28

New Horizons in Education, Vol.59, No.3 , December 2011

In-Service Teachers Self-Effcacy, Professional Development, and Web 2.0 Tools for
Integration
Shu Chien PAN & Teresa FRANKLIN
Ohio University
Abstract
Background: The implementation and integration of computer technologies in K-12 education has seen nearly constant
growth since the early 1980s (Culp, Honey, Mandinach & Bailey, 2003), in part because this trend has become synonymous
with skills that students will need as participants in a competitive global economy (Culp et al., 2003). It has been argued that the
integration of Web 2.0 tools into K-12 education will help students acquire such skills, as the web-based platforms offered by Web
2.0 provide an open, dynamic environment allowing all end-users to participate, interact, and collaborate with instructors, peers,
friends, and unknown people worldwide (Buffngton, 2008; Jonassen, Howland, Marra & Crismond, 2008; Solomon & Schrum,
2007). This paper investigated the relationship between in-service teachers self-effcacy and the integration of Web 2.0 tools (e.g.,
blogs, wikis, podcasts, social networking sites, image/photo sharing sites, & course management systems) at K-12 public schools
in the United States.
Goals: This study identifed the factors predicting the utilization of these Web 2.0 tools in classroom instruction. It provides
insight into the barriers of technology integration for future implementation.
Research Method: A nationwide stratifed sample frame was utilized to collect quantitative data through a web survey. A
multiple regression analysis was employed to isolate the factors infuencing the integration of Web 2.0 tools in K-12 classrooms.
Results: A total of 559 in-service teachers responded to this research invitation. The results revealed public in-service teachers
reported a low level of self-efficacy in using Web 2.0 tools, as well as a low frequency of Web 2.0 tools integration in their
classrooms. Three out of fve predictors included: teachers self-effcacy, professional development, and school administrative
support signifcantly predict the use of Web 2.0 tools.
Keywords: self-effcacy, professional development, Web 2.0
Web2.0
Shu Chien PAN, Teresa FRANKLIN

1980K-12(Culp, Honey, Mandinach & Bailey,

2003)Culp et al., 2003
Web 2.0K-12Web 2.0
Buffington, 2008;
Jonassen, Howland, Marra & Crismond, 2008; Solomon & Schrum, 2007K-12
Web 2.0Web 2.0wikipodcasts

Web 2.0

K-12Web 2.0
559 Web 2.0
Web 2.0
Web 2.0

Web 2.0
29
In-Service Teachers Self-Effcacy, Professional Development, and Web 2.0 Tools for Integration
Introduction
The use of Web 2.0 tools offers learners the
opportunity to interact with information of high quality
and depth (Lemke, Coughlin, Garcia, Reifsneider &
Baas, 2009).Web 2.0 tools facilitate collaboration and
interaction, offer possibilities for immediate feedback,
foment social connections and communities, and harness
collective intelligence with no associated costs (Buffngton,
2008; J onassen, et al., 2008; Liu, 2008; Solomon, &
Schrum, 2007). Current research indicates that using Web
2.0 tools benefits teaching and learning in educational
settings (Buffington, 2008; Jonassen et al., 2008; Lemke
et al. 2009; Solomon & Schrum, 2007). With Internet
connectivity, users can freely tailor these tools to meet their
personal needs and interests. Schools that integrate Web
2.0 tools in teaching may attract students to school work,
meet individual learning needs, develop students critical
thinking skills, provide an alternative learning environment,
expand learning outside schools, and prepare students for
lifelong learning (Lemke et al., 2009, p. 7).
Today, American students are not only familiar
with digital tools and devices (e.g., the Internet, iPod,
online games), they also often participate in the Web 2.0
environment in their personal life (Lemke et al., 2009;
Project Tomorrow, 2009b; 2010). Meanwhile, in order to
enhance their learning, students want schools to provide
more computer technology tools as well as a concomitant
reduction of limitations on school-based Internet access
(Project Tomorrow, 2008; 2009a; 2010). It is worth
noting that prior research (Bakia, Yang & Mitchell,
2008; Lemke et al., 2009; Project Tomorrow, 2009a;
2009b; 2010) indicates a large gap between teachers and
students regarding the adopting of computer technologies
for personal use and school tasks. This gap must be
bridged before computer technologies can be integrated
successfully into classrooms.
Review of Literature
Theoretical Framework: Self-Effcacy
This research study has chosen self-efficacy as
the theoretical framework for predicting the integration
of Web 2.0 tools in K-12 schools. Self-efficacy has
been used successfully by prior studies as a highly
reliable measurement for predicting the integration
or implementation of technology in education (Curts,
Tanguma & Pea, 2008; Lumpe & Chambers, 2001;
Morales, Knezek & Christensen, 2008; Niederhauser &
Perkmen, 2008).
Bandura (1997) asserts that peoples level of
motivation, affective states, and actions are based more
on what they believe than on what is objectively true (p.
2). Regardless of the accuracy of the judgment, Bandura
(1982) argues that an individuals behavioral choices are
dominated by the judgment of efficacy beliefs. In other
words, assuming an individual person possesses the proper
skills, knowledge, and incentives, and effcacy perceptions
influence that persons decision regarding the time and
effort s/he will invest in coping with stressful or difficult
situations (Bandura, 1982; 1994; Pajares, 2002).
Consequently, due to the fact that what people
do and believe may not always be consistent, peoples
behaviors are usually guided by their perceptions of self-
effcacy instead of their actual capabilities (Pajares, 2002).
Moreover, while people with high self-efficacy may
accomplish tasks far beyond their capabilities, people with
low effcacy might underestimate their ability to cope with
diffcult tasks and fail to fnish the work (Bandura, 1982).
The four principle sources of self-effcacy, including
performance accomplishment, vicarious experience,
verbal persuasion, and physiological states, have been
summarized by Bandura (1982; 1994; 1997). Performance
accomplishment, one of the most prominent sources of
self-efficacy, includes prior performance and mastery
experience, which together provide authentic experiences
30
Shu Chien PAN & Teresa FRANKLIN
leading to the development of personal effcacy (Bandura,
1977; 1982; 1984; 1997; Pajares, 2002). Tschannen-Moran
and Hoy (2007) found that mastery experiences are the
most effective sources of teachers self-efficacy beliefs.
This research examines performance accomplishment with
regard to the use of Web 2.0 tools.
Professional Development
The efficiency of professional development
influences the adoption and integration of technology in
classroompractice (Lawless & Pellegrino, 2007; Rickard,
Blin & Appel, 2006;). Prior research conducted by King
(2002) indicated that professional development not only
improved pedagogy but also practice in using educational
technologies.
Professional development also depends to an extent
on access to the technologies in question. According to a
National Center for Education Statistics survey (2000),
almost all (99%) public school teachers had access to
computers and the Internet at school and more than half
(66%) indicated that they used computers or the Internet
for classroom instruction. Evidence suggested that the
more teachers participate in professional development, the
more they implement technologies into their instruction
and the more confdent they are in the use of technology
(Chen, 2008; King, 2002; Project Tomorrow, 2009a; Wells
& Lewis, 2006).
Teachers Self-Effcacy
A considerable number of studies have documented
that professional development enhances teachers beliefs of
self-effcacy regarding the integration and implementation
of technology for practical instruction (Albion, 2001;
Chen, 2008, Curts, et al., 2008; Faseyitan, et al., 1996;
Lumpe & Chambers, 2001; Milbrath & Kinzie, 2000;
Niederhauser & Perkmen, 2008; Overbaugh & Lu, 2008;
Wang, Ertmer & Newby, 2004; Watson, 2006). Factors
infuencing teachers self-effcacy in integrating technology
include comfort using computers (Albion, 2001), time
to integrate curriculum, instruction, access to Internet at
home (Curts et al., 2008), teacher training (Watson, 2006),
vicarious experience (Wang et al., 2004) and confdence in
performing computer tasks (Ropp, 1999).
Watson (2006) indicated that teachers self-efficacy
was significantly improved and sustained over time after
the training program. A study conducted by Overbaugh
and Lu (2008) investigated the impact of professional
development among 377 in-service K-12 teachers and
agreed with prior research as to the positive relationship
of self-efficacy with the integration of technology in
classroominstructions (Chen, 2008; Faseyitan et al., 1996;
Lumpe & Chambers, 2001; Milbrath & Kinzie, 2000;
Watson, 2006).
School Administrative Support
The ubiquitous nature of the Internet offers rich
opportunities for students and teachers alike when
approaching Web 2.0 tools for school use. According to
Wells and Lewis (2006), all U.S. public schools had access
to the Internet by the year 2000, and evidence confrms that
this ubiquitous access to computers has yielded progress
in student use of technology in classrooms (Bakia, et al.,
2008). Penuel (2006) reported that students now have more
opportunity to practice computer technologies and resulting
improvements can be seen not only in students technology
literacy and skill but also in stronger writing skills. Still,
according to the Project Tomorrows (2008) online survey,
almost half (45%) of middle school students complained
about being frustrated and dissatisfied with the adoption
of flters and frewalls for Internet security and irritated at
technology usage rules at their schools. Online security
seems to be an area of disagreement between students and
schools.
Research studies indicate that the utilization of Web
31
In-Service Teachers Self-Effcacy, Professional Development, and Web 2.0 Tools for Integration
2.0 for disseminating various subject contents at numerous
grade levels has not yet been widely implemented in real
classrooms (Lemke et al., 2009; Liu, 2008). In order to
implement Web 2.0 tools in the school setting, school
systems must undergo restructuring according to the six
categories identified by Lemke et al. (2009), including
instructional approach; focus on student-centered learning;
systemic change to effective use of Web 2.0; time and
resources for professional development; accommodations
for 24/7 learning; and greater access to technology and the
Internet (p. 41).
Method
Participants
A total of 559 in-service K-12 public school teachers
responded to the research invitation e-mail message from
the researchers. These stratified random samples were
recruited from 3 subgroups within 12 states. The frst group
was based on a regional classification (Northeast, South,
Midwest, and West) that is based on the census regions and
divisions of the United States (U.S. Census Bureau, 2009).
The second group was randomly selected from school
districts by using the Statistical Package for Social Science
(SPSS) program version 17 software. The fnal sample lists
were randomly selected from schools among the second
group. The response rate from the Web survey was 17%. A
total of 461 participants flled out the Web survey, while 98
participants indicated their lack of interest in participating
in the study.
A total of 379 valid data were used to report the
demographic information within 137 (36.1%) male
participants and 242 (63.9%) female participants; between
the age of 22 to 73 years old (M=42.64, SD=11.35);
within teaching experience between 0 to 50 years (M=
13.32, SD=9.47), and using technology in teaching ranged
from0 to 38 years (M=8.04, SD=6.67).
Procedures
The data was collected over a three-week period
starting in late January 2010. Target participants were
recruited by sending out an individual invitation e-mail
letter that included the purpose of the study, the URL link
of the web survey, and the request that they participate in
this research study. Two reminders were sent to remind
participants who did not fll out the Web survey online to
participate in this study.
Instruments
Validity and reliability.
Face validity and sampling-content validity, are
commonly used in measuring the validity of instruments
(Light, Singer & Wilett, 1990). Three college faculty
professors are experts in the feld of computer technology
and education research from a Research I university in
Midwestern United States. They reviewed and revised
all the items of the two instruments which were used
for this research study. Their review help to overcome
the imperfectness of achieving face validity (Light et
al., 1990) due to the lack of statistical index of content
validity (Mueller, 1986, p. 63). Therefore, a pilot study
was conducted 4 months prior to the fnal research study
with a response rate of 84% with 16 valid data samples
of teacher candidates that represented the potential target
population. This was carried out to achieve the measure
of content validity (Light et al., 1990) and did support the
content validity to a certain degree. First, the respondents
of the pilot study did not report confusing wording or
unclear statements for the understanding and answering of
questions within the instrument. In addition, the pilot study
revealed similar results as the fnal study, which reported
participants rarely used Web 2.0 tools.
Cronbachs alpha coeffcient was utilized to test the
internal consistency of the instruments for this research
study in order to learn the consistence of the responses.
32
Shu Chien PAN & Teresa FRANKLIN
The internal reliability of the pilot study was .78 for Web
2.0 tools integration instrument (WTII) and .98 for Web
2.0 tools integration self-efficacy instrument (WTISEI)
respectively. Based on the results of the pilot study and
suggestions of the experts, a revision of the instruments
was constructed. In addition, the Cronbach alpha for WTII
instrument was .65 and for WTISEI was.98 respectively.
Web 2.0 tools integration instrument
(WTII).
The 6-item WTII was modifed from prior research
studies (Milbrath & Kinzie, 2000; Vannatta & Fordham,
2004) aimed at measuring the current use frequency of
Web 2.0 tools in school classrooms. There were six items
accompanied by a fve-point Likert scale with the following
labels: daily (5), at least once a week (4), at least once
a month (3), at least once a year (2) and never (1). The
participants were to rate the use frequency of Web 2.0 tools
in their classrooms. The Cronbach alpha for this instrument
was .65.
Web 2.0 tools integration self-effcacy
instrument (WTISEI).
The 30-item WTISEI was developed by modifying
similar prior research on computer technology applications
(Curts, et al., 2008; Milbrath & Kinzie, 2000; Morales, et
al., 2008; Niederhauser & Perkmen, 2008; Ropp, 1999;
Wang, et al., 2004), as well as taking into account the
guideline for self-effcacy scales construction as proposed
by Bandura (2006). It focused on assessing the level of
teachers self-efficacy in using Web 2.0 tools in their
teachings. There were five items for each Web 2.0 tool
accompanied by a fve-point Likert scale: strongly agree
(5), agree (4), neutral (3), disagree (2), and strongly
disagree (1). This instrument requested participants to rate
their agreement according to statements describing their
skill in operating Web 2.0 tools (e.g., when using Web
2.0 tools in teaching, I feel confdent that I can use course
management systems to create quizzes for my students
online). This instrument obtained a high reliability of
Cronbach alpha .98.
Data Analysis
Research methods and descriptive statistics were used
to analyze demographic information, to calculate the use
frequency of Web 2.0 tools, and to determine teachers self-
efficacy in using Web 2.0 tools. Multiple regression was
utilized to answer the previous defined research question
What factors predict teachers use of Web 2.0 tools in
K-12 classrooms?
Results
Use of Web 2.0 tools.
The 6-item WTII instrument resulted in 434 valid
data reporting the use frequency of Web 2.0 tools in school
classrooms, in responding to six Web 2.0 tools, including
blogs (M=1.25, SD=.77), wikis (M=1.44, SD=.98),
podcasts (M=1.31, SD=.75), social networking sites
(SNSs) (M=1.37, SD=1.0), image/photo sharing sites
(IPSs) (M=1.61, SD=1.01), and course management
systems (CMSs) (M=1.89, SD=1.45). The participants,
in general, reported a very low frequency of using Web
2.0 tools: the mean of the average use of these Web 2.0
tools was only 1.47 (SD=.62), which suggests that teachers
tended toward the response of never in terms of using
these tools.
The results indicated that most participants reported
they never used Web 2.0 tools, ranging from383 (Blogs,
88.2%) to 296 (CMSs, 68.2%). In contrast, few participants
reported they used Web 2.0 tools every day, with a range of
4 (Podcast, 0.9%) to 52 (CMSs, 12%).
Teachers self-effcacy in using Web 2.0
tools.
As the WTISEI instrument was comprised of 30
items, some items were found to be missing among
participants. Therefore, there are different numbers of valid
33
In-Service Teachers Self-Effcacy, Professional Development, and Web 2.0 Tools for Integration
data reported among individual Web 2.0 tools.
The participants were asked to rate their skills in
operating Web 2.0 tools, their confidence levels are as
follows: IPSs (M=3.46, SD=1.34), SNSs (M=3.32, SD=
1.25), CMSs (M=3.32, SD=1.25), Blogs (M=3.08, SD=
1.35), Podcasts (M=2.81, SD=1.28), and Wikis (M=2.77,
SD=1.29). The average use of these Web 2.0 tools (M=
3.13, SD= 1.11) indicates that teachers self-effcacy tended
to be neutral, which means they were unsure if they had
enough confdence to use these Web 2.0 tools.
In comparing the mean of the use frequency of Web
2.0 tools and teachers self-effcacy in operating these Web
2.0 tools, the results suggest that the uncertainty of teachers
confdence in using Web 2.0 tools agreed with the rare use
of these tools in their teaching.
Factors predicting the use of Web 2.0
tools in teaching.
Due to the fact that 136 participants were treated
as missing data as they had reported they do not know
Web 2.0 tools in responding to the survey item school
administrative support the use of Web 2.0 tools, only 243
data were used to conduct the multiple regression equation.
After deleting the outliers and infuential cases, a total of
236 valid data were used to conduct the multiple regression
analysis in predicting the use of Web 2.0 tools at schools.
A hierarchical regression was utilized for multiple
regression analysis in order to identify the variable most
influential in predicting the outcome. First, factors such
as professional development, access to Web 2.0 tools
at school, access to Web 2.0 tools at home, and school
administrative support were entered together in the first
step. Then, teachers self-effcacy in using Web 2.0 tools
was calculated with the above factors in step 2.
The F-ratios indicate two of the models are a good
ft, and both have signifcant results (Table 1): the F-ratio
is 10.426 (p <.05) in step 1 and 14.196 (p <.05) in step
2. The results suggest that in model two, the entered of
variable teachers self-efficacy in using Web 2.0 tools
predicts the outcome not only signifcantly but even better,
as it explains an additional 8.3% of variance (Table 1).
This result suggests that teachers self-effcacy is a strong
predictor for the integration of Web 2.0 tools in school
classrooms.
Table 1
Summary of R
2
Values and R
2
Changes at Each Step in the Hierarchical Multiple Regression
Predictors
Included
R
2
for Model Adjusted R
2
F for Model R
2
Change F for R
2
Change
Step 1 0.153 .138 F(4, 231)=
10.426*
0.153 F(4, 231)=
10.426*
Step 2 0.236 .219 F(1, 230)=
14.196*
0.083 F(1, 230)=
24.950*
Note. dependent variable: web 2.0 tools integration, * p <.05.
Step 1: professional development, access to web 2.0 tools at school, access to web 2.0 tools at home, school
administrative support.
Step 2: professional development, access to web 2.0 tools at school, access to web 2.0 tools at home, school
administrative support, teachers self-effcacy in using Web 2.0 tools.
The results suggest that three out of fve independent
variables, including professional development
(t(230)=2.349, p<.05), school administrative support
(t(230)=2.969, p<.05) and teachers self-effcacy in using
Web 2.0 tools( t(230)=4.995, R2=0.083, p<.05), contribute
signifcantly to the multiple regression equation (Table 2).
34
Shu Chien PAN & Teresa FRANKLIN
The independent variables explained the outcome
to a medium degree with the effect size of .31 in this
multiple regression model. It suggests that factors including
teachers self-efficacy in using Web 2.0, professional
development, access to Web 2.0 tools at school, access to
Web 2.0 tools at home, and school administrative support
had a mediumeffect on the integration of Web 2.0 tools in
K-12 public school classrooms.
Table 2
Results of Hierarchical Multiple Regression
B SE B t Sig.
Step 1
Constant 1.144 0.093 12.313 .000
Professional development 0.007 0.002 0.200
*
3.196 .002
Access to Web 2.0 tools at school 0.127 0.097 0.103 1.303 .194
Access to Web 2.0 tools at home -0.043 0.086 -0.033 -0.506 .613
School administrative support 0.113 0.039 0.228
*
2.869 .004
Step 2
Constant 0.628 0.136 4.614 .000
Professional development 0.005 0.002 0.142
*
2.349 .020
Access to Web 2.0 tools at school 0.132 0.093 0.108 1.427 .155
Access to Web 2.0 tools at home -0.131 0.083 -0.098 -1.569 .118
School administrative support 0.111 0.037 0.224
*
2.969 .003
Teachers self-effcacy in using Web 2.0 tools 0.176 0.035 0.302
*
4.995 .000
Note. R
2
=0.153 for step 1, R
2
=0.083 for step 2, dependent variable: Web 2.0 tools integration, * p<.05
Teachers suggestions for using Web
2.0 tools.
Additional qualitative data were collected voluntarily
by a short open-ended question at the end of the survey
in order to gain detailed information from participants
about their opinions or suggestions for using Web 2.0
tools with students. Participants reported that schools
either fltered or blocked some Web 2.0 tools sites for the
purpose of protecting students from coming into contact
with unwanted or inappropriate materials. This action not
only prevented students fromaccessing Web 2.0 tools but
also discouraged teachers from adopting these tools in
their classrooms. In addition, teachers reported that they
had limited resources, supports, training, knowledge, and
experience; furthermore, they lacked confidence in using
these tools.
The unknown of e-safety is one of the main
concerns for teachers, school administrators, and parents
in encouraging students to use Web 2.0 tools. Participants
reported that the needs of safety protocols and use policies
should be taken into serious consideration when integrating
Web 2.0 tools in school classrooms.
Discussions
The independent variables teachers self-efficacy,
professional development, and school administrative
support significantly predict the integration of Web 2.0
tools in schools was supported by the multiple regression
equation analysis. These three factors are vital issues when
considering the integration of Web 2.0 in teaching and will
be discussed as below.
Prior research studies indicated teachers with a high
or strong sense of self-efficacy tended to exert greater
35
In-Service Teachers Self-Effcacy, Professional Development, and Web 2.0 Tools for Integration
efforts (Knoblauch & Hoy, 2008) and are more willing to
integrate new implementations (Evers, Brouwers & Tomic,
2002) into their teaching. The results of this study suggest
teachers self-effcacy in using Web 2.0 tools is the primary
predictor of Web 2.0 tools integration in school classrooms.
This fnding agrees with prior research studies showing that
self-effcacy is a reliable predictor of behavior change for
new technology integration.
Furthermore, this independent variable was positive
significantly related to Web 2.0 tools integration with a
Pearson correlation coefficient of r =.302, p =.000 (p
<.05). This indicates the increase in self-efficacy was
correlated with an increase in the use of Web 2.0 tools.
As the study showed that teachers are uncertain regarding
their ability to implement Web 2.0 tools, this would seem
to agree with the current rare use of these 2.0 tools in K-12
public schools.
Prior research (Albion, 2001; Chen, 2008, Curts et al.,
2008; Faseyitan, et al., 1996; Lumpe & Chambers, 2001;
Milbrath & Kinzie, 2000; Niederhauser & Perkmen, 2008;
Overbaugh & Lu, 2008; Wang et al., 2004; Watson, 2006)
suggests that professional development is one of the most
important factors infuencing whether school teachers use
and implement classroom technology, which agrees with
the finding of this study. Professional development not
only signifcantly predicts but is also positive signifcantly
related to the outcome with a Pearson correlation
coeffcient of r = .142, p = .020 (p < .05). This suggests that
an increase in professional development was correlated
with an increase in the use of Web 2.0 tools.
The literature reviewed indicates that professional
development enhances teachers beliefs of self-efficacy
(Faseyitan et al., 1996; Overbaugh & Lu, 2008), which
assists teachers in implementing technology in their
instructional settings. Evidence suggests that as teachers
spend more time in professional development, they
increase their confidence in using technology, as well
as their willingness to implement technologies in their
instruction (Chen, 2008; King, 2002; Project Tomorrow,
2009a; Wells, & Lewis, 2006).
Both quantitative and qualitative data suggest the need
for school administrative support for the integration of Web
2.0 tools in instructional settings. The Pearson correlation
coefficient among school administrative support and the
outcome is r =.224, p =.003 (p <.05), which suggests an
increase in school administrative support is associated with
an increase in teachers use of Web 2.0 tools in classrooms.
The qualitative data suggested that school districts and
administrations not only need to understand the benefits
but provide technology resources for the integration of
Web 2.0 tools. Meanwhile, the re-evaluation of the use
policy regarding the practice of blocking or filtering out
certain Web 2.0 tools by schools is a concern because the
limitation of accessing Web 2.0 tools at school prevents
teachers fromadopting these tools in their classrooms.
The truth is many of students live in this web world
on a daily basis (Project Tomorrow, 2009a), and they are
consumers of Web 2.0 tools (Project Tomorrow, 2008;
2009b; 2010). An initial (and periodically repeated)
technology literacy education training (Penrod, 2008)
should be considered to aid in the use of these Web 2.0 tools
for both teachers and students. Armed with technology
literacy, students could learn the use and applications of
technology and transfer this knowledge into their life and
learning to compete in the 21
st
century.
Recommendations
Self-effcacy is a perception but not a real action and
this research study only focused on self-reported answers
among the participants in using Web 2.0 tools instead of
testing the technology operating skills. Further research
including pre-test and post-test could be conducted in
order to investigate the improvements in using these tools
in practical conditions. Professional development was an
additional predictor that was found to play a vital role in
integrating Web 2.0 tools in school classrooms. Further
36
Shu Chien PAN & Teresa FRANKLIN
study focuses on examining individual teachers needs in
different subject areas might facilitate further integration of
Web 2.0 tools. The results suggest that the need for school
administrative support is one of the influential factors in
implementing these tools in teaching. Studies involving
school districts, administrators, and decision makers, about
the barriers for integrating Web 2.0 tools at schools, may be
warranted for future research.
Conclusions
Students are growing up surrounded by a
technologically rich environment. They are familiar with
digital tools as well as with practicing in the Web 2.0
environment for both their personal and academic work
(Lemke, et al., 2009; Project Tomorrow, 2009b; 2010).
Findings fromprior research studies as well as this study
suggest a large gap between teachers and students in the
use of Web 2.0 tools. Meanwhile, the integration of Web
2.0 tools in school classroom is in its infancy: the results
provided here suggest public teachers only rarely adopt
Web 2.0 tools in their teaching. In order to help teachers
meet the needs of their students learning in using Web
2.0 tools, well designed professional development, as well
as school administrative support from their school (e.g.,
Internet or Web 2.0 tools use policy, technology literacy
training) are needed to increase self-effcacy in operating
these tools.
References
Albion, P. R. (2008). Web 2.0 in teacher education: Two imperatives
for action. Computers in the Schools, 25(3), 181-198.
Bakia, M., Yang, E., & Mitchell, K. (2008). National Educational
Technology Trends Study: Local-level data summary.
Retrieved July 1, 2009, fromhttp://www.ed.gov/rschstat/
eval/tech/netts/netts-local.pdf
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of
behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191-215.
Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency.
American Psychologist, 37, 122-147.
Bandura, A. (1984). Recycling misconceptions of perceived self-
effcacy. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 8(3), 231-255.
Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy. In V. S. Ramachaudran (Ed.),
Encyclopedia of human behavior (Vol. 4, pp. 71-81). New
York: Academic Press. (Reprinted in H. Friedman [Ed.],
Encyclopedia of mental health. San Diego: Academic
Press, 1998).
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-effcacy: The exercise of control. New York:
Freeman.
Bandura, A. (2006). Guide for constructing self-effcacy scales. In F.
Pajares & T. Urdan (Eds.), Adolescence and education:
Vol. 4. Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents (pp. 307-338).
Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
Buffington, L. M. (2008). Creating and consuming Web 2.0 in art
education. Computers in the Schools, 25(3), 303-313.
Chen, Y. L. (2008). Modeling the determinants of Internet use.
Computer & Education, 51(2), 545-558.
Culp, K. M., Honey, M., Mandinach, E., & Bailey, J. (2003). A
retrospective on twenty years of education technology
policy. Retrieved July 14, 2009, fromhttp://www.ed.gov/
about/offces/list/os/technology/plan/2004/site/docs_and_
pdf/20yearsdocrevised.pdf
Curts, J ., Tanguma, J ., & Pea, C. M. (2008). Predictors
of Hispanic school teachers self-efficacy in the
pedagogical uses of technology. Computers in the
Schools, 25(1), 48-63.
Evers, W. J. G., Brouwers, A., & Tomic, W. (2002). Burnout and self-
effcacy: A study on teachers beliefs when implementing
an innovative educational system in the Netherlands.
British Journal of Educational Psychology, 72(2), 227-243.
Faseyitan, S., Libii, J., & Hirschbuhl, J. (1996). An inservice model
for enhancing faculty computer self efficacy. British
Journal of Educational Technology, 27(3), 214-226.
Jonassen, D., Howland, J., Marra, R. M., & Crismond, D. (2008).
Meaningful learning with technology (3
rd
ed.). Upper
Saddle River, N.J.: Pearson/Merrill Prentice Hall.
King, K. P. (2002). Educational technology professional development
as transformative learning opportunities. Computers &
Education, 39(3), 283-297.
Knoblauch, D., & Hoy, A. W. (2008). Maybe I can teach those kids.
the influence of contextual factors on student teachers
efficacy beliefs. Teaching & Teacher Education, 24(1),
166-179.
Lawless, K. A., & Pellegrino, J. W. (2007). Professional development
in integrating technology into teaching and learning
knowns, unknowns, and ways to pursue better questions
and answers. Review of Educational Research, 77(4), 575-
614.
Lemke, C., Coughlin, E., Garcia, L., Reifsneider, D., & Baas, J.
(2009). Leadership for Web 2.0 in education: promise and
reality. Culver City, CA: Metiri Group. Commissioned by
CoSN through support fromthe John D. and Catherine T.
MacArthur Foundation.
Light, R. J., Singer, J. D., & Willett, J. B. (1990). By design: Planning
reserach on higher education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Liu, L. (2008). Web 2.0 articles: content analysis and a statistical
model to predict recognition of the need for new
instructional design strategies. Computers in the Schools,
25(3), 314-328.
Lumpe, A. T., & Chambers, E. (2001). Assessing teachers context
beliefs about technology use. Journal of Research on
Technology in Education, 34(1), 93-107.
Milbrath, Y. C. L., & Kinzie, M. (2000). Computer technology
37
In-Service Teachers Self-Effcacy, Professional Development, and Web 2.0 Tools for Integration
training for prospective teachers: Computer attitudes and
perceived self-effcacy. Journal of Technology and Teacher
Education, 8(4), 373-396.
Morales, C., Knezek, G., & Christensen, R. (2008). Self-effcacy
ratings of technology proficiency among teachers in
Mexico and Texas. Computers in the Schools, 25(1),
126-144.
Mueller, D. J. (1986). Measuring social attitudes. New York, NY:
Teachers Collee, Colubmia U.
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (2000). Teacher use
of computer and the Internet in public schools. Retrieved
May 26, 2009, fromhttp://nces.ed.gov/pubs2000/2000090.
pdf
Niederhauser, D. S., & Perkmen, S. (2008). Validation of the
Intrapersonal technology integration scale: Assessing the
infuence of intrapersonal factors that infuence technology
integration. Computers in the Schools, 25(1), 98-111.
Overbaugh, R.; & Lu, R. (2008). The impact of a NCLB-EETT
funded professional development programon teacher self-
effcacy and resultant implementation. Journal of Research
on Technology in Education, 41(1), 43-61.
Pajares, F. (2002). Overview of social cognitive theory and of self-
effcacy. Retrieved April 22, 2009, fromhttp://www.emory.
edu/EDUCATION/mfp/eff.html
Penrod, D. (2008). Web 2.0, meet literacy 2.0. Educational
Technology Magazine: The Magazine for Managers of
Change in Education, 48(1), 50-52.
Project Tomorrow. (2008). Speak up 2007 for students, teachers,
parents & school leaders selected national findings -
April 8, 2008. Retrieved July 10, 2009, fromhttp://www.
tomorrow.org/docs/National%20Findings%20Speak%20
Up%202007.pdf
Project Tomorrow. (2009a). Learning in the 21st century: 2009
trends update. Retrieved J uly 15, 2009, from http://
www.blackboard.com/resources/k12/Bb_K12_09_
TrendsUpdate.pdf
Project Tomorrow. (2009b). Selected national findings: Speak up
2008 for students, teachers, parents and administrators.
March 24, 2009. Retrieved May 13, 2010, fromhttp://
www.tomorrow.org/docs/SU08_selected%20national_
fndings_complete.pdf
Project Tomorrow. (2010). Creating our future: Students speak
up about their vision for 21st century learning.
Retrieved May 13, 2010, from http://www.tomorrow.
org/speakup/pdfs/SU09NationalFindingsStudents&Pa
rents.pdf
Penuel, W. R. (2006). Implementation and effects of one-to-one
computing initiatives: A research synthesis. Journal of
Research on Technology in Education, 38(3), 329-348.
Rickard, A., Blin, F., & Appel, C. (2006). Training for trainers:
Challenges, outcomes, and principles of in-service training
across the Irish education system. In P. Hubbard & M.
Levy (Eds.), Teacher education in CALL (pp. 203-218).
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Ropp, M. (1999). Exploring individual characteristics associated
with learning to use computers in preservice teacher
preparation. Journal of Research on Computing in Edu,
31(4), 402-425.
Solomon, G., & Schrum, L. (2007). Web 2.0: New tools, new schools.
Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in
Education.
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, A. W. (2007). The differential
antecedents of self-efficacy beliefs of novice and
experienced teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education,
23(6), 944-956.
U.S. Census of Bureau. (2009). Census bureau regions and divisions
with state FIPS codes. Retrieved September 16, 2009,
fromhttp://www.census.gov/popest/geographic/codes02.
html
Vannatta, R. A., & Fordham, N. (2004). Teacher dispositions as
predictors of classroom technology use. Journal of
Research on Technology in Education, 36(3), 253-271.
Wang, L., Ertmer, P.A., & Newby, T. J. (2004). Increasing preservice
teachers self-efficacy beliefs for technology integration.
Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 36(3),
231-250.
Watson, G. (2006). Technology professional development: Long-term
effects on teacher self-effcacy. Journal of Technology and
Teacher Education, 14(1), 151-165.
Wells, J., & Lewis, L. (2006). Internet access in U.S. public schools
and classrooms: 19942005. (NCES 2007-020). U.S.
Department of Education. Washington, DC: National
Center for Education Statistics.
Authors
Shu-chien PAN, Ph.D.,
Instructional Technology Dept. Educational Studies, Ohio University
Tel: (740) 274-1551
[[email protected]]
Dr. Teresa FRANKLIN
Professor, Instructional Technology ProgramCoordinator,
Dept. Educational Studies,
Gladys W. & David H. Patton College of Education and Human
Services
McCracken Hall 313 D, Ohio University, Athens, OH 45701
Tel: 740-541-8847(Cell); 740-593-4561 (offce)
[[email protected]]
Received: 5.11.11, accepted 8.12.11, revised 9.12.11.
38
Shu Chien PAN & Teresa FRANKLIN
Appendix A: Web 2.0 tools integration instrument (WTII)
39
New Horizons in Education, Vol.59, No.3 , December 2011
Appendix B: Web 2.0 tools integration self-effcacy instrument (WTISEI)
40
New Horizons in Education, Vol.59, No.3 , December 2011