Next Article in Journal
Disentangling the Factors That Contribute to the Growth of Betula spp. and Cunninghami lanceolata in China Based on Machine Learning Algorithms
Next Article in Special Issue
An Empirical Study of Factors Influencing the Perceived Usefulness and Effectiveness of Integrating E-Learning Systems during the COVID-19 Pandemic Using SEM and ML: A Case Study in Jordan
Previous Article in Journal
E-Learning as an Instrument for Managing Knowledge in the Field of Sustainable Development in a Chemical Company in Poland
Previous Article in Special Issue
Differential Analysis of Teachers’ Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) Abilities According to Teaching Stages and Educational Levels
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 14
Issue 14
10.3390/su14148339
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Digitalisation of Schools from the Perspective of Teachers’ Opinions and Experiences: The Frequency of ICT Use in Education, Attitudes towards New Media, and Support from Management

by
Michał Szyszka
1,*,
Łukasz Tomczyk
2 and
Aneta M. Kochanowicz
1
1
Faculty of Applied Sciences, WSB University, 41300 Dabrowa Gornicza, Poland
2
Institute of Education, Jagiellonian University, 31007 Kraków, Poland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2022, 14(14), 8339; https://doi.org/10.3390/su14148339
Submission received: 11 May 2022 / Revised: 2 July 2022 / Accepted: 4 July 2022 / Published: 7 July 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Innovation and Advances in Digital Technology-based Educational Design: Digital Competence of Students and Teachers)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The digitalisation of education has become an irreversible process, and Poland is no exception. However, the issue of ICT usage in education raises many concerns and controversies, posing numerous methodological challenges at the same time. In the interpretation of our research, one of the most frequently used and validated models in empirical research—the Unified Theory of Technology Acceptance and Use (UTAUT) model—was used. The aim of the research was to show the frequency of use of popular hardware, software and websites among teachers from Poland (in the Silesia Province) and finding answers to the questions pertaining to the main determinants of digital teaching aids. The frequency of ICT use in education was juxtaposed with the attitudes towards new media in the school environment as well as with the support of managers in that area. Quantitative research was conducted on a sample of N = 258 in 2020. A questionnaire in the form of a digital diagnostic survey was used to collect data. Based on the data collected, it was noted that: (1) Teachers use virtual systems (eRegisters) and interactive whiteboards most often, while educational podcasts and software for learning foreign languages are used least often; (2) approximately 40% of teachers use ICT often or very often in their school teaching; (3) in public schools, digital teaching aids are used slightly more often than in non-public institutions; (4) teachers are consistent in their use of digital teaching aids, so the individuals experimenting with and implementing ICT at school do so regardless of the type of software and hardware; (5) active support from school head teachers strengthens the frequency of ICT use in education; and (6) in schools where the use of smartphones by students is prohibited, the frequency of ICT use in education is at a lower level.

1. Introduction

An increasing number of teachers in Poland are able to integrate students’ natural enthusiasm for new technologies with the creative use of digital tools and software in education. A report prepared in 2012 by European Schoolnet and the University of Liege showed that Polish teachers’ confidence in their own ICT operational skills was higher than the EU average. Apart from that, their self-awareness of their own competence in using social media is generally higher than the EU average [1].
In OECD countries, an average of 89 percent of students own a computer and 96 percent of them have an Internet connection. The situation in Poland is also favourable in this respect, as confirmed by data from Statistics Poland [2], according to which more than 83 percent of households owned at least one computer in 2019. In Poland, almost all 15-year-old students declared that they have a computer for learning and access to the Internet as of 2020. Families with children were much more likely to have the hardware (97 percent) [3]. Students referred to as digital natives—who are the youngest users of the virtual network and do not know a world without computers and broadband Internet—expect a diversification of sources of knowledge at school as well as innovative ways of transferring knowledge with the use of ICT by teachers. It also means—as Polish researchers Grynienko, Hofman-Kozłowska, Kuczyńska, and Srokowski note—bringing a new system of values and social relations created with digital tools to schools. From the perspective of Polish teachers, this may result in increased power distance between the teacher and the student and greater student autonomy in learning. In the opinion of the teachers surveyed, this threatens both to undermine the traditional authority of the teacher and to require it to be built on completely new foundations. For respondents, this is an additional argument against increasing the level of digitalisation of their classes [4].
Teachers who were not raised in the presence of computers and the Internet are often referred to as digital immigrants in the literature. During a period of remote learning, only 8 percent of students in Poland rated their teachers’ skills as high, while 26 percent rated them poorly [5].
Hence, in our research, we assumed that the factors which most influence the use of ICT in education are teachers’ attitudes and digital competences. The frequency of ICT use in education was juxtaposed with the attitudes towards new media in the school environment, as well as with the support of managers in that area. The aim of our research was to show the level of digitalisation of education in Poland from the perspective of opinions and experiences of teachers from the Silesia Province.
A cause for optimism in Polish schools is the large-scale implementation of the eRegister, which has now become a tool for system-wide support of communication between teachers, students and parents. A pioneering and important finding in our research was the recognition that teachers are far less likely to use digital teaching aids in schools where there is a formal ban on smartphones. From the perspective of the most recent methodologies of work with the use of ICT, a new research question arises in this context about teachers’ perceptions of phones as a potential tool for learning (the Bring Your Own Device teaching model: BYOD) [6,7,8]. The BYOD model means that students bring their own hardware to school and use it in class to supplement student knowledge, search for information in response to the teacher’s questions, and solve tasks independently as well as in groups.
The integration of ICT into the teaching and learning process taking place in the classroom is an obvious requirement of the 21st century; therefore, teachers need adequate digital competence and a positive attitude towards the use of ICT in education. Not only does this technology change the teacher’s status in the classroom (from the sole holder of information and knowledge to an adviser on how to obtain it), but it also makes the learning environmentally friendly for today’s students. Promotion of the use of ICT in education has received a great deal of attention; in Poland, as in other countries, numerous projects and programmes addressed to teachers and educators have been implemented for years. An example of this at the national policy level is the nationwide educational platform NAVOICA (a website coordinated by the Ministry of Education and Science), which provides access to free online courses of MOOC (Massive Open Online Courses) type, prepared and delivered by universities and educational institutions. The latter are worth paying more attention to. The differences between traditional online courses and MOOCs are that MOOCs are open to all potential learners and do not typically charge registration fees if learners do not intend to obtain a certificate [9]. MOOCs can be grouped into xMOOCs and cMOOCs. xMOOCs are more teacher-led in terms of content, structure, and assignment (this form is popular in Poland), whereas cMOOCs are considered more social and non-hierarchical [9,10]. Regarding MOOC features and characteristics, MOOCs in Poland are offered for free, promote discussions involving a large number of students, provide flexibility of learning in terms of time and place, and allow diverse tasks in one course [10]. The dominant model is one in which the courses are prepared by teams of specialists (e.g., academic teachers) or schoolteachers (practitioners, enthusiasts) who have extensive experience in using ICT and have a theoretical foundation for doing so. In the context of this article, it is worth paying attention to the fact that good quality, free courses are available in Poland. Specific courses, tools, solutions and scenarios are available on free platforms run by NGOs (e.g., Fundacja Nowoczesna Polska, Orange Foundation Poland), as well as by technology providers themselves (e.g., Samsung: Mistrzowie Kodowania, and Apple educational programmes). When looking at the context of the presented study (the widespread availability of ICT tools, solutions and infrastructure in Polish schools), it must be stressed that technological factors do not play a key role as a predictor of media use in education. Attention should be paid instead to teachers’ attitudes and motivation, and their mastery of methodology, as well as other organisational factors of schools’ operation.
This text is an attempt to take a fresh look at the processes of digitalisation of education in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe through the experiences of teachers from the region constituting a borderland between three of the Visegrad countries. The article brings a new perspective and forum for discussion on the frequency of ICT use in the educational process. The combination of the school profession’s attitude with diversified forms of support from school management makes it possible to capture the key, or “soft”, factors accelerating the digitalisation of education. This text shifts away from a search for models of digitalisation inherent in teachers themselves to a system-wide view in which individual factors combine with the properties of the school ecosystem.

2. Theoretical Framework and Research Overview

Among the theories explaining teachers’ willingness to use ICT in school, the prevailing one is the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) [11] with relatively simple measurement variables, which was proposed by Davis and his colleagues [12]. According to that model, the user’s decision to use a new technology is influenced by a number of factors, two of which are primarily important: perceived usefulness, which is the extent to which the user believes that the new device will enhance the quality of their work, and perceived ease-of-use, which is the extent to which the user believes that using the new technology will be effortless [12].
The TAM model has been revised several times, both by its creators and by other researchers adapting it for their own analyses [13]. As a result, another more condensed model, called the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT), was developed [14] (pp. 425–478). The theory posits that there are four variables that influence the intention to use a particular technology. These are: Performance Expectancy, Effort Expectancy, Social Influence, and Facilitating Conditions [15].
The Performance Expectancy variable is the degree to which the user (for example, a teacher) believes that the use of a given technology will help them achieve tasks that are important to them. The degree in question depends on gender and age. Research shows that it is higher in men and younger people, which means that they are more likely to use ICT because they perceive it as facilitating their work [16]. The second variable—Effort Expectancy—is an individual’s idea of the difficulty of using a given technology. This variable also depends on gender and age, and additionally on the experience acquired [17]. For women and older people as well as those with less experience in using other technologies, the fear of effort has a stronger negative impact on their attitudes towards new technologies. The third variable—Social Influence—is the degree to which a person believes that people important to them (e.g., school management in the case of teachers) would also use the technology. This variable decreases as time passes and the user gains experience. Moreover, Social Influence has a stronger effect on the intention to use technology in the case of women and older people. The fourth variable—Facilitating Conditions—represents the extent to which a given individual believes that there is an adequate technical and organisational infrastructure in place to provide support in case of difficulties in using the technology. This variable is age-dependent, meaning that older people make the use of a particular technology dependent on the support they receive [16]. However, other studies have found that factors such as age, gender and prior experience have a moderate effect on teachers’ acceptance of new technologies [18,19].
There is a long tradition of research on the frequency of ICT use by teachers, as well as on forms of its application in the classroom [20]. The dependency of this frequency on teachers’ beliefs about the effectiveness of ICT in the teaching and learning process [21], as well as on their digital competence [22], has been explored. Attention is also being paid to factors that enhance teachers’ use of ICT [23], as well as to barriers to its adequate use in the school environment [24]. According to Indian researchers P. Basargekar and C. Singhavi [25], who conducted a survey among 515 secondary school teachers from the Maharashtra region of India, one of the main obstacles to the use of ICT in school education is the lack of motivation on the part of teachers and their lack of confidence in their own digital competence. This often leads to their strong resistance to new teaching methodologies that use ICT [26]. On the other hand, S. Ghavifekr, T. Kunjappan, L. Ramasamy and A. Anthony [27] found—after conducting a qualitative study among 100 secondary school teachers in the city of Melaka, Malaysia—that the most serious challenges to teachers’ use of ICT in the classroom were disruptions in Internet access, insufficient technical assistance, lack of prior training, and lack of time and their own digital competence, with male teachers considering themselves more competent in that regard than female teachers. Wu, B., Yu, X., and Hu, Y. [28] found—after surveying 2894 teachers in Shanghai—that school management plays a key role in transforming a school into an ICT-implementing environment. That is because the management contributes to the development of technological infrastructure of a given institution and stimulates changes in teaching and learning methods. Quantitative sampling conducted by Islami, A. R., Abdullah, A. G., Hakim, D. L., Widiaty, I., Latif, M. A., Juhana, A., and Putra, D. E. [29] in the Indonesian city of Cimahi (Java Island) among 345 primary school teachers showed that teachers use ICT as an aid in their daily activities and do so in a rather schematic and repetitive manner. Gender differences do not significantly affect the use of ICT, while the level of competence of younger teachers in using ICT is significantly higher than that of older teachers. On the other hand, a qualitative diagnostic survey conducted by Hidayah, R., Ngatman, Susiani, T. S., Salimi, M., and Suhartono [30] in the Indonesian city of Kebumen (Java Island) shows that teachers have a positive attitude (awareness of the positive impact of ICT on learning, strong motivation, and belief in their own digital competence) towards the use of ICT in teaching, but do not use it optimally in practice.
Research conducted in 32 schools in the Małopolska region of Poland (120 teachers) has shown that although schools differ in terms of the quantity and quality of hardware they have, it is not the most important factor influencing the level of digitalisation in those schools. This is determined primarily by the attitudes and competences of teachers and management. Often, despite the fact that there is very good hardware available, it is not used to introduce teaching models other than a lecture. The European Commission Report 2nd Survey of Schools: ICT in Education Objective 1: Benchmark progress in ICT in schools also confirms the following observation from the survey conducted in schools in Małopolska: in schools with poor access to technology, technology is used as often as in schools with good access to hardware. The authors of the report state that no strong correlation has been found between the amount of hardware available in schools and the frequency of ICT use in teaching [31]. On the other hand, decisions related to the retrofitting of schools with new technologies are most often made by the head teachers themselves or in consultation with the IT teacher [4].
The head teacher plays an important role in integrating ICT into the teaching process in schools, especially if s/he supports the use of technology and creates a learning community that shares knowledge [32,33,34,35]. Efficient implementation of ICT depends on the support teachers receive from the head teacher, including in the form of providing opportunities for professional development [36,37]. The leadership role of the head teacher in driving technological change in the school is expressed in four activities [38]. First are building a vision and setting directions of development and understanding teachers and helping them develop the knowledge and skills needed to achieve the set goals. Next is redesigning the organisation, i.e., building a culture of collaboration, as well as relationships with parents and the local community, etc. Last is managing the teaching and learning programme, i.e., providing teaching support for teachers, monitoring the school’s activity and removing barriers to teachers’ focus on achieving educational outcomes [38].
Gabriella Polizzi [39], who used the self-assessment questionnaire method to study the attitudes of 95 head teachers at public schools in Palermo towards the implementation of ICT in educational institutions, also found that the greater the digital competence of the head teachers, the more supportive their attitudes towards ICT. Israeli researchers involved in identifying factors that influence teachers’ use of ICT [40] found that the head teacher plays a key role in that process. Top-down guidelines demanding a change in school culture in this regard are ineffective without the involvement of head teachers as leaders of technological change. Without support from the school administration, teachers continue to teach in the way they are most familiar with.

3. Research Methodology: Research Objective and Problems

The aim of the research is to show the level of digitalisation of education in Poland from the perspective of opinions and experiences of teachers from the Silesia Province. The indirect aim is to present the frequency of use of the most popular digital teaching aids by teachers, as well as the attitudes of head teachers of the schools at which the teachers work towards the use of new technologies in education. The subject of the research was the teachers’ responses collected during the 2020/2021 school year in the form of a digital survey.
The following research problems were posed in the survey:
RQ1:
Which digital teaching aids are used most often?
RQ2:
To what extent does the use of digital teaching aids co-occur with sociodemographic variables?
RQ3:
What is the level of correlation between the use of particular digital teaching aids?
RQ4:
To what extent is support from school management linked to an increase in the frequency of using digital teaching aids?
RQ5:
To what extent do the regulations concerning smartphone use in school co-occur with the frequency of using digital teaching aids?

4. Research Tool and Research Procedure

The tool consists of a battery of two independently developed diagnostic questionnaires, followed by a sociodemographic section. The first questionnaire—“Attitudes towards new media in the school environment”—was developed as a proprietary tool based on the results of previous studies [41,42]. The tool consists of 5 items, each of which can be addressed using a 5-point Likert-type scale from 1—I strongly disagree to 5—I strongly agree. The internal consistency for this part of the tool was Cronbach’s alpha = 0.822.
The second part of the research tool—“Frequency of use of digital teaching aids”—was developed based on the literature on the subject [43]. The tool consists of 11 items, which are the most popular hardware and software used in school facilities. Respondents answered this part of the tool on a 6-point scale from 0—never to 6—in every class. The internal consistency for the tool was Cronbach’s alpha = 0.818.
The tool also included one question with a nominal variable—concerning regulations related to the use of smartphones by children and young people at school. In addition, the final version of the tool included a sociodemographic respondent’s particulars section intended to obtain information from respondents on their: seniority at school (in years), place of employment, type of school, and gender. An exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was also carried out for this tool.
The research used a diagnostic survey method and a web-based survey technique. The commercial Webankieta platform was used. The questionnaire, complete with an invitation to participate in the survey, was distributed according to address databases provided by the Department of Education of the Marshal’s Office of the Silesia Province, while the respondents’ participation was voluntary and anonymous. The actual survey was preceded by a pilot study. The distribution of invitations to participate in the survey began on January 2020 and the results were collected until 15 March 2020. Significantly, therefore, the survey was carried out immediately before the COVID-19 pandemic, in the de facto last phase of a period in which new technologies were perceived by teachers in general as a complementary form, or a diversification of traditional classes based on personal contact, in contrast to what happened after the introduction of lockdown and remote education on 25 March 2020, which forced a complete change of approach to ICT. That circumstance indicates the uniqueness of the results obtained.
The survey was carried out in a region with peculiar characteristics and a complex structure. The Silesia Province is situated in the southern part of Poland and occupies an area of 12,333 km2, which is 3.9% of Poland’s total area. However, the region is characterised by the highest population density in Poland—372 persons per km²—especially in the centrally located Metropolitan Association of Upper Silesia and Dąbrowa Basin, where in some places there are as many as 1000 people per 1 km². According to Statistics Poland, the Silesia Province has 4,593,358 inhabitants, which is almost 12% of the total population of Poland, and thus ranks second in Poland. It is here that the largest number of cities with more than 100,000 inhabitants in Poland are located, and at the same time it is characterised by a very high (one of the highest in Poland) level of scholarisation. Despite the fact that most districts are strongly urbanised (e.g., the Metropolitan Association of Upper Silesia and Dąbrowa Basin), as many as 60% municipalities/communes in the Silesia Province are of rural or urban–rural character; thus, the region is highly diversified in terms of its structure, covering a wide range of educational units in terms of their size, level of development, access to institutional resources, staff, and infrastructure. Therefore, the results of the conducted survey are not affected by the error resulting from a homogeneous structure, which is characteristic of large conurbations.

5. Selection of the Research Sample and Characteristics of the Research Sample

The research sample was selected on a random basis. The entire population of teachers in the Silesia Province is 57,351 [2]. The data collected (N = 258) allow for generalisation at the confidence level of α = 0.95, fraction size = 0.5, and a maximum error not exceeding 7%. The sample was composed of 86.62% women and 13.18% men. This proportion is consistent with the employment structure of teachers in Poland due to the fact that the profession is highly feminised [44]. The average seniority among the surveyed teachers was 13.99 years, with a standard deviation of 11.82 and a median of 13 years. Most of the surveyed teachers were employed in public institutions (77.13%), while the rest were employed in non-public institutions of various types (22.87%). The teachers surveyed worked in schools located in rural areas (22.87%), towns of up to 50,000 inhabitants (18.99%), cities of 50,000–100,000 inhabitants (17.83%), cities of 100,000–200,000 inhabitants (18.99%), and cities of over 200,000 inhabitants (21.32%).

6. Research Ethics

The research was conducted as part of the project “The media in Polish schools. Information and communications technologies (ICT) in the operation of a modern school” carried out at WSB University in Dąbrowa Górnicza. The project received formal approval from the Departmental Research Committee and the WSB University Ethics Committee. The research was conducted while maintaining research ethics in the social sciences. Teachers’ participation in the research was voluntary at each stage. The respondents were also able to opt out of completing the survey at any stage. The educationalists were informed about the purpose of the research, as well as about the ways in which the data—the answers provided—would be processed. The research tool did not include questions about any data identifying the people participating in the survey.

7. Research Results

7.1. RQ1: Popularity of Digital Teaching Aids among Teachers

The most frequently used educational software among Polish teachers in the Silesia Province are virtual systems enabling contact with parents and students. “eRegisters” have now become the centre of communication in most school establishments, displacing analogue documentation. The next most popular software includes: interactive whiteboards, open educational resources in the form of videos, and asynchronous communication tools (email). Teachers are least likely to use foreign language learning software or educational podcasts in their educational work. In Figure 1, on the left (y-axis), there is a 5-degree Likert scale, where 1 means very low popularity and 5 means very high popularity of particular software among the surveyed teachers in Poland (Śląskie Voivodeship). The popularity of digital teaching aids among teachers is illustrated in Figure 1.
Using the k-means clustering technique, it was noticed that three groups could be distinguished in the sample of teachers from the Silesia Province. The first (Cluster 1—blue, 33.33%) is characterised by the varying frequency of ICT use in education. Teachers in Cluster 1 use the eRegister most often, while the rest of the educational software is used very rarely—they most often use the interactive whiteboard, on which they usually display presentations. The second group (Cluster 2—red, 29.45%) are educationalists who seldom use ICT in education. This situation may result from their negative attitudes towards the use of ICT in education or from the poorly equipped educational facilities in which they work. The third group (Cluster 3—green, 40.22%) are teachers who use various types of hardware and software frequently or very frequently. As with Figure 1, a 5 degree scale was placed on the y-axis in Figure 2, which is a range of responses from 1—very low popularity of educational software to 5—very high popularity of educational software. The detailed distribution of particular clusters is presented in Figure 2.

7.2. RX2: Frequency of Use of Digital Teaching Aids versus Sociodemographic Variables

Gender is not a differentiating factor in the frequency of use of a variety of digital teaching aids—Wilks’ lambda = 0.95587, F(11, 246) = 1.0324, p = 0.41821. Neither does the teacher’s workplace (urban or rural) differentiate the frequency of use of digital teaching aids—Wilks’ lambda = 0.79736, F(44, 931.61) = 1.2911, p = 0.09990. However, it has been noted that selected digital teaching aids are used slightly more often in public schools than in non-public institutions. In Figure 3, it can be seen that virtual systems (eRegisters) are used much more often in public schools than in private ones. These data shatter a certain myth that public schools are underinvested in terms of digitalisation. In Figure 3, on the y-axis, there is a 6-degree scale related to the frequency of use of particular educational software. This scale includes responses ranging from 0—I never use to 5—I use the indicated software very often (in each class).

7.3. RQ3: Co-Occurrence of the Use of Digital Teaching Aids

In the vast majority of cases, the use of one digital teaching aid is linked to the use of another solution. Teachers who actively use digital resources and Internet-based opportunities are consistent in their actions. Of course, taking into account the results of the correlation coefficient, it is noticeable that these are dependencies of weak or medium strength. None of the results exceed the strong level. Since the correlation does not show the contexts of the frequency of ICT use in education—for example the operational objectives pursued, the type of subject content, and the hardware resources of the school—it should be emphasised that digital solutions are used consistently, but there are a number of variables mediating the use of ICT in education. Nevertheless, positive correlations between the frequency of diverse application solutions are discernible. It should also be noted that seniority is significantly associated in statistical terms with the frequency of use of social networks (SNS) in communication between students and teachers. This means that teachers with more seniority are slightly less likely to use SNS in their educational and pedagogical activities. Detailed correlations between the frequency of use of selected digital solutions in teaching activities are presented in Table 1.

7.4. RQ 4: Prediction of Frequency of ICT Use in Education by Teachers versus Support from School Management

This study assumes that one of the key factors for the frequency of use of digital teaching aids is the type of support used in the school environment. Strengthening the frequency of use of ICT in education can be done both through “peer” education (observation of other teachers) and through top-down measures (support from management). When constructing the research tool, it was assumed that it is the school ecosystem that is shaped by both types of interactions. Nevertheless, it is head teachers, through their attitude towards the use of new media in education and their active support (e.g., training, counselling) that to a large extent motivate teachers in the digitalisation of their teaching activities. On the basis of multivariate regression analysis, it was noted that active support from the management proved to be a key factor in increasing the frequency of ICT use in education. At the same time, paradoxically, the management’s negative attitude towards ICT also accelerates selected groups of teachers to use digital teaching aids on a more regular basis. Furthermore, other teachers’ attitude and freedom to use ICT is not a statistically significant factor for the systematic use of digital media in education. A detailed summary of the findings for the prediction of the frequency of use of digital teaching aids by teachers is presented in Table 2.

7.5. RQ5: Regulations concerning Smartphone Use versus the Frequency of Using Digital Teaching Aids in School Settings

One of the final specific questions on the frequency of use of digital teaching aids was to juxtapose that variable with the highly debatable issue of students’ use of smartphones in the school environment. On the basis of a univariate analysis of variance, it was noted that teachers who have established a total ban on the use of mobile phones in schools are also much less likely to use digital teaching aids. The bans designed in this area coexist with the low level of digitalisation of the school. The detailed distribution is presented in Figure 4, which lists situations related to smartphone use at school. This chart includes a y-axis that indicates the level of liberality–restrictiveness in this area. The y-axis has a scale from 1—this situation never occurs to 5—this situation is constant (occurs very often).
When analysing in detail the responses for the variable frequency of use of digital teaching aids in schools, it was noted that for each indicator the trend outlined above is true. When comparing the mean values, it is apparent that the use of any digital teaching aid in schools where there are restrictions on the use of phones by students is at a lower level than in schools with liberal attitude towards the use of phones or with only partial restrictions in this respect. Detailed data are presented in Table 3.

8. Discussion

The survey conducted allows for a general conclusion to be drawn about the generally positive (accepting) attitude in the group of teachers surveyed towards digital teaching aids, but at the same time the extent of their use is very limited (RQ1) [45]. It should be pointed out that the tools most frequently used by the respondents (the eRegister and interactive whiteboards) have now become a permanent and generally available element of infrastructure in most of the institutions. They are used at various levels of school organisation, while tools for electronic communication (email and instant messaging) as well as open educational resources (educational films, lesson scenarios, teaching materials available online, etc.) also do not belong to the group of aids requiring complementary competences, searches or even the development of operating skills. On the other hand, the groups of tools for which the implementation thereof requires particular attitudes or competences or is related to undertaking additional activities (substantive preparation, further education, work scenario development, etc., e.g., interactive maps, design apps, software development apps, online quizzes, foreign language learning software, etc.) are used much less frequently (they are not common) or are used regularly by a relatively small group of teachers marked in Cluster 3 (Figure 2). This group (RQ3) can be categorised as new technology enthusiasts who are generally keen to use ICT in education and are willing to explore and supplement their education in this area [43]. The conclusion that the use of new technologies by contemporary teachers is limited and of a routine nature is confirmed by research conducted in Poland [46,47,48], as well as in other European countries [43]. Indeed, there is no denying that ICTs have become a permanent part of the socio-pedagogical and educational context [49,50] and today education without digital technologies is simply impossible. At the same time, research indicates that teachers and head teachers are still afraid of the changes which take place when introducing new technologies [51], they maintain detachment from the constant implementation of ICT in their educational processes [51], and they have too little experience [52]—regardless of whether the changes are implemented in the conditions of contact-based education or pandemic-enforced remote education [46]. Teachers (RQ3), as confirmed by our survey, most often use ICT: as a form of “found” infrastructure (provided by the head teachers: e.g., the eRegister and interactive whiteboards); “autonomously” outside the classroom for searching for information (e.g., open resources and popular educational websites); and for communication with students, parents and other teachers (the eRegister and instant messaging). Instead, within the classroom, they most often use selected ICTs (quizzes, edu-apps, open resources and materials for students available online) incidentally for a specific purpose, which is to make traditional classes more interesting or more varied. Analogous conclusions were already drawn a few years ago [53]. This strategy of teachers gradually approaching technology in the institutionalised school system—from one’s own autonomous activity to its use as a form of support to the internationalisation of ICT in professional work (e.g., in the classroom)—is characteristic and has been confirmed by other studies on Polish and European educational systems. In 2017, a diagnosis of the digitalisation of Polish schools was carried out, which showed that almost half of the teachers (the students’ opinions were analysed) do not use digital resources during class. The most frequently used hardware was a computer available in the classroom and an interactive whiteboard, both of which were used in the vast majority of cases to support one-way communication, i.e., teaching methods (multimedia presentations and display of texts, photographs/graphics, animations and videos). Only 20 percent of the students surveyed indicated that they had had the opportunity to create their own digital resources during class. The teachers, on the other hand, presented opinions (which are incorrect from today’s point of view) that competences in computer science, mathematics, basic competences in science and technology (!), and learning to learn competences [5] are the most useful for the implementation of ICT in teaching. Such low rates of ICT use were widespread during that period; according to OECD data [54], fewer than 40 percent of teachers in Europe actively used ICT in the classroom, regardless of the school’s facilities and hardware (the available infrastructure) and access to technology, including online resources themselves.
According to our survey, approximately 40% of teachers in the Silesia Province implement ICT in their school teaching, despite having no previous technological experience and being only at the stage of acquiring their digital competence (RQ2). At the same time, teachers with more seniority are slightly less likely to use the digital potential of SNS social networks in their educational and pedagogical activities. On the other hand, the teachers surveyed are consistent in their use of digital teaching aids. Those experimenting with and implementing ICT in school undertake such activities regardless of the type of software and hardware available. This conclusion challenges one of the contemporary educational myths, which assumes the “omnipotent” nature of electronic media, i.e., that the very fact of equipping an institution with computer hardware would transform school reality and improve the students’ achievements [55,56].
The results of the survey cannot be separated from the issue of reasons and conditions for teachers’ use of ICT in education. Referring to the TAM model mentioned in the introduction, it should be pointed out that neither gender nor the size of the municipality/commune (RQ1) in which the school is located proved to be factors differentiating the frequency of ICT use in educational activities, which indicates a stronger role of the other factors: Social Influence and Facilitating Conditions. Both variables are strongly conditioned by the teacher’s working environment (e.g., support for and promotion of ICT by the school management) as well as by their individual experiences and competences [57]. These findings are supported by other regional studies indicating the decisive role of one’s individual beliefs related to the choice of digital tools in the teacher’s repertoire. In the process of applying ICT, the range and quality of the activities offered are determined by substantive, teaching and IT competences of the teachers and their readiness for new forms of work [58] rather than, for example, the availability of materials or the infrastructure of the institution. The importance of the attitude of the management (e.g., the head teacher) towards the use of new technologies was also found to be crucial. It should be considered more broadly in terms of the school’s policy favouring or not favouring the promotion of use of ICT in educational processes. A key factor in increasing the frequency of ICT use in education is the active support from the management; policies which include motivating, providing and developing infrastructure, organising training, and promoting specific tools in the school environment. These conclusions are confirmed by international research: The Eurydice Report [59] points out that the primary factor in the pedagogical use of digital technologies is the competence of teachers, rather than the “found” available infrastructure of a given institution, as well as the policies in place in a given environment that condition the development of those competences. The TALIS data (OECD, 2019) (diagnosis of teachers’ continuing professional development needs) also indicate a gap or no close relationship between the level of digital competence used in teachers’ private lives and the level of competence to use technology efficiently in the teaching process [60]. Specific competences in media-based pedagogy as well as attitudes—how teachers perceive digital technology as a prospect for modernising and improving their work/professional activities and how the organisational culture is being shaped in their environment—play a key role. In this context of specific competences, attitudes and policy-making by head teachers of particular schools, it is worth recalling the results of another regional study [61] on the extent to which contemporary teachers are prepared to use ICT in the educational process. The authors showed that at present the main determinants are (a) the low level of teachers’ substantive preparation for using ICT in their work, and (b) teachers’ belief that their students are more skilled at using modern technologies. The survey also revealed a third factor—seemingly bizarre, but important from a managerial perspective—that is, teachers’ anxiety (stress) related to the fear of destroying/breaking technological hardware (!) [62]. Our survey confirmed the assumption that one of the factors influencing the frequency of use of digital teaching aids is the type of support in place in the school environment, which is part of a given institution’s broader policy and includes, among other things, the management’s attitudes towards ICT use, their promotion of new solutions, and the institution’s policy on the use of smartphones by students (RQ5). In Poland, this issue is currently not being top-down regulated (imposed), and the adoption of selected solutions (e.g., a ban on the use of smartphones in class, the possibility to use smartphones during breaks, a total ban on the use of electronic devices at school, etc.) depends on the specific character and policy of a given school. About 60% of Polish schools have included a ban on the use of mobile phones in class in their statutes [4]. The survey thus confirmed that in schools with a more liberal policy towards the use of electronic devices by students, ICT is generally used more often in class. The survey thus confirmed the crucial and underestimated (in our context) importance of head teachers’ (school managers’) attitudes and support for the use of ICT, which, as the results have shown, interact with and therefore have the potential to translate into teachers’ attitudes towards integrating new technologies into their work. Similar conclusions have been drawn from other studies: among the factors that positively influenced the use of ICT in education, a key role is played by educational policy, the support available in school, and teachers’ competences, attitudes and experiences [63,64,65,66,67]. This is crucial from the perspective of the efficiency and attractiveness of education: as research indicates, students have long declared that they would like to use a greater number of technologies [68], yet they are not ready to do so because their self-assessment of digital competence is higher than its actual level in reality [69]. In view of the above, teachers’ competences and attitudes, as well as a given school’s policy to enable the above to take shape and including (inter alia) support and promotion of the use of ICT by the management, are crucial.

9. Summary

In conclusion, the survey confirmed the theses indicating the potential and possibilities of wider implementation of ICT and the generally positive attitude of teachers themselves towards it, with an unambiguously strongly limited scope for its use in the surveyed group. This study uses the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) method with Performance Expectancy, Effort Expectancy, Social Influence, Facilitating Conditions. As in other studies, the survey confirmed the key role of the following predictors of the frequency of use of digital teaching aids in school settings: the attitudes and competences of teachers themselves (who use ICT according to their own preferences and abilities) [70], and the support from the management [16], which translates into the formation of ICT implementation-friendly school policies. Not only do these policies include the availability of technological solutions—a key role is played by a group of factors that build a culture of innovation in the school ecosystem: stimulating changes in teaching and learning methods, ensuring the availability of training for teachers, rewarding the use of technology in the evaluation of their work, motivating, creating a community of learning, and sharing knowledge [71]. These factors, shaped by the school management process, translate directly into the main variables of the UTAM model: perceived usefulness and perceived ease-of-use. The study revealed that one of the indicators of school policy in this area are the regulations concerning phone use by young people: in general, schools that ban mobile devices are less likely to integrate ICT into the educational process. The study also confirmed that the mere availability of IT infrastructure at school is not a decisive and conditioning factor for the use of technology during lessons. There are cultural and educational barriers that hinder the adoption of technologies in educational practice. Translating the derived conclusions from Polish research into a broader context of the ways in which the education system operates—especially in view of the widespread availability of various (including free) tools (websites, apps, and open resources) and the limited scope of their use—it is worth noting that the process of ICT implementation in the work of schools is long-term and widely conditioned, and therefore requires adequate support and modelling to ensure universality and high quality in education [72]. The modelling in question should be conducted in parallel and system-wide on the most important levels. First is the central level: updates of core curriculum, modification of rules of assessment and evaluation of knowledge with the use of ICT, development of ICT standards for schools, and continuation and development of ICT dissemination programmes such as the Polish MOOC (Navoica), the British BECTA, the Portuguese MAGELLAN or the digital school project in Macedonia. The second—regional—level covers, e.g., provincial programmes, teacher education, and promotion of digital education leaders). The basic level of municipalities/communes and schools covers support and evaluation of teachers’ work by the head teacher, shaping school policies, and participation of schools in networks and programmes. Of course, this process is multi-sectoral and involves the activity of ICT providers themselves (selected practices include programmes such as INTEL’s Teach to the Future and AI4Youth, Samsung’s Smart School, RoboCamp, etc.). What is crucial is not only the infrastructure of schools and the availability of digital educational resources (which are currently not a problem, for educational platforms have a very rich offer), but also a change in the attitude of teachers themselves and the quality of widely available materials and digital tools, namely the promotion of the best solutions [70]. Therefore, some in the research extend UTUT to UTAUT2. The model was applied and extended to Technological Pedagogical Knowledge (perceived self-efficacy by teachers to use, for example, mobile internet) [73].
Moreover, an important element of popularisation is also their authorisation, certification and evaluation (monitoring). A kind of paradox, however, is the phenomenon that media-based education in Poland has so far been very much focused on (and sometimes limited to) the subject matter of cyber threats, while it should put emphasis on the constructive use of the new media [72,74,75,76,77]

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.S.; methodology, Ł.T. and M.S.; validation, Ł.T., M.S. and A.M.K.; formal analysis, Ł.T.; resources, M.S.; writing, M.S., Ł.T., A.M.K.; visualization, Ł.T.; project administration, M.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The project is funded under the statutory research of WSB University, Dabrowa Gornicza, Poland (decision no.: AWSB/WKBN/31/2019).

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the WSB University’ Ethic Committee (protocol code AWSB/KE/23/2019, 18/10/2019).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to the continuation of the research and the preparation of a summary report.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. European Schoolnet; University of Liège. Survey of Schools: ICT in Education Country Profil—Poland; University of Liège: Brussels, Belgium, 2012; Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/information_society/newsroom/image/document/2018-3/poland_country_profile_2FF0383F-AD7D-9EA8-C3C2ACE4EDEF9CCC_49450.pdf (accessed on 1 April 2022).
  2. Główny Urząd Statystyczny. Education in the 2019/2020 School Year; Główny Urząd Statystyczny: Warszawa, Poland, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  3. Gajderowicz, T.; Jakubowski, M. Cyfrowe Wyzwania Stojące Przed Polską Edukacją; Polski Instytut Ekonomiczny: Warszawa, Poland, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  4. Grynienko, K.; Hofman-Kozłowska, D.; Kuczyńska, A.; Srokowski, Ł. Innowacyjne Zastosowanie Rozwiązań i Narzędzi Cyfrowych w Kształceniu na Poziomie Gimnazjalnym i Ponadgimnazjalnym w Województwie Małopolskim; Raport z badań. Stowarzyszenie “Miasta w Internecie”: Tarnów, Poland, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  5. Plebańska, M.; Sieńczewska, M.; Szyller, A. Edukacja Zdalna w Czasach COVID-19. Raport z Badania; Wydział Pedagogiczny Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego: Warszawa, Poland, 2020; Available online: https://files.librus.pl/articles/00pic/20/07/09/librus/a_nauczanie_zdalne_oczami_nauczycieli_i_uczniow_RAPORT.pdf (accessed on 1 April 2022).
  6. Tinmaz, H.; Lee, H.J. A Perceptional Analysis of BYOD (Bring Your Own Device) for Educational or Workplace Implementations in a South Korean Case. Particip. Educ. Res. (PER) 2019, 6, 51–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. European Schoolnet. Bring Your Own Device for Schools. In Technical Advice for School Leaders and IT Administrators; European Schoolnet: Brussels, Belgium, 2017; Available online: http://www.eun.org/documents/411753/817341/BYOD_Technical_guide_full_v7.pdf (accessed on 1 April 2022).
  8. Umezuruike, C.; Onwodi, G. Bring Your Own Device in Education: A Review of Challenges. Int. J. Innov. Sci. Eng. Technol. 2015, 2, 351–354. [Google Scholar]
  9. Zhu, M.; Sari, A.R.; Lee, M.M. A comprehensive systematic review of MOOC research: Research techniques, topics, and trends from 2009 to 2019. Educ. Technol. Res. Dev. 2020, 68, 1685–1710. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Yousef, A.M.F.; Sumner, T. Reflections on the last decade of MOOC research. Comput. Appl. Eng. Educ. 2021, 29, 648–665. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Scherer, R.; Siddiq, F.; Tondeur, J. The technology acceptance model (TAM): A meta-analytic structural equation modeling approach to explaining teachers’ adoption of digital technology in education. Comput. Educ. 2018, 128, 13–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Davis, F.D.; Bagozzi, R.P.; Warshaw, P.R. User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Manag. Sci. 1989, 35, 982–1003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. Gromadka, D. Modele akceptacji technologii-krytyczna analiza piśmiennictwa. Akad. Zarządzania 2020, 4, 187–207. [Google Scholar]
  14. Venkatesh, V.; Morris, M.G.; Davis, G.B.; Davis, F.D. User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Q. 2003, 27, 425–478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  15. Abbad, M.M.M. Using the UTAUT model to understand students’ usage of e-learning systems in developing countries. Educ. Inf. Technol. 2021, 26, 7205–7224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Sołtysik-Piorunkiewicz, A.; Zdonek, I. Model UTAUT w świetle badań społeczeństwa informacyjnego w Polsce w obszarze e-podatków. Rocz. Kol. Anal. Ekon./Szkoła Główna Handlowa 2015, 38, 234–245. Available online: http://rocznikikae.sgh.waw.pl/p/roczniki_kae_z38_16.pdf (accessed on 1 April 2022).
  17. Carlos, A.M.; Roldán, J.; Sánchez-Franco, M.; Gonzalez, M. The moderator role of Gender in the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT): A study on users of Electronic Document Management Systems. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Partial Least Squares and Related Methods, Houston, TX, USA, 19–22 May 2012; Available online: https://idus.us.es/handle/11441/76315 (accessed on 1 April 2022).
  18. Hu, S.; Laxman, K.; Lee, K. Exploring factors affecting academics’ adoption of emerging mobile technologies-an extended UTAUT perspective. Educ. Inf. Technol. 2020, 25, 4615–4635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Obienu, A.C.; Amadin, F.I. User acceptance of learning innovation: A structural equation modelling based on the GUAM framework. Educ. Inf. Technol. 2021, 26, 2091–2123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Lau, B.; Sim, C. Exploring the extent of ICT adoption among secondary school teachers in Malaysia. Int. J. Comput. ICT Res. 2008, 2, 19–36. [Google Scholar]
  21. Jamieson-Proctor, R.M.; Burnett, P.C.; Finger, G.; Watson, G. ICT integration and teachers’ confidence in using ICT for teaching and learning in Queensland state schools. Australas. J. Educ. Technol. 2006, 22, 511–530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  22. Hernandez-Ramos, P. If not here, where? Understanding teachers use of technology in Silicon Valley Schools. J. Res. Technol. Educ. 2005, 3, 39–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Gilakjani, A. Factors contributing to teachers’ use of computer technology in the classroom. Univers. J. Educ. Res. 2013, 1, 262–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Bingimlas, K.A. Barriers to the successful integration of ICT in teaching and learning environments: A review of the literature. Eurasia J. Math. Sci. Technol. Educ. 2009, 5, 235–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Basargekar, P.; Singhavi, C. Factors Affecting Teachers’ Perceived Proficiency in Using ICT in the Classroom. IAFOR J. Educ. 2017, 5, 67–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. Basargekar, P.; Singhavi, C. Barriers Perceived by Teachers for Use of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) in the Classroom in Maharashtra, India. Int. J. Educ. Dev. Using Inf. Commun. Technol. 2019, 15, 62–78. [Google Scholar]
  27. Ghavifekr, S.; Kunjappan, T.; Ramasamy, L.; Anthony, A. Teaching and Learning with ICT Tools: Issues and Challenges from Teachers’ Perceptions. Malays. Online J. Educ. Technol. 2016, 4, 38–57. [Google Scholar]
  28. Wu, B.; Yu, X.; Hu, Y. How does principal e-leadership affect ICT transformation across different school stages in K-12 education: Perspectives from teachers in Shanghai. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 2019, 50, 1210–1225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Islami, A.R.; Abdullah, A.G.; Hakim, D.L.; Widiaty, I.; Latif, M.A.; Juhana, A.; Putra, D.E. Level of ICT literacy: The ability of elementary school teachers to use ICT investigation in Cimahi. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2019, 1375, 012096. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Hidayah, R.; Ngatman; Susiani, T.S.; Salimi, M. Suhartono How elementary school teachers use ICT-based learning media? J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2020, 1511, 012015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. The European Commission. Directorate-General of Communications Networks, Content and Technology. In 2nd Survey of Schools: ICT in Education Objective 1: Benchmark Progress in ICT in Schools; Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  32. Dawson, C.; Rakes, G.C. The Influence of Principals’ Technology Training on the Integration of Technology into Schools. J. Res. Technol. Educ. 2003, 36, 29–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Mulkeen, A. What Can Policy Makers Do to Encourage Integration of Information and Communications Technology? Evidence from the Irish School System. Technol. Pedagog. Educ. 2003, 12, 277–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Tondeur, J.; Van Keer, H.; Van Braak, J.; Valcke, M. ICT integration in the classroom: Challenging the potential of a school policy. Comput. Educ. 2008, 51, 212–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. Machado, L.J.; Chung, C.J. Integrating technology: The principals’ role and effect. Int. Educ. Stud. 2015, 8, 43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Håkansson Lindqvist, M. School leaders’ practices for innovative use of digital technologies in schools. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 2019, 50, 1226–1240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Sterrett, W.L.; Richardson, J.W. The change-ready leadership of technology-savvy superintendents. J. Educ. Adm. 2019, 57, 227–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Keane, T.; Boden, M.; Chalmers, C.; Williams, M. Effective principal leadership influencing technology innovation in the classroom. Educ. Inf. Technol. 2020, 25, 5321–5338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Polizzi, G. Measuring School Principals’ Support for ICT Integration in Palermo, Italy. J. Media Lit. Educ. 2013, 3, 113–122. Available online: https://digitalcommons.uri.edu/jmle/vol3/iss2/6 (accessed on 1 April 2022). [CrossRef]
  40. Peled, Y.; Perzon, S. Systemic model for technology integration in teaching. Educ. Inf. Technol. 2021, 27, 2661–2675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Stošić, L.; Stošić, I. Perceptions of teachers regarding the implementation of the internet in education. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2015, 53, 462–468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Tomczyk, Ł.; Szotkowski, R.; Fabiś, A.; Wąsiński, A.; Chudý, Š.; Neumeister, P. Selected aspects of conditions in the use of new media as an important part of the training of teachers in the Czech Republic and Poland-differences, risks and threats. Educ. Inf. Technol. 2017, 22, 747–767. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  43. Tomczyk, Ł.; Jáuregui, V.C.; de La Higuera Amato, C.A.; Muñoz, D.; Arteaga, M.; Oyelere, S.S.; Porta, M. Are teachers techno-optimists or techno-pessimists? A pilot comparative among teachers in Bolivia, Brazil, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Finland, Poland, Turkey, and Uruguay. Educ. Inf. Technol. 2020, 26, 2715–2741. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Piróg, D.; Wiejaczka, D. Fazy feminizacji profesji nauczycielskiej: Przykłady z wybranych krajów. Ann. Univ. Paedagog. Crac. Studia Geogr. 2020, 14, 132–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Walotek-Ściańska, K.; Szyszka, M.; Wąsiński, A.; Smołucha, D. New Media in the Social Spaces. In Strategies of Influence; Verbum: Praque, The Czech Republic, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  46. Czajkowska, M. Modern mathematics teaching with the use of computer-based tasks—reality or myth? Eduk. Anal. Transakcyjna 2020, 9, 221–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Grabowska, B.; Kwadrans, Ł. New Technologies in Polish School: Reality and Prospects for Development. Int. J. Res. E-Learn. 2018, 4, 44–56. Available online: https://www.journals.us.edu.pl/index.php/IJREL/article/view/8340 (accessed on 1 April 2022). [CrossRef]
  48. Wawrzak-Chodaczek, M. Badania nad nowymi technologiami informacyjno-komunikacyjnymi w edukacji i komunikacji w Polsce. Badacze, ośrodki, problemy badań. Studia Z Teor. Wych. 2020, XI, 55–79. Available online: https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=892187 (accessed on 1 April 2022).
  49. Purković, D.; Kovačević, S. Teachers’ Perception of the Influence of the Teaching Context on Cognitive Achievements in General Technology Education. Int. J. Cogn. Res. Sci. Eng. Educ. (IJCRSEE) 2020, 8, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Aubakirova, Z.; Kabzhanova, R.A.; Belenko, G.G.; Yu, O.; Pigovayeva, N.; Kostyunina, A. Consideration of the Basic Competencies of a Preschool Teacher in Curriculum Modernization. Int. J. Cogn. Res. Sci. Eng. Educ. 2021, 9, 91–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Klus-Stańska, D. Cyfrowi tubylcy w szkole cyfrowych imigrantów, czyli awatar w świecie Ptysia i Balbinki. Probl. Wczesnej Edukac. 2013, 9, 6–14. Available online: https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=269005 (accessed on 1 April 2022).
  52. Pyżalski, J.; Zdrodowska, A.; Tomczyk, Ł.; Abramczuk, K. Polskie Badanie EU Kids Online 2018; Najważniejsze wyniki i wnioski, Wydawnictwo Naukowe UAM: Poznań, Poland, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  53. Białek, M.; Rybińska, A. Wykorzystanie TIK w Nauczaniu i Uczeniu Się Uczniów ze SPE na Przykładzie Rządowego Programu Rozwijania Kompetencji Uczniów i Nauczycieli w Zakresie Stosowania Technologii Informacyjno-Komunikacyjnych “Cyfrowa Szkoła”; Instytut Badań Edukacyjnych: Warszawa, Poland, 2013; Available online: http://produkty.ibe.edu.pl/docs/raporty/ibe-raport-cyfrowa-szkola.pdf (accessed on 1 April 2022).
  54. PISA Technical Report 2015, 2018. Available online: https://www.oecd.org/pisa/ (accessed on 1 April 2022).
  55. Vosniadou, S.; Kollias, V. Information and Communications Technology and the problem of Teacher Training: Myths, Dreams and the Harsh Reality. Themes Educ. 2001, 2, 341–365. [Google Scholar]
  56. Lis, M. Improving the Availability of University Offerings for the Business Sector Based on Blended Learning Tools. Cult. Manag. Sci. Educ. 2021, 5, 93–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Walancik, M.; Dacko-Pikiewicz, Z. Social media and crowdsourcing in countering contemporary risks. Forum Sci. Oeconomia 2016, 4, 103–112. [Google Scholar]
  58. Romaniuk, M.W.; Łukasiewicz-Wieleba, J.; Kohut, S. Nauczyciele akademiccy wobec kryzysowej edukacji zdalnej. e-Mentor 2020, 5, 15–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Digital Education at School in Europe. Eurydice Report; Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2019; Available online: https://eurydice.org.pl/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/en_digital_education_n.pdf (accessed on 1 April 2022).
  60. Hämäläinen, R.; Nissinen, K.; Mannonen, J.; Lämsä, J.; Leino, K.; Taajamo, M. Understanding teaching professionals’ digital competence: What do PIAAC and TALIS reveal about technology-related skills, attitudes, and knowledge? Comput. Hum. Behav. 2021, 117, 106672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Potyrała, K.; Demeshkant, N.; Czerwiec, K.; Jancarz-Łanczkowska, B.; Tomczyk, Ł. Head teachers’ opinions on the future of school education conditioned by emergency remote teaching. Educ. Inf. Technol. 2021, 26, 7451–7475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Warzocha, T.; Winiarczyk, A. Jeszcze wybór czy już konieczność wykorzystywania przez nauczycieli TIK w edukacji?–opinie studentów kierunków nauczycielskich Uniwersytetu Jana Kochanowskiego w Kielcach i Uniwersytetu Rzeszowskiego. Studia Pedagogiczne. Probl. Społeczne Eduk. I Artyst. 2019, 33, 125–131. Available online: https://studiapedagogiczne.ujk.edu.pl/numery/33.pdf (accessed on 1 April 2022).
  63. Blackwell, C.; Lauricella, A.; Wartella, E. Factors influencing digital technology use in early childhood education. Comput. Educ. 2014, 77, 82–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Karaca, F.; Can, G.; Yildirim, S. A path model for technology integration into elementary school settings in Turkey. Comput. Educ. 2013, 68, 353–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Russell, M.; Bebell, D.; O’Dwyer, L.; O’Connor, K. Examining teacher technology use: Implications for preservice and inservice teacher preparation. J. Teach. Educ. 2003, 4, 297–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Seufert, S.; Guggemos, J.; Sailer, M. Technology-related knowledge, skills, and attitudes of pre-and in-service teachers: The current situation and emerging trends. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2021, 115, 106552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Sailer, M.; Stadler, M.; Schultz-Pernice, F.; Franke, U.; Schöffmann, C.; Paniotova, V.; Husagic, L.; Fischer, F. Technology-related teaching skills and attitudes: Validation of a scenario-based self-assessment instrument for teachers. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2021, 115, 106625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Newman, T.; Beetham, H. Student Digital Experience Tracker 2017: The Voice of 22,000 UK Learners; Jisc: Bristol, UK, 2017; Available online: https://www.jisc.ac.uk/rd/projects/student-digital-experience-tracker (accessed on 1 April 2022).
  69. Henriksen, D.; Henderson, M.; Creely, E.; Ceretkova, S.; Černochová, M.; Sendova, E.; Sointu, E.T.; Tienken, C.H. Creativity and technology in education: An international perspective. Technol. Knowl. Learn. 2018, 23, 409–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Lund, A.; Furberg, A.; Bakken, J.; Engelien, K. What does professional digital competence mean in teacher education? Nord. J. Digit. Lit. 2014, 9, 281–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Szczepańska-Woszczyna, K. The importance of organizational culture for innovation in the company. Forum Sci. Oeconomia 2014, 2, 27–39. Available online: http://83.230.104.195/index.php/fso/article/view/121 (accessed on 1 April 2022).
  72. Willermark, S. Technological pedagogical and content knowledge: A review of empirical studies published from 2011 to 2016. J. Educ. Comput. Res. 2018, 56, 315–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Nikolopoulou, K.; Gialamas, V.; Lavidas, K. Habit, hedonic motivation, performance expectancy and technological pedagogical knowledge affect teachers’ intention to use mobile internet. Comput. Educ. Open 2021, 2, 100041. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Veličković, S.; Stošić, L. Preparedness of educators to implement modern information technologies in their work with preschool children. Int. J. Cogn. Res. Sci. Eng. Educ. 2016, 4, 23–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  75. Toto, G.A.; Limone, P. From Resistance to Digital Technologies in the Context of the Reaction to Distance Learning in the School Context during COVID-19. Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, 163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Di Fuccio, R.; Lombardi, D.; Finestrone, F. New technologies to guarantee physical well-being: Didactic and motivational strategies. Form. Insegn. Riv. Internazionale Di Sci. Dell’educazione E Della Form. 2022, 20, 125–135. [Google Scholar]
  77. Maric, J. Digital Storytelling in Interdisciplinary and Inter-institutional Collaboration-Lessons from our Youngest. Cult. Manag. Sci. Educ. 2020, 4, 129–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 14 08339 g001 550
Figure 1. Popularity of digital teaching aids among teachers.
Figure 1. Popularity of digital teaching aids among teachers.
Sustainability 14 08339 g001
Sustainability 14 08339 g002 550
Figure 2. K-means clustering.
Figure 2. K-means clustering.
Sustainability 14 08339 g002
Sustainability 14 08339 g003 550
Figure 3. Frequency of use of digital teaching aids versus school type.
Figure 3. Frequency of use of digital teaching aids versus school type.
Sustainability 14 08339 g003
Sustainability 14 08339 g004 550
Figure 4. Regulations concerning smartphone use versus the frequency of using digital teaching aids in school settings.
Figure 4. Regulations concerning smartphone use versus the frequency of using digital teaching aids in school settings.
Sustainability 14 08339 g004
Table
Table 1. Correlation between frequency indicators for the use of digital teaching aids.
Table 1. Correlation between frequency indicators for the use of digital teaching aids.
1234567891011
1.Interactive whiteboard-
2. Educational podcasts0.3763 ***-
3. Online quizzes (e.g., Kahoot)0.4608 ***0.4658 ***-
4. Educational videos available online (e.g., TEDEX, YouTube, EduTube)0.2850 ***0.3349 ***0.3728 ***-
5. Software supporting language learning (e.g., Duolingo, Diki)0.2332 ***0.3534 ***0.3696 ***0.2809 ***-
6. Email used for effective communication between teachers and pupils0.06930.2052 ***0.2523 ***0.1961 **0.2377 ***-
7. Social networking sites used for effective communication between teachers and students0.11090.1806 **0.3404 ***0.1466 **0.2723 ***0.4345 ***-
8. Virtual education management system (“eRegister”)0.3361 ***0.1633 **0.3493 ***0.1977 ***0.08530.1738 **0.0507-
9. Interactive maps0.4012 ***0.4599 ***0.4746 ***0.2500 ***0.3728 ***0.2709 ***0.3442 ***0.2675 ***-
10. Software for drawing, designing, modelling0.3909 ***0.4713 ***0.4537 ***0.2679 ***0.2925 ***0.2099 ***0.2043 ***0.2359 ***0.4938 ***-
11. Learning to program/code (e.g., code.org, scratch)0.3289 ***0.3187 ***0.3974 ***0.2423 ***0.2712 ***0.1902 ***0.1438 ***0.2883 ***0.4001 ***0.5571 ***-
12. Seniority0.0682−0.06970.04110.0964−0.1614 **−0.0814−0.2839 ***0.2140 ***−0.0856−0.01900.1239 *
* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
Table
Table 2. Multivariate regression for the dependent variable: frequency of use of digital teaching aids by teachers.
Table 2. Multivariate regression for the dependent variable: frequency of use of digital teaching aids by teachers.
N = 256R = 0.258 R2 = 0.0670 F(6.249) = 2.9829 p < 0.000
βStd.Err. of βbStd.Err. of bt(249)p-Value
Intercept 1.4620.3833.8150.000
Seniority−0.0670.068−0.0060.006−0.9850.326
Teachers at my school have a positive attitude towards the use of ICT in education−0.0540.081−0.0620.094−0.6640.507
Teachers at my school regularly use ICT in the learning process0.0880.0840.1040.0991.0470.296
School head teachers have a positive attitude towards the use of ICT in education−0.1840.085−0.2330.108−2.1580.032
School head teachers actively support teachers’ efforts to use ICT in the learning process0.2180.0850.2350.0912.5750.011
School teachers are free to use ICT in the learning process0.1460.0810.1690.0941.8080.072
Table
Table 3. Mean values for the comparison between the frequency of ICT use in education and the regulations on the use of phones at school.
Table 3. Mean values for the comparison between the frequency of ICT use in education and the regulations on the use of phones at school.
Are Students Allowed to Use Mobile Phones at Your School?Interactive WhiteboardEducational PodcastsOnline Quizzes (e.g., Kahoot)Educational Videos Available Online (e.g., TEDEX, YouTube, EduTube)Applications Supporting Language Learning (e.g., Duolingo, Diki)Email Used for Effective Communication between Teachers and PupilsSocial Networking Sites Used for Effective Communication between Teachers and StudentsVirtual Education Management System (“eRegister”)Interactive MapsSoftware for Drawing, Designing, ModellingLearning to Program/Code (e.g., Code.org, Scratch)
They can be used both in class for learning and during breaks2.7111.3782.2442.9111.3562.8892.0674.1561.7111.6222.178
It is forbidden in class, but it is allowed during breaks3.1821.8312.1822.6231.3122.8052.4294.1172.3901.9351.688
Can be used in class, but forbidden during breaks4.0772.0262.7442.8971.2822.7441.6674.5902.0002.2562.385
There is a total ban in class and during breaks2.6911.0521.2162.7220.7842.0821.5883.1131.1031.1751.392
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Szyszka, M.; Tomczyk, Ł.; Kochanowicz, A.M. Digitalisation of Schools from the Perspective of Teachers’ Opinions and Experiences: The Frequency of ICT Use in Education, Attitudes towards New Media, and Support from Management. Sustainability 2022, 14, 8339. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14148339

AMA Style

Szyszka M, Tomczyk Ł, Kochanowicz AM. Digitalisation of Schools from the Perspective of Teachers’ Opinions and Experiences: The Frequency of ICT Use in Education, Attitudes towards New Media, and Support from Management. Sustainability. 2022; 14(14):8339. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14148339

Chicago/Turabian Style

Szyszka, Michał, Łukasz Tomczyk, and Aneta M. Kochanowicz. 2022. "Digitalisation of Schools from the Perspective of Teachers’ Opinions and Experiences: The Frequency of ICT Use in Education, Attitudes towards New Media, and Support from Management" Sustainability 14, no. 14: 8339. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14148339

APA Style

Szyszka, M., Tomczyk, Ł., & Kochanowicz, A. M. (2022). Digitalisation of Schools from the Perspective of Teachers’ Opinions and Experiences: The Frequency of ICT Use in Education, Attitudes towards New Media, and Support from Management. Sustainability, 14(14), 8339. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14148339

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop