FACTORS INFLUENCING THAI EFL TEACHERS’ INTEGRATION OF DIGITAL TECHNOLOGY IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHING
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
บทคัดย่อ
This mixed methods study aimed to (1) examine the current state of digital technology integration among Thai EFL teachers in primary schools under the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration (BMA), (2) identify and analyze factors influencing technology integration, (3) investigate the predictive power of these factors, and (4) explore teachers’ perceptions and lived experiences regarding barriers and facilitators of technology integration. The participants consisted of 400 English language teachers selected through stratified random sampling from 50 BMA primary schools. Quantitative data were collected using a validated questionnaire based on the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) and related digital competence constructs, while qualitative data were gathered through semi-structured interviews with 20 purposively selected participants. Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, Pearson correlation, and multiple regression analysis, whereas qualitative data were analyzed through thematic analysis.
In relation to the research objectives, the findings can be summarized as follows :
First, the current state of digital technology integration among Thai EFL teachers in BMA primary schools was at a moderate level, with most teachers operating at the infusion and integration stages. Second, key factors influencing technology integration included digital competence, perceived usefulness, institutional support, and student motivation. Third, the predictive analysis demonstrated that these factors significantly contributed to technology integration, with digital competence being the strongest predictor, and the model explaining 61.3% of the variance. Finally, qualitative findings revealed that while teachers recognized the pedagogical value of digital technology, they faced challenges related to infrastructure, training, and time constraints, whereas professional learning communities and leadership support acted as important facilitating conditions.
Article Details
เอกสารอ้างอิง
Braun, V., and Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3 (2), 77-101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.
Braun, V., and Clarke, V. (2021). Thematic analysis : A practical guide. SAGE.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature
and design. Harvard University Press.
Carretero, S., et al. (2017). DigComp 2.1 : The digital competence framework for citizens. Publications Office of the European Union.
Chai, C. S., et al. (2013). A review of technological pedagogical content knowledge.
Educational Technology & Society, 16 (2), 31-51.
Chun, D., et al. (2016). Technology in language use, language teaching, and language learning.
The Modern Language Journal, 100 (S1), 64-80. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12302.
Creswell, J. W., and Plano Clark, V. L. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. 3rd ed. SAGE.
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13 (3), 319-340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008.
Deci, E. L., and Ryan, R. M. (2000). The what and why of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-
determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11 (4), 227-268. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01.
Ertmer, P. A. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs : The final frontier in our quest for technology
integration? Educational Technology Research and Development, 53 (4), 25-39. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504683.
Ertmer, P. A., and Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T. (2010). Teacher technology change: How knowledge,
confidence, beliefs, and culture intersect. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42 (3), 255-284. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2010.10782551.
Golonka, E. M., et al. (2014). Technologies for foreign language learning: A review of technology
types and their effectiveness. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 27 (1), 70-105. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2012.700315.
Hallinger, P., and Lee, M. (2011). A decade of education reform in Thailand : Broken promise or
impossible dream?. Cambridge Journal of Education, 41 (2), 139-158. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764X.2011.572868.
Krejcie, R. V., and Morgan, D. W. (1970). Determining sample size for research activities.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 30 (3), 607-610. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316447003000308.
Mishra, P., and Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge : A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108 (6), 1017-1054.
Moersch, C. (1995). Levels of technology implementation (LoTi) : A framework for measuring classroom technology use. Learning and Leading with Technology, 23 (3), 40-42.
Office of the Education Council. (2017). National education plan 2017–2036. Ministry of Education,
Thailand.
Scherer, R., et al. (2019). The technology acceptance model (TAM) : A meta-analytic structural
equation modeling approach to explaining teachers’ adoption of digital technology in education. Computers & Education, 128, 13-35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.09.009.
Tangkiengsirisin, S. (2018). Technology integration in EFL classrooms: A survey study of Thai university teachers. Journal of English Language Teaching and Linguistics, 3 (2), 101-116.
Teo, T., and Noyes, J. (2011). Influence of enjoyment and attitude on intention to use technology.
Computers & Education, 57 (2), 1645-1653. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.03.002.
UNESCO. (2023). Technology in education: A tool on whose terms? Global education monitoring report 2023. UNESCO Publishing.
Venkatesh, V., and Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of TAM. Management Science,
(2), 186-204. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926.
