7, 131143.
Pelgrum, W. (2001). Obstacles to the integration of ICT in education: Results from a worldwide educational
assessment. Computers & Education, 37, 163178.
Russell, G. & Bradley, G. (1997). Teachers computer anxiety: Implications for professional development. Education
and Information Technologies, 2, 1730.
Sandholtz, J. H., Ringstaff, C. & Dwyer, D. C. (1997). Teaching with technology: Creating student-centered
classrooms. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Shahan, K. E. (1976). The administrators role in developing innovations. Unpublished manuscript, Boston, MA:
Harvard Graduate School of Education.
Senteni, A. (2006). Information and Communications Technology Integration and Developmental Intervention:
Enabling Knowledge Creation and Capacity Building in Developing Countries Organizations. Educational
Technology Research and Development, 54, (3) 300311.
Statistical Service. (2003). Statistics in Education 2000/01. Nicosia: PORC.
Veen, W. (1993). The role of beliefs in the use of information technology: implications for teacher education, or
teaching the right thing at the right time. Journal of Information Technology for Teacher Education, 2(2), 139153.
Watt, D. H. (1980). Computer literacy: what should schools be doing about it? Classroom Computer News, 1(2), 1
26.

80

Appendix 1

FACTORS AFFECTING TEACHERS TEACHING

WITH TECHNOLOGY (SFA-T3)
Copyright of Charoula Angeli, Department of Education, University of Cyprus
PART ONE: DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION

Please circle or write your answer in the space provided.

Age:
Years of teaching experience:
Years of studying abroad:
Years of teaching experience in your current school:
How many years ago were computers introduced for the first time
in your school?
How many computer labs are there in your school?
How many computers are there in each lab?
How many computers are there in your classroom?
Grades you teach (circle your answers):

Elementary:
Upper Elementary:
Middle School:
High School:

1
4
7
10

2
5
8
11

3
6
9
12

If other, please specify:

Do you have a home computer (please circle)?

1. Yes

2. No

Gender (please circle):

1. Female

2. Male

Have you participated in professional development courses related to the integration of computers in teaching and
learning?
1. Yes

2. No

81

PART TWO: KNOWLEDGE OF COMPUTER SOFTWARE

I cannot use it

I can use it to a
small extent

I can use it
satisfactorily

I can use it well

I can use it very well

Please circle your answer:

Word processing (e.g., Word)

Databases (e.g., Access)

Spreadsheets (e.g., Excel)

Graphics (e.g., Paint, Photoshop)

Multimedia authoring software (e.g., HyperStudio)

Presentation software (e.g., PowerPoint)

Internet

Concept mapping (e.g., Kidspiration, Inspiration)

Email

Publishing software (e.g., Publisher)

Webpage authoring software (e.g., FrontPage)

Programming languages (e.g., Logo, C )

Modeling software (e.g., Model-It, Stella)

Microworlds/Simulations (e.g., Stagecast Creator, Interactive

Physics)

82

PART THREE: FREQUENCY OF SOFTWARE USE FOR PERSONAL PURPOSES

Please circle your answer:

I use the computer to:
Never

Once or
twice a
semester

Once or
twice a Once or twice a Almost every
month
week
day

Play games (e.g., FIFA, Solitaire)

Make presentations (e.g., PowerPoint)

Process text (e.g., Word)

Publish materials (e.g., Publisher)

Prepare spreadsheets (e.g., Excel)

Create graphics (e.g., Paint)

Communicate (e.g., email)

Access the Internet

Develop web pages (e.g., FrontPage)

Develop multimedia (e.g., HyperStudio)

Author microworlds/simulations (e.g., Stagecast Creator)

Map concepts (e.g., Kidspiration, Inspiration)

Model complex systems (e.g., Model-It, Stella)

Program the computer (e.g., Logo, C)

Use educational CD

83

PART FOUR: COMPUTER ATTITUDES

Completely disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Completely agree

Please circle your answer:

I feel comfortable with the idea of the computer as a tool in teaching and learning

The use of computers in teaching and learning stresses me out

If something goes wrong I will not know how to fix it

The idea of using a computer in teaching and learning makes me skeptical

The use of the computer as a learning tool excites me

The use of computers in teaching and learning scares me

The computer is a valuable tool for teachers

The computer will change the way I teach

The computer will change the way students learn in my classes

I can do what the computer can do equally as well

The computer is not conducive to student learning because it is not easy to use

The computer helps students understand concepts in more effective ways

The computer helps students learn because it allows them to express their thinking in better and
different ways

The computer helps teachers to teach in more effective ways

The computer is not conducive to good teaching because it creates technical problems

PART FIVE: PERCEIVED SELF-CONFIDENCE IN INTEGRATING ICT

In some of the following sentences the term integration is used. This term is used to indicate that learners use
computers as learning tools in classrooms activities.

Neutral

Agree

Completely
agree

I can use PowerPoint in my class

I can design technology-enhanced learning activities for my students

I can use email to communicate with my students

I can teach my students to select appropriate software to use in their projects

I can teach my students how to make their own web pages

I can use the Internet in my lessons to meet certain learning goals

The computer can help students understand concepts more easily

Internet
Word processing (e.g., Word)
Spreadsheets (e.g., Excel)
Databases (e.g., Access)
Presentation software (e.g., PowerPoint)
Microworlds (e.g., Stagecast Creator)
Simulations (e.g., Interactive Physics)
Modeling (e.g., Model-It)
Concept mapping (e.g., Kidspiration, Inspiration)
Teleconferencing
Educational CDs

Geography

History

Math

Arts Language

How many times a week do you integrate computers in teaching and learning?

studies Religious

Disagree

language second
English as a

I can select appropriate software to use in my teaching

I feel confident that:

Science

Completely
disagree

Please circle your answer:

PART SIX: SCHOOL CLIMATE AND SUPPORT

Completely
disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Completely agree

Please circle your answer:

Other teachers encourage me to integrate computers in teaching and learning

The ICT coordinator encourages me to integrate computers in teaching and learning

The principal encourages me to integrate computers in teaching and learning

The inspector encourages me to integrate computers in teaching and learning

I often exchange ideas about technology integration with other teachers

There are other teachers in my school who use computers in teaching and learning

In faculty meetings, we frequently discuss the subject of integrating computers in the school
curriculum

Teachers in my school are well informed about the value of computers in teaching and
learning

A variety of computer software is available for use in my school

The technical support in my school is adequate

The instructional support in my school is adequate

The technical infrastructure in my school is adequate