Adoption of Ict Innovations by Secondary School Teachers and Pre-Service Teachers Within Chemistry Education

Abstract

This research is focused on secondary school chemistry teachers’ (N=276) and chemistry pre-service teachers’ (N=159) attitudes towards the use of information and communication technology (ICT) in education. A questionnaire constructed upon Rogers’ theory of diffusion of innovation was used. Based on the answers, the respondents were grouped according to their innovativeness – into types of innovation adopters. Analysis of the participants’ responses to the statements in the questionnaire suggests that neither gender nor their teaching experience influence their innovativeness. The respondents mostly tend to hold a pragmatic view, accept the role of ICT in education. However, they need proof to decide whether to adopt it in their teaching practice. As the respondents could leave their contact information, it is possible to further focus on particular groups of innovation adopters, to observe their lessons, analyse their approach and mainly influence and support those groups, which maintain a “role model” position and trigger diffusion of innovations. Keywords: chemistry education, ICT, diffusion of innovations, teachers’ attitudes, pre-service teachers’ attitudes.

Unexpected Discovery: A Guided-Inquiry Experiment on the Reaction Kinetics of Zinc with Sulfuric Acid

“…For example, “I can see it working with students, nevertheless I doubt I will have time to prepare such an activity.” or “I think it takes too much time leaving little time for actual teaching.” It was obvious that some of the students did not quite understand the benefit of IBE and favored a traditional, instructive approach. It is possible to argue that these trainee teachers need further evidence about the effect of inquiry-based education before adopting it . Another concern referred to their students’ skills, “I know I have only limited experience, however the students I teach would not know what to do without proper guidance.” or “The activity could work for a quarter of an hour, then the students might get lost in the freedom they have, and probably do not use the time well and not able to finish the task.” These responses show that the levels of inquiry need to be explained further, and IBE needs to be presented as an evolving process, not a ready-to-use method at any level in any grade.…”

“…It is possible to argue that these trainee teachers need further evidence about the effect of inquirybased education before adopting it. 29 Another concern referred to their students' skills, "I know I have only limited experience, however the students I teach would not know what to do without proper guidance." or "The activity could work for a quarter of an hour, then the students might get lost in the freedom they have, and probably do not use the time well and not able to finish the task."…”

Differences in Chemistry Teachers’ Acceptance of Educational Software According to Their User Type: An Application of Extended Utaut Model

“…This naturally also applies to education. There have been several attempts to describe (science) secondary school teachers' behaviour with respect to technology use in general (Badia & Iglesias, 2019;Higgins & Spitulnik, 2008;Rusek et al, 2017;Walan, 2020) and specific technology, e.g., mobile devices (Ates & Garzon, 2021;Chiu & Churchill, 2016;Leem & Sung, 2019;Mutambara & Bayaga, 2021), interactive whiteboards (Stroud et al, 2014;Šumak et al, 2017;Tosuntas et al, 2021) or virtual laboratories (Achuthan et al, 2020;Spernjak & Sorgo, 2009), and simulations (Bo et al, 2018;Kriek & Stols, 2010;Lee et al, 2021), however they focused on this process from a more general perspective.…”

“…Both cited models (Rogers, 2003;Venkatesh et al, 2003) originally deal with technology in general, yet are further being applied more concretely in specific fields (Bennett & Bennett, 2003;Khechine et al, 2020;Ogrezeanu ISSN 1648-3898 & Ogrezeanu, 2014;Rusek et al, 2017;Seymour, 2002;Zounek & Sebera, 2005). Venkatesh's original model was recently revisited by Šumak and Šorgo (2016), who extended the model by adding several constructs (see Figure 1).…”

“…Additionally, there are different groups of teachers who approach technology (innovations) differently and can be worked with accordingly (Rusek et al, 2017). In this research, models for each user type group separately were also tested.…”