Imagen de Portada

Physical Education Teachers' Technology Self-Efficacy and Integration

Guardado en:
Publicado en:Physical Educator vol. 82, no. 3 (2025), p. 347-363
Autor principal: Adams, Alex
Otros Autores: Belcher, Don
Publicado:
Sagamore Publishing LLC
Materias:
United States > US
Standards
Internet
Physical education teachers
Student teaching
School environment
Professional development
Social networks
Educational technology
Likert scale
Feedback
Technology education
Computers
Classrooms
Word processing
Self-efficacy
School districts
Educational Opportunities
Technology Planning
Self Efficacy
Influence of Technology
Likert Scales
Teacher Surveys
Technology Integration
Laptop Computers
Middle Schools
Computer Oriented Programs
Classroom Techniques
Feedback (Response)
Beliefs
Educational Environment
Learner Engagement
National Standards
Acceso en línea:Citation/Abstract
Full Text
Full Text - PDF
Etiquetas: Agregar Etiqueta
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
Resumen:Technology in education strives to parallel the high-tech world we live in. When students' learning environment reflects the ways in which they engage the world, they will excel in their education (Christen, 2009). Physical education teachers (PETs) have reported many barriers to using and integrating educational technology (e.g., НИ & Valdez-Garcia, 2020). PETS' perceived self-efficacy (SE) may play an important role in their ability to integrate technology. The purpose of this study was to explore in-service PETS' self-efficacy to integrate technology into their teaching. Method: Eighty-three in-service PETs (Male=31.3%, Female=68.7%), from around the United States, completed an online version of the previously validated Computer Technology Integration Survey for Physical Education (Krause, 2017). Analysis focused on relationships of participant's SE and technology use. Results indicate a relationship with the level of mastery experiences (r=.48, p<.001), technology training (r=.45, p<.001), social persuasion experiences (r=.28, p<.001), and (vicarious experiences (r=.28, p<.01), to participants' technology SE (M=3.70, SD= .94; 1-5 scale). Participants' specific technology training and use are presented, with corresponding correlations to indicate how well SE relates to use. Participants' SE was lower than physical education student teachers (Krause, 2017) but similar to PET education faculty (O'Neil & Krause, 2019). PETs may be well equipped to use educational technology after student teaching but may need more training to keep up with the everchanging world of technology. Professional development opportunities for PETs should focus on providing mastery experiences over vicarious and social persuasion experiences. Furthermore, some educational tools (i.e., Plickers) are valued and used more when PETs have an adequate level of specific educational technology training. Future research should focus on measuring the effects of a professional development workshop on PETSs' SE.
ISSN:0031-8981
2160-1682
DOI:10.18666/TPE-2025-V-82-13-11236
Fuente:Consumer Health Database