Exploring Barriers to Technology Integration in Mathematics Teaching: A Study of Lebanese Public Secondary School Teachers’ Perspectives and the Influence of
Exploring Barriers to Technology Integration in Mathematics Teaching: A Study of Lebanese Public Secondary School Teachers’ Perspectives and the Influence of
Gender and Teaching Years of Experience
استكشاف عوائق دمج التكنولوجيا في تدريس الرياضيات: دراسة من وجهة نظر معلمي مدارس المرحلة الثانوية الرسمية في لبنان وتأثير الجنس وسنوات الخبرة في التعليم
حسين بلّوط [1]Hussein M. Ballout
[2]Nina Y. Hayfa نينا هيفا
Abstract
This study investigates the barriers hindering technology integration among mathematics teachers in Lebanese public secondary schools. It also explores how gender and teaching years of experience impact the integration of technology in the teaching process. This study utilized a mixed-method approach of investigation, which applies both qualitative and quantitative methods. Data were collected from a sample of 186 mathematics teachers selected randomly from all Lebanese territories. The data was gathered through survey questionnaires containing closed-ended items and one opened-ended item. The study identifies several significant direct barriers, including wavering dedication, negative attitude, self-doubt, constrained time, inadequate preparation, and questionable effectiveness. Additionally, indirect barriers such as outdated curriculum, insufficient and ineffective training, stagnant school culture, restricted technology accessibility, and a dearth of useful software options. are also highlighted. The findings underscore the importance of addressing these barriers through initiatives like dedicated curriculum time, comprehensive training, and equitable resource access to support teachers in overcoming challenges. By doing so, educators can enhance technology use and create more engaging learning experiences. The study also identifies ability, uncertainty, trust, infrastructure, and motivation as the main barriers reported by participants. Furthermore, gender is not found to be a statistically significant factor in technology use among teachers, and teachers’ proficiency level (years of teaching experience) does not significantly influence technology adoption in mathematics teaching, indicating the presence of other influential factors.
خلاصة
تقوم هذه الدراسة على استكشاف العوائق التي تعيق عملية دمج التكنولوجيا بين معلمي الرياضيات في المدارس الثانوية الرسمية في لبنان، وتستكشف كيفية تأثير الجنس وسنوات الخبرة في التدريس على عملية دمج التكنولوجيا في عملية التعليم. تعتمد هذه الدراسة على منهج مختلط ، حيث يتم استخدام كل من الأساليب النوعية والكمية. تم جمع البيانات من عينة تضم 186 معلمًا للرياضيات تم اختيارهم بشكل عشوائي من جميع المناطق اللبنانبة. تم جمع البيانات من خلال استبيان يحتوي على أسئلة مغلقة وسؤال مفتوح واحد. تحدد الدراسة عدة عوائق مباشرة، بما في ذلك الإخلاص، والموقف السلبي، عدم الثقة بالنفس، والوقت المحدود، والتحضير غير الكافي، وعدم الفعالية. بالإضافة إلى عوائق غير مباشرة مثل المنهاج القديم، والتدريب غير الكافي وغير الفعّال، وثقافة المدرسة، وصعوبة الوصول إلى التكنولوجيا، والنقص في خيارات البرمجيات المفيدة. تؤكد النتائج على أهمية التعامل مع هذه العوائق من خلال مبادرات مثل تخصيص وقت كاف للمنهج، وتدريب شامل، والوصول إلى الموارد لدعم المعلمين للتغلب على التحديات. من خلال ذلك، يمكن للمعلمين تعزيز استخدام التكنولوجيا وخلق تجارب تعليمية تعتمد على المشاركة الأفضل. تحدد الدراسة أيضًا القدرة، وعدم اليقين، والثقة، والبنية التحتية، والدافع كعوائق رئيسية تم الإبلاغ عنها من قبل المشاركين. زيادة على ذلك، لم يتم العثور على أن الجنس هو عامل ذو دلالة إحصائية في استخدام التكنولوجيا بين المعلمين، ولا يؤثر مستوى كفاءة المعلمين(سنوات الخبرة في التعليم) بشكل ذو دلالة إحصائية على اعتماد التكنولوجيا في تدريس الرياضيات، مما يشير إلى وجود عوامل أخرى مؤثرة.
Keywords: Technology Integration, Barriers to Technology Integration, Gender, Teaching Years of Experience, Secondary School Mathematics Teachers.
المفاتيح: دمج التكنولوجيا، عوائق دمج التكنولوجيا، الجنس، سنوات الخبرة في التعليم، معلمي الرياضيات في التعليم الثانوي
Introduction
Since the turn of the 21st century, the use of technology has exerted a significant influence on education systems worldwide, regardless of a country’s development status. Recognizing the potential benefits, the U.S. Department of Education introduced the “Education Through Technology Act of 2001,” which emphasized the importance of incorporating technology into school curricula and instruction to enhance students’ academic performance (U.S. Department of Education, 2001).
In 2012, the Lebanese Ministry of Education and Higher Education (MEHE) introduced a strategic plan titled “Teaching and Learning in the Digital Age: Lebanon’s National Educational Technology Strategic Plan”. This plan served as a five-year roadmap, spanning from September 2012 to September 2017, to guide the use and utilization of technology in the curricula of pre-tertiary and post-secondary educational systems in Lebanon. Developed by the Ministry of Education and Higher Education Strategic Planning Development Team (2012), the plan aimed to define the purpose and mission of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) usage in Lebanese schools. It outlined the core beliefs and assumptions of the ministry regarding how ICT could enhance teaching and learning. Moreover, the strategic plan provided guidance for government, donors, and funders on potential areas for investment and funding. It identified crucial activities necessary to realize the vision and goals of ICT implementation for teaching and learning for every Lebanese student. The plan emphasized the importance of standardized, uniform, and high-quality implementation of technology for teaching and learning, with key terms and practices defined within the plan (Ministry of Education and Higher Education Strategic Planning Development Team, 2012, p. 5). The Strategic Plan proposed several approaches to address the use of technology into the Lebanese curriculum. These approaches included leveraging high-quality digital content to enhance content-focused competencies, incorporating ICT skills and competencies to support student knowledge and skills, and promoting the extensive use of multimedia, online learning, simulations, and computer-based learning. The strategies aimed to empower students to learn at their own pace, go beyond textual materials to grasp visual and conceptual understandings of information, and apply their knowledge in real-world contexts. These approaches were particularly emphasized in key subject areas such as mathematics, science, and English (Ministry of Education and Higher Education Strategic Planning Development Team, 2012, p. 11).
1 Rationale and research questions
In this section, the reason behind conducting the study is presented, with the reason for addressing the research questions under investigation.
1.1 Rationale
Numerous empirical studies have examined the barriers that impede the use of technology in teaching and learning. Within the realm of governmental and institutional policies, the Lebanon’s National Educational Technology Strategic Plan highlighted the absence of technology use in the curriculum and emphasizes the need for the Center for Educational Research and Development (CERD) to review and integrate technology to support learning outcomes (Ministry of Education and Higher Education Strategic Planning Development Team, 2012). Baroud (2011) also identified institutional culture and policies as factors hindering the use of technology in education, specifically in the context of e-learning implementation in higher education. Regarding teacher training and preparation, there is a prevalent barrier wherein teachers lack the necessary skills and knowledge to integrate technology into their teaching practices (Koehler, Mishra, & Yahya, 2007). This issue has persisted despite the efforts made by researchers and educators to provide training in technology use. The specific challenges faced by secondary school mathematics teachers in this regard have not been extensively studied. Dedication, attitude, and confidence also emerge as barriers to technology use in classrooms. Stoilescu (2011) found that secondary school mathematics teachers encountered difficulties in motivating students to utilize computers due to constraints such as time, preparation, and dedication. Lack of confidence and uncertainty about the effectiveness of computer use in mathematics learning have been reported as additional hindrances (Thomas, 1996, 2006; Frogasz, 2002). Furthermore, the availability of useful software poses a significant barrier to technology integration. Studies have indicated that both access to computers and appropriate software are limited in secondary school mathematics classrooms (Thomas, 1996, 2006). Even when teachers possess familiarity and confidence in utilizing computers, the absence of suitable software remains a hindrance (Forgasz, 2002).
Despite the challenges mentioned, the gap is in the research focusing on the barriers to the integration of technology in Lebanese public secondary school mathematics classrooms. Additionally, there is a lack of studies examining the relation between gender (male and female) and years of experience (novice, advanced beginner, competent, and expert) in the context of secondary education. This study aims to address these gaps by investigating the extent to which Lebanese mathematics teachers in public secondary schools integrate technology in their teaching practices. Furthermore, it aims to determine whether there are significant differences in technology use based on gender, years of experience, or both variables. The main aim of this study is to investigate the barriers that hinder the incorporation of technology in mathematics classrooms, as perceived by teachers in Lebanese public secondary schools. Additionally, the study aims to explore whether there is a correlation between age and the utilization of technology in teaching, as well as between years of experience and the use of technology in teaching.
1.2 Research questions
The study specifically addresses the following research questions:
- What are the barriers that hinder the integration of technology in mathematics teaching from the Lebanese public secondary school teachers’ perspective?
- What is the impact of gender and years of teaching experience in the use of technology in teaching?
- Is there a statistically significant difference in terms of gender (male and female) in
the use of technology in teaching?
- Is there a statistically significant difference in terms of years of teaching experience (novice, advanced beginner, competent, expert) in the use of technology in teaching?
2. Theoretical Framework
In the field of educational technology, there is a commonly raised question about the barriers that exist or may arise during the use of technology in teaching, for both individuals and educational organizations. Numerous scholarly works are dedicated to categorizing and relating these barriers. The categorization includes factors related to barriers at the school level and the teacher level (Jones, 2004), extrinsic (first-order) barriers and intrinsic (second-order) barriers faced by teachers (Albirini, 2006; Ertmer, 1999), material and non-material barriers (Pelgrum, 2001), acquisition, introduction and maintenance (Ruthven-Stuart, 2003), barriers at the micro (individual), meso (institution), and macro (national and regional) levels within the education system (Tondeur, van Keer, van Braak, & Valcke, 2008; Khalid and Buus, 2014), assessment focus versus learning focus (McGarr, 2009), personal, institutional, professional, and technological barriers (Kafyulilo, Fisser, & Voogt 2016), direct and indirect barriers (Hew & Brush, 2007), and others. In this study, Hew and Brush’ model is adopted as the theoretical framework to investigate and classify the barriers that hinder the integration of technology in mathematics teaching.
Numerous inquiries and scholarly publications have delved into the trajectory of teachers’ professional growth, particularly the progression from being an inexperienced educator to achieving mastery in the field. Educators with a focus on teacher development commonly recognize this process as a prolonged voyage that requires years of training and practical hands-on experience. Brody and Hadar (2011) introduced a model comprising four stages in personal professional trajectories: curiosity/anticipation, withdrawal, awareness, and transformation. To assess learning strategies encompassing metacognition, meta motivation, memory, critical thinking, and resource management, the Self-Knowledge Inventory of Lifelong Learning Strategies (SKILLS) was developed (Conti & Fellenz, 1991). Dreyfus and Dreyfus (1980) formulated a model outlining five stages of skill acquisition and expertise: novice, advanced beginner, competent, proficient, and expert. A particular framework utilized within this study, which illuminates the phases of expertise advancement across various domains, finds its origins in the model put forth by Dreyfus and Dreyfus (1980).
2.1 Hew and Brush’s Model
Hew and Brush (2007) proposed a classification system for barriers to use in education. They identified six main categories of barriers, namely resources, knowledge and skills, institution, attitudes and beliefs, assessment, and subject culture. According to their framework, technology use is directly influenced by the first four barriers: resources, knowledge and skills, institution, and attitudes and beliefs. They argued that teachers’ attitudes and beliefs toward using technology are affected by their knowledge and skills, and vice versa. Additionally, the institution directly affects the availability of resources for technology use, the adequacy of teachers’ knowledge and skills, and their attitudes toward technology. On the other hand, the last two barriers, assessment and subject culture, indirectly influence technology use.
Resources: In the category of resources, Hew and Brush (2007) identified several barriers. One of these barriers is the lack of technology, which refers to the insufficient availability of computers, peripherals, and software needed for integrating technology into the curriculum. Even when technology is abundant, teachers may not have easy access to these resources, emphasizing the importance of providing appropriate quantities and types of technology in accessible locations. Another barrier is limited time, as teachers require dedicated time to engage in tasks such as exploring websites, finding relevant multimedia materials, or preparing resources. The scarcity of time can lead to burnout and ultimately result in teachers leaving their positions. Inadequate technical support is also a barrier, as teachers rely on sufficient assistance to effectively utilize different technologies. However, schools with limited technical support personnel face challenges in meeting teachers’ needs, often leading to delayed or insufficient assistance (Hew & Brush, 2007).
Knowledge and skills: Regarding knowledge and skills, Hew and Brush (2007) emphasized that the lack of specific technology knowledge and skills, technology-supported pedagogical knowledge and skills, and technology-related classroom management knowledge and skills are significant barriers to technology use in education. Teachers often cite the lack of familiarity with tools and software necessary for effective technology use as a common reason for not integrating technology into their classrooms. In addition to technical skills, some teachers may also lack the pedagogical knowledge and skills required for effectively integrating technology into their teaching. Understanding how to use technology to enhance instructional practices is crucial for successful implementation. Furthermore, the absence of technology-related classroom management knowledge and skills poses another barrier, as teachers need to manage technology within the classroom setting to create an effective learning environment (Hew & Brush, 2007).
Institutional: Hew and Brush (2007) identified that institutional barriers are those including leadership, time-tabling structure, and school planning. Some principals may lack an understanding of technology’s relevance to learner-centered activities and its impact on classroom practices. Inflexible time-tabling structures, with limited time allocated for each class, restrict the variety of learning modalities teachers can incorporate, resulting in fewer opportunities for computer activities. The lack of school planning specifically related to technology use leads to limited utilization of technology beyond the information technology department. Overcoming these barriers requires knowledgeable and supportive leadership, flexible time-tabling structures, and comprehensive planning for effective technology use throughout the school (Hew & Brush, 2007).
Attitudes and beliefs: According to Hew and Brush (2007), teachers’ attitudes and beliefs pose a significant barrier to technology use in the classroom. Attitudes refer to teachers’ preference for or against using technology, while beliefs encompass their educational beliefs about teaching and learning as well as beliefs about technology itself. Teachers’ decisions regarding technology use depend on their own beliefs about it. Negative beliefs about the effectiveness of technology in enhancing learning can become a barrier to its use. Overcoming these barriers requires addressing teachers’ attitudes and beliefs through professional development programs and interventions that highlight the value and potential of technology in education (Hew & Brush, 2007).
Assessment: The traditional approach to assessment in education, which primarily focuses on high-stakes testing, acts as a barrier to technology use, as discussed by Hew and Brush (2007). Limited time for exploring new instructional methods involving technology due to the demands of meeting testing requirements is a common challenge for teachers. The need to cover a wide range of material within a restricted timeframe makes it difficult for teachers to incorporate technology into their lessons. Moreover, the emphasis on comparative test scores in policies like the “No Child Left Behind” act has diverted attention away from the instructional use of technology. The focus of technology use in K-12 education has primarily revolved around computer-based testing and data management rather than its potential for teaching and learning. Teachers may feel reluctant to use technology if it is not recognized in assessments or if certain technologies are prohibited in national exams. These concerns contribute to decreased enthusiasm among teachers for utilizing technology in the classroom. Overcoming these barriers requires finding a balance between technology use and assessment practices, as well as recognizing and valuing the role of technology in enhancing learning outcomes (Hew & Brush, 2007).
Culture: Hew and Brush (2007) defined subject culture as the set of established practices and expectations that have developed around a specific school subject, shaping its definition as a distinct area of study. Subject culture deeply influences educational institutions and is influenced by the subject content, pedagogy, and assessment methods. Teachers often resist adopting technologies that they perceive as incompatible with the norms and values of their subject culture. For example, an art teacher might argue that physical painting allows for a deeper connection with the medium, while using a mouse feel disconnected. Subject culture can influence teachers’ attitudes toward integrating technology into their subject area (Hew & Brush, 2007).
Hew and Brush (2007) conducted a comprehensive review of previous studies and found the following relative frequencies of mentioned barriers: resources (40%), knowledge and skills (23%), institution (14%), attitudes and beliefs (13%), assessment (5%), and subject culture (2%).
2.2 Dreyfus and Dreyfus Model
Dreyfus and Dreyfus (1980) introduced a comprehensive model encompassing five distinct stages through which expertise progressively unfolds: Novice, Advanced Beginner, Competence, Proficient, and Expert. It is crucial to recognize that this transition from a novice to an expert typically encompasses a significant duration, often estimated to extend over a span of approximately 10 to 15 years. This extended period is paramount for the accumulation of essential knowledge, skills, and practical insight necessary to attain a level of performance characterized by expert proficiency. In the realm of education, individuals typically require several years of experiential learning to traverse the initial stages of being a novice, evolve into a proficient educator, and eventually ascend to the pinnacle of expertise within the field.
Nevertheless, it is imperative to acknowledge that only a relatively small subset of teachers, even those with extensive decades of practical experience, manage to reach the echelons of proficiency and expertise in their teaching endeavors. The journey of cultivating expertise in the domain of teaching is intricate and influenced by an array of factors, including ongoing professional development endeavors, the practice of self-reflective methods, guidance and mentorship, as well as active involvement in cutting-edge research and developments within the field of education. As educators navigate their professional trajectories, they remain steadfast in their pursuit of refining instructional techniques, deepening their grasp of subject matter, and augmenting their capacity to adeptly cater to the diverse and varied requirements of their students.
3. Literature Review
3.1 Barriers that hinder the use of technology
To address the challenge of technology use in Lebanese classrooms, the Lebanese Strategic Plan proposes integrating ICT skills and competencies into the curriculum. It advocates for the use of high-quality digital content, multimedia, online learning, simulations, and computer-based learning. This approach enables students to learn at their own pace, explore information visually and conceptually, and apply their knowledge in real-world contexts, especially in key subjects like math, science, and English (Ministry of Education and Higher Education Strategic Planning Development Team, 2012, p. 11).
Empirical studies have found barriers to technology use in classrooms. Koehler, Mishra, and Yahya (2007) discovered that despite efforts in training, many teachers lack the necessary technology skills. Teacher preparation for technology use is a component of educational plans (Thompson, Schmidt, & Davis, 2003), but it’s often considered ill-defined (Gess-Newsome, Blocher, Clark, Menasco, and Willis, 2003). Insufficient training hinders technology integration in teaching (Emre, 2019). The International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) recommends teachers to have operational and conceptual knowledge of computer technology, use technology for personal and professional development, and incorporate it into teaching (ISTE, 2008). In higher education, challenges include institutional culture, faculty participation in technology training, and policy development hindering technology use (Baroud, 2011). Dedication, attitude, and confidence are barriers to technology use in classrooms. Stoilescu (2011) found that math teachers faced difficulties in encouraging computer usage among students due to time constraints and lack of preparation. Intensive teamwork and collaboration among teachers, technical support staff, and administrators are essential for successful technology use in math education (Stoilescu, 2011). Limited instructional time and pressure to cover the required curriculum content may further limit effective technology incorporation (Çoklar & Yurdakul (2017). Thomas (1996) found the lack of confidence as a major barrier to math teachers’ computer use. A follow-up study (Thomas, 2006) examined changes in attitudes over time. Resistance to change due to concerns about disrupting teaching practices and fear of technology replacing teachers is another barrier (Collins & Halverson, 2018; Hanny, Arnesen, Guo, Hansen, & Graham, 2021). Access to computers and software remained a hindrance, with skepticism about technology’s benefits (Thomas, 2006; Frogasz, 2002). Lack of technology devices and reliable internet connectivity in low-income or rural areas also hindered classroom technology use (Hackman & Reindl 2022). Limited availability of useful software is a significant barrier to technology use in classrooms Körtesi., Simonka, Szabo, Guncaga, & Neag 2022; Bulman & Fairlie (2016). Thomas (1996, 2006) identified this hindrance in secondary school mathematics classrooms, while Alanazy and Alrusaiyes (2021) found that math teachers faced challenges due to the scarcity of software aligning with their instructional needs, despite being familiar and confident with computer use.
Kafyulilo, Fisser, & Voogt (2016) stated that knowledge, skills, beliefs, and time availability influence the integration of technology in teaching. Confusion about change depending on the teachers’ actions and thoughts also impact the the integration of technology (Choy, 2016; Permatasari, 2016). Mohsenishad, Shirani, and Kia Heirati (2020) argued that teachers’ initial positive experience with technology aligned with their beliefs about learning builds self-confidence and encouraged technology use in teaching. Institutional factors greatly influence the effective use of technology in math classrooms. Supportive school cultures, well-defined technology use plans, access to technology infrastructure, and adequate professional development opportunities are critical. The school administration’s value and belief system, driven by motivation, rewards, incentives, and financial support to teachers, also impact technology use (Ertmer et al., 2006; Andriani, Kesumawati & Kristiawan, 2018). However, the limited availability of technological tools and resources in schools poses a significant barrier (Pittman & Gaines, 2015). Additionally, environmental factors like the availability of electricity and classroom settings play a significant role in influencing teachers’ technology adoption (Lawrence, & Tar, 2018).
Professional factors influencing technology use in math classrooms include teachers’ pedagogical knowledge, instructional strategies, and access to professional development. Teachers’ understanding of how to effectively incorporate technology into math instruction is crucial for improved learning outcomes (Ertmer et al., 2012; Mishra & Koehler, 2006; Drijvers, 2015). Additionally, teachers’ satisfaction with the knowledge and skills acquired through professional development strongly impacts their interest in implementing new innovations (Thurm & Barzel, 2020). However, aligning technology use with pedagogical goals and instructional strategies can be challenging, requiring support and guidance for effective integration (Kafyulilo et al., 2016).
3.2 Gender
Gender differences in the use of technology in teaching have been a subject of research. Studies have revealed various findings regarding the involvement of female and male teachers in technology use, their perceived ease of use, and their level of skills and interest. Teo, Fan, and Du (2015) found that female teachers often have lower levels of computer use compared to their male counterparts. This difference can be attributed to limited access to technology, lower levels of computer skills, and lesser interest in utilizing technology in teaching. Additionally, Ifinedo., Rikala and Hämäläinen (2020) reported that male teachers perceived technology as easier to use compared to female teachers. Gender disparities in ICT experience and literacy among novice teachers were favoring males in terms of technical capabilities and usage (Gebhardt, E., Thomson, S., Ainley, Hillman, Gebhardt, Thomson, … & Hillman, 2019). However, Juan & Bellonch (2021) observed an improvement in self-perceptions of technology competence among female teachers, indicating a positive change in their attitudes and skills. Female teachers’ use of technology in the classroom is more frequent and of different types than that of males (Wiseman, Al-bakr, Davidson, & Bruce, 2018). While gender differences have been noted in some studies, others have found a reduction in the gender gap in technology use. Yukselturk and Bulut (2009) observed an increase in the number of females using internet and web 2.0 technologies, suggesting a narrowing of the gender disparity. Similarly, Siddiq and Scherer (2019) found no significant gender differences in technology use and suggested that gender may not be a predictor of ICT use. The importance of quality technology training in mitigating gender disparities was highlighted by Njiku, Mutarutinya, and Maniraho, (2022). Initially, male teachers had higher computer attitudes and abilities, but after receiving technology training, no significant gender differences were observed. This finding underscores the importance of offering thorough and efficient technology training to teachers in order to narrow the gap. A study on teachers’ attitudes and utilization of ICT indicated that there were no significant gender differences concerning the pedagogical use of ICT (Cussó-Calabuig, Farran, Bosch-Capblanch, 2018). However, minor differences, favoring female teachers, were observed in terms of ICT teaching (Cekse, Geske, Pole, 2018). In summary, research on gender differences in technology use among teachers has yielded mixed results. While some studies have found disparities favoring male teachers in terms of frequency of technology use and technical capabilities, others have reported improvements and reductions in the gender gap. The provision of quality technology training appears to play a crucial role in mitigating gender disparities and promoting equitable technology integration in teaching.
3.3 Years of experience
Empirical studies about the influence of teaching experience on the use of computer technology in the classroom presents mixed findings. While some studies suggest that teaching years of experience has no impact on ICT use (Mahdi & Al-Dera, 2013), many others indicate that it does (Hernandez-Ramos, 2005). Gorder (2008) found a significant correlation between teacher’s years of experience and actual technology use, with effective use tied to teachers’ comfort levels and their ability to tailor instruction. Conversely, Baek, Jong and Kim (2008) argued that experienced teachers are less inclined to integrate ICT. The U.S. National Centre for Education Statistics (2000) reported that less experienced teachers were more likely to use computers in their teaching. Lau and Sim (2008) found that older teachers in Malaysia tended to use computer technology more frequently, possibly due to their experience and competence. However, Russell, Bebell, O’Dwyer, and O’Connor (2003) observed that highly skilled new teachers did not necessarily integrate ICT, attributing this to their focus on using technology rather than incorporating it into teaching and argued that the quality of ICT use was related to years of teacher service. Mahdi and Al-Dera (2013) found no clear relationship between teaching experience and ICT use, suggesting that successful implementation depends on various factors.
Research has identified several stages of mastery in the development of expertise. While the exact number and characteristics of these stages may vary across domains, there are commonly recognized stages that individuals progress through. Dreyfus and Dreyfus (1980) proposed a model that outlines five stages of skill acquisition and expertise: novice, advanced beginner, competent, proficient, and expert. The model classified “novice” individuals as those who possess limited knowledge, depend on explicit rules and guidelines to accomplish tasks, and their experience is limited, leading to challenges in making decisions (Dreyfus and Dreyfus, 1980). As teachers, they are either newcomers to the teaching profession or individuals with limited experience, they find themselves in the early phases of their career, actively acquiring knowledge and refining their teaching skills (Darling-Hammond, 2006). As individuals progress, they become “advanced beginner”, gaining experience, identifying patterns, and making informed decisions, though still requiring guidance in complex situations (Dreyfus and Dreyfus, 1980). An advanced beginner teacher has some classroom experience, basic teaching understanding, and begins to feel more capable (Benner, 1984). “Competent” individuals possess a strong grasp of the domain and can handle routine tasks autonomously. Competent teachers have a solid foundation of teaching skills and knowledge, effectively planning and delivering lessons, managing classrooms, and assessing student learning with a good understanding of pedagogical strategies (Dreyfus and Dreyfus, 1980). Individuals progress more and more to become “proficient” who have advanced expertise, with profound comprehension of the domain, making nuanced decisions based on experience. Proficient teachers are highly skilled, with extensive experience, deep understanding of teaching theories, methodologies, and subject matter, adept at differentiation, engaging students, and providing guidance (Dreyfus and Dreyfus, 1980; Korthagen, Loughran, & Russell, 2006). In the last stage, individuals become “experts” who have ultimate mastery, possess extensive knowledge, exceptional judgment, and excel even in challenging circumstances (Dreyfus & Dreyfus, 1980). Expert teachers excel in their career, with a comprehensive understanding of teaching, adapting to student needs, innovating in their approaches, and contributing to the field (Grossman, Hammerness, & McDonald, 2009).
According to Dreyfus and Dreyfus (1980), the time and progression through these stages may differ among individuals and are influenced by factors such as the domain, instructional level, and amount of practice. Nevertheless, this model offers a valuable framework for comprehending the stages of skill acquisition and mastery.
4 Methodology
This section provides a comprehensive overview of various aspects of the study, including the study design, participant information, data collection procedures, utilized tools, piloting process, data evaluation, and detailed data analysis.
4.1 Study Design
The study utilized a mixed-method research design, incorporating both quantitative and qualitative methods. The quantitative component involved a survey designed to gather data on barriers to technology use in teaching. Closed-ended questions provided structured responses for statistical analysis. The qualitative aspect included an open-ended question to capture detailed, narrative insights from participants. The combination of both methods allowed for triangulation, enriching the findings and providing a comprehensive understanding of the topic. This mixed-method approach aligns with Creswell and Creswell (2017) research approach, enabling a robust and nuanced analysis of the barriers to technology integration in teaching.
4.2 Participants
The study was conducted with 186 mathematics teachers from Lebanese secondary public schools. All the teachers have a bachelor of sciences in mathematics and a teaching diploma degree in teaching mathematics for secondary classes.
According to Table 1, the study involved the participation of 106 male teachers and 80 female teachers. Regarding the years of teaching experience, there were 50 novice teachers (1-5 years), 57 advanced beginner teachers (6-10 years), 39 competent teachers (11-15 years), and 40 expert teachers (more than 15 years). The categorization of teachers into two groups aimed to explore whether there is a potential influence of gender and teaching experience on the utilization of technology in teaching. Table 1 shows the demographic background of the participants.
Table 1: Participants’ Gender and Years of Teaching Information
| Category | Group | Number of participants (n) | Percentage (%) |
| Gender | Male | 106 | 57% |
| Female | 80 | 43% | |
| Years of Teaching Experience | 0-5 years (novice) | 50 | 27% |
| 6-10 years (advanced beginner) | 57 | 31% | |
| 11-15 years (competent) | 39 | 21% | |
| > 15 years (professional-expert) | 40 | 21% |
4.3 Tools
The data collection tools used in this study consisted of a self-report survey aimed at investigating the barriers that hinder the use of technology in teaching. The survey included 11 items that were derived from previous studies through a comprehensive literature review. These items were designed as closed-ended questions with response options that allowed participants to indicate whether they encountered specific barriers or not using a yes-no format.
To complement the closed-ended format and provide an opportunity for participants to express additional insights, an open-ended item was included at the end of the survey. This open-ended question encouraged participants to share any other factors or barriers they believed hindered their use of technology in their classrooms. By incorporating this open-ended item, the researchers aimed to capture any additional information or perspectives that might not have been covered in the pre-defined closed-ended items.
The survey was administered to mathematics teachers in public secondary schools in Lebanon. A total of 199 survey papers were received from the participants. However, after carefully reviewing the responses, 13 survey papers were excluded from the analysis due to incomplete responses. The remaining 186 survey papers, which provided complete and usable data, were included in the final analysis. For the second section of the survey, 53 participants responded to the open-ended question.
The inclusion of survey papers from mathematics teachers in public secondary schools allowed for a robust examination of the barriers hindering the use of technology in this specific educational context. The collected data from the survey papers, including the responses to the closed-ended items and the insights shared in the open-ended item, provided valuable information for analyzing the barriers and identifying any additional factors that may impact the use of technology in mathematics teaching.
By using a combination of closed-ended and open-ended survey items and ensuring a sufficient sample size of 186 survey papers, this study aimed to provide a comprehensive understanding of the barriers that mathematics teachers in public secondary schools face in utilizing technology in their classrooms.
4.4 Piloting
A pilot test was conducted before the main study with 35 participants who were different from the actual study participants. The pilot aimed to assess the survey’s effectiveness. Firstly, the language clarity and comprehensibility were evaluated through participant feedback, leading to improvements in wording. Secondly, the survey’s length was examined based on response times to ensure an appropriate duration. The available space for participants to express their opinions was also checked to avoid limitations. The pilot test allowed the research team to gather valuable feedback and make necessary improvements to enhance the survey’s validity and reliability before administering it to the actual study participants.
4.5 Evaluation of data
To ensure the survey’s validity, the researchers sought feedback from three experts in ICT math education. These experts carefully reviewed the survey items to assess their representation of the intended content area and relevance to the Lebanese education context. They examined any potential issues with item replication, overlap, or suitability within the specific educational setting. Based on the experts’ feedback, the researchers refined the survey items, addressing concerns and recommendations to enhance its comprehensiveness and accuracy. This collaborative and iterative process played a crucial role in enhancing the survey’s validity and reliability, aiming to effectively measure the integration of ICT in math education within the context of Lebanese schools.
4.6 Data analysis
In order to identify the barriers that impede the use of technology in teaching, as perceived by Lebanese public secondary school teachers, a self-report survey consisting of two sections was administered. The first section included 11 items (barriers) (Curriculum, training, preparation, school culture, dedication, attitude, confidence, time, access to computers, access to useful software, effectiveness of technological devices) derived from an extensive review of relevant literature. Each participant was required to indicate whether they believed these barriers hindered their use of technology in the classroom, using a binary response format (yes or no). All the barriers collected were examined and analyzed using Hew and Brush’s (2007) proposed model.
Acknowledging that participants might have encountered additional factors impeding their use of technology, the second section featured an open-ended question allowing participants to mention any other barriers they perceived.
The data of first section of the survey were categorized into two factors: direct and indirect. Subsequently, statistical analysis was performed to determine the frequency, percentage, and mean for each item. The responses were then analyzed based on two categories: gender and teaching years of experience. The totals for each category were calculated and compared using the SPSS package. To investigate whether there were any statistically significant differences between the group means, a one-way ANOVA was employed.
The data from the second section of the survey were collected and subjected to coding and analysis. This analysis involved conducting a comparative examination of the findings in relation to existing studies. By comparing and contrasting the results, patterns and relationships were identified to gain deeper insights into the research topic.
Teaching years of experience are categorized using the framework proposed by Dreyfus and Dreyfus (1980). In this study, the combination of the fourth stage (proficient) and the fifth stage (expert) is considered as one stage referred to as proficient-expert. Novice teachers have less than 6 years of experience, while advanced beginners have 6 to 10 years of experience. Competent teachers have more than 10 but less than 16 years of experience, and proficient-expert teachers have accumulated over 15 years of experience.
5. Results and discussions
The findings of this study are presented in two distinct sections, each focusing on a different approach to exploring the barriers that hinder the use of technology in mathematics teaching. The first section utilizes a yes-no format survey, allowing for quantitative analysis of the results. The second section, on the other hand, examines the barriers based on the responses provided in the open-ended item included in the survey, employing a qualitative analysis approach.
In the first section, the study utilizes a structured survey with predetermined response options in a yes-no format. This format enables the researchers to collect quantitative data regarding the barriers to technology integration in mathematics teaching. Participants are asked specific questions related to the utilization of technology in their teaching practices, and their responses are categorized and analyzed using statistical methods. This quantitative analysis provides a systematic examination of the barriers, allowing for a comprehensive understanding of the prevalence and significance of each identified barrier.
In the second section, the study focuses on the open-ended item included at the end of the survey. This item allows participants to provide their own opinions and insights regarding additional barriers that may not have been covered in the structured part of the survey. Participants have the freedom to express their thoughts, experiences, and perspectives related to the challenges they face in using technology in mathematics teaching. These responses are analyzed qualitatively, with an emphasis on identifying common themes, patterns, and nuances within the participants’ narratives. This qualitative analysis provides a deeper understanding of the barriers from the teachers’ perspectives, allowing for a more nuanced exploration of their experiences and perceptions.
By adopting both quantitative and qualitative analysis approaches, this study presents a comprehensive view of the barriers hindering the use of technology in mathematics teaching. The quantitative analysis provides a broad overview of the prevalence and significance of the identified barriers, while the qualitative analysis adds depth and richness to the findings by capturing the unique perspectives and experiences of the teachers. This two-section structure ensures a comprehensive examination of the barriers, offering valuable insights for future research and informing potential interventions to overcome these barriers in order to promote effective technology integration in mathematics education.
5.1 Barriers, gender, and years of experience
5.1.1 Barriers that hinder the use of technology in teaching quantitatively
This section focuses on gathering, analyzing, and discussing the barriers that hinder the integration of technology in teaching mathematics within Lebanon’s secondary public schools. The barriers will be gathered through the self-report survey, with the first section being used for quantitative data collection and analysis using statistical methods. Additionally, the second section of the survey will be employed for qualitative analysis of the barriers.
Table 2. Barriers that hinder the use of technology in mathematics teaching
| Question | Barrier | Response | |||
| Yes | % | No | % | ||
| Do you think that dedication hinders the integration of technology in teaching? | Dedication | 79 | 42 | 107 | 58 |
| Do you think that attitude hinders the integration of technology in teaching? | Attitude | 85 | 46 | 101 | 54 |
| Do you think that confidence hinders the integration of technology in teaching? | Confidence | 99 | 53 | 87 | 47 |
| Do you think that time hinders the integration of technology in teaching? | Time | 161 | 87 | 23 | 12 |
| Do you think that preparation of a lesson which is built on technology hinders the integration of technology in teaching? | Preparation | 105 | 56 | 81 | 44 |
| Do you think that the effectiveness of the integration of technology hinders its use in teaching? | Effectiveness | 86 | 46 | 100 | 54 |
| Do you think that curriculum hinders the integration of technology in teaching? | Curriculum | 152 | 82 | 34 | 18 |
| Do you think that training hinders the integration of technology in teaching? | Training | 134 | 72 | 53 | 28 |
| Do you think that the culture of the school hinders the integration of technology in teaching? | Culture of the school | 103 | 55 | 83 | 45 |
| Do you think that the access to technological devices hinders the integration of technology in teaching? | Access to technology | 126 | 68 | 60 | 32 |
| Do you think that the access to useful software hinders the integration of technology in teaching? | Access to useful software | 128 | 69 | 58 | 31 |
The findings presented in Table 2 shed light on the significant barriers that teachers encounter in the use of technology in their teaching practices. It is evident that a substantial majority of participants identified time, curriculum, and training as the most prominent barriers hindering their utilization of technology.
A staggering 87% of participants acknowledged time as a major barrier, highlighting the scarcity of time available for technology use in the classroom. This finding was supported by previous research conducted by Fox and Henri (2005), who found that teachers faced challenges in integrating technology in their classrooms due to the pressures of high-stakes testing. These pressures leave teachers with little time to explore new instructional methods involving technology. Byrne, Hogan, Dhingra, Anthony, and Gannon (2021) noted that teachers often prioritize traditional teaching methods over technology due to the belief that they can cover more material and meet testing requirements more effectively. Teachers perceive technology use as time-consuming, requiring additional planning to select appropriate software that aligns with lesson objectives. Moreover, Teachers often face time constraints and pressure to cover a vast mathematics curriculum, leaving limited time for technology use (Çoklar & Yurdakul 2017). The emphasis on meeting curriculum standards and preparing students for high-stakes assessments may overshadow the use of technology in mathematics teaching.
Furthermore, 82% of participants identified curriculum as a significant hindrance, indicating that the existing curriculum may not adequately support the training needed to integrate technology in teaching. This finding highlights the importance of revisiting and adapting the curriculum to align with technological advancements and provide explicit guidance on incorporating technology effectively. Moreover, more than two-thirds of participants identified training as a major ‘barrier, emphasizing the need for comprehensive professional development programs that enhance teachers’ technological skills and pedagogical knowledge. Teachers require ongoing support and training to effectively integrate technology into their instructional practices. Chai, Koh, and Tsai (2016) stated that some teachers perceive a lack of pedagogical support when using technology in mathematics teaching. They may feel uncertain about how to integrate technology effectively into their instructional strategies and align it with the mathematics curriculum and learning objectives.
Access to technology and useful software emerged as barriers for 68% of participants. This finding emphasizes the importance of ensuring equitable access to technology resources and tools that facilitate technology use. Teachers should have access to up-to-date technology devices and software applications that align with their teaching objectives. This aligns with the goal of Lebanon’s National Educational Technology Strategic Plan, which aims to address technology use in the curriculum. Limited Access to Technology and Resources: Inequitable access to technology devices, software, and reliable internet connectivity is a significant barrier in mathematics education (Pittman & Gaines, 2015). Teachers and students who do not have access to appropriate technology tools and resources face challenges in incorporating technology into their teaching and learning practices.
In conclusion, the findings highlight the critical need to address these barriers and provide support systems that alleviate the challenges faced by teachers in using technology effectively. Efforts should be directed towards providing adequate time for technology use, revisiting and adapting the curriculum to align with technological advancements, offering comprehensive training programs, and ensuring equitable access to technology and software resources. By addressing these barriers, educators can enhance their use of technology in teaching, leading to more engaging and effective learning experiences for students.
5.1.2 Barriers that hinder the use of technology in teaching qualitatively
In this section, we initially investigate the factors contributing to the participation of only 53 participants in responding to the open-ended item. Subsequently, we delve into an examination of the challenges teachers face when incorporating technology in their classrooms, as perceived through their own viewpoints. Drawing upon Hew and Brush’s Model, these barriers fall into two categories: direct challenges encompassing ability, uncertainty, and motivation, and indirect challenges involving infrastructure and trust.
As indicated earlier in the study, the open-ended question received responses from 28% of the participants. This group of respondents encompasses individuals from various regions across Lebanon, suggesting a lack of notable demographic disparities and underscoring the representative nature of this subset within the sample. The collected responses have been meticulously categorized as follows:
- Ability refers to teachers’ lack of self-confidence in integrating technology. 12 teachers (23%) expressed doubts about their ability to integrate technology into their classes, stating that learning how to use computers seemed impossible or that they preferred to teach in the same way they were taught before, which they considered effective. These statements suggest that teachers may feel hesitant about using technology, possibly due to inadequate training or a lack of integration of technology with pedagogy and content knowledge. Koehler, Mishra, and Yahya (2007) found that despite training efforts, many teachers still lack the necessary skills and knowledge for effective technology use.
- Uncertainty refers to the uncertainty that teachers feel regarding the significance of integrating technology into their teaching practices. 11 teachers (21%) expressed beliefs such as prioritizing mastery of subject content before introducing technology and viewing technology solely as a tool for expediting calculations rather than as a substitute for fundamental understanding. These statements indicate a skepticism among teachers regarding the effectiveness of technology in teaching. Mishra and Koehler (2006) emphasized the importance of “effective technology integration” in their Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) framework, which highlights purposeful use of technology to enhance teaching and learning experiences. Some teachers also argued against the use of technology, suggesting that it is unnecessary because their main goal is to prepare students for standardized exams.
- Motivation refers to teachers’ lack of motivation due to a lack of recognition and encouragement for their use of technology. One teacher (2%) expressed the sentiment that there is no point in using technology if no one acknowledges or encourages their efforts. Tondeur, Van Braak, Ertmer, and Ottenbreit-Leftwich (2017) highlighted the strong connection between teachers’ motivation and their beliefs about how technology can enhance student learning. Factors such as school leadership, support from colleagues, and access to resources can influence teachers’ motivation and their effective use of technology. Studies have emphasized the importance of creating supportive environments that foster collaboration, provide adequate resources, and recognize and reward teachers’ integration efforts (Schleicher, 2016).
- Trust refers to administrators’ lack of trust in teachers’ ability to effectively use technology in their teaching. One teacher (2%) mentioned that the school administration does not allow them to teach using technology because they are perceived as not meeting the requirements. This lack of trust may stem from administrators’ negative experiences with a significant number of teachers. Empowering teachers to make decisions regarding technology integration can positively impact their motivation. When teachers have the freedom to choose appropriate technological tools aligned with their instructional goals, they are more likely to feel motivated and invested in the integration process (McCulloch, Hollebrands, Lee, Harrison, & Mutlu, 2018).
- Infrastructure refers to the inadequate availability of technological tools in schools, hindering the effective use of technology. 9 teachers (17%) reported the absence of computer laboratories or computers in their schools. 12 teachers (23%) mentioned that LCD projectors were only available in classrooms designated for grade 12 students. Additionally, 32 teachers (60%) highlighted problems with electricity and slow internet speeds, further impeding their ability to utilize technology Erlangga (2022) found that technical difficulties, software temporary malfunction or irregularity of equipment, and insufficient technical support can frustrate teachers and undermine their confidence in using technology effectively.
The collected responses from participants emerge as exceptionally detailed, laden with insights, and characterized by a profound depth, collectively bestowing a heightened richness upon the information acquired. These responses hold a seamless alignment with the perceptual stances conveyed by participants through their selections in the closed-ended items. This harmonious correspondence between the open-ended and closed-ended data sources not only serves to complement but also amplifies the findings obtained from the closed-ended questions, culminating in an even more exhaustive and panoramic comprehension of the subject matter at hand. The interplay between these two dimensions of participant input lends a multidimensional perspective, facilitating a more comprehensive grasp of the intricacies surrounding the integration of technology in educational contexts.
5.2 Teachers’ gender and the integration of technology
This section discusses the relationship between gender and the integration of technology in the classroom, exploring whether there is a statistically significant difference between the two.
According to the direct barriers analyzed in Table 3, there are notable differences between male and female teachers in their perspectives on the effectiveness of technology in mathematics teaching. Around 38% of male teachers expressed the belief that technology use in teaching is not effective, while a majority of female teachers (53%) held the same perspective. However, when considering factors such as preparation, confidence, dedication, attitude, and time, minimal distinctions were observed between the two groups. Additionally, the results indicated that over two-thirds of both male and female teachers had a positive attitude towards technology implementation in teaching, and a majority of them identified time as a hindrance to incorporating technology in the classroom.
Regarding the analysis of indirect barriers, the findings presented in Table 3 revealed no significant differences between male and female teachers. However, it is important to note that a substantial proportion of both male and female teachers, comprising more than two-thirds of the sample, acknowledged the role of curriculum, training programs, and access to technological devices and software in hindering the use of technology in teaching.
In general, research on the comparison between gender and the use of technology in teaching yields mixed results. Some studies suggest that both male and female teachers who support the use of technology perceive it as an effective tool for enhancing student engagement, promoting active learning, and providing access to a wide range of educational resources (Joo, Lim, & Kim, 2016). Both genders recognize the potential benefits of technology use in improving student outcomes, including increased motivation, critical thinking skills, and collaboration (Merchant, Goetz, Cifuentes, Keeney-Kennicutt, & Davis, 2014).
| Table 3. Teachers’ gender and use of technology | |||||||||||
| Barrier | Group 1 (male) (n = 106) | Mean | Group 2 (female) (n = 80) | Mean | |||||||
| Yes | No | Yes | No | ||||||||
| n | % | n | % | n | % | n | % | ||||
| Direct barriers | |||||||||||
| Dedication | 55 | 52 | 51 | 48 | 1.57 | 50 | 63 | 30 | 38 | 1.52 | |
| Attitude | 47 | 44 | 59 | 56 | 1.41 | 36 | 45 | 44 | 55 | 1.42 | |
| Confidence | 46 | 43 | 60 | 57 | 1.27 | 28 | 35 | 52 | 65 | 1.37 | |
| Time | 29 | 27 | 77 | 73 | 1.40 | 27 | 33 | 53 | 66 | 1.43 | |
| Preparation | 90 | 85 | 16 | 15 | 1.87 | 70 | 88 | 10 | 13 | 1.84 | |
| Effectiveness | 40 | 38 | 66 | 62 | 1.46 | 42 | 53 | 38 | 48 | 1.32 | |
| Indirect barriers | |||||||||||
| Curriculum | 89 | 84 | 17 | 16 | 1.78 | 62 | 78 | 18 | 23 | 1.81 | |
| Training | 71 | 67 | 35 | 33 | 1.71 | 60 | 75 | 20 | 25 | 1.65 | |
| Culture of the school | 59 | 56 | 47 | 44 | 1.53 | 44 | 55 | 36 | 45 | 1.54 | |
| Access to technology | 72 | 68 | 34 | 32 | 1.63 | 54 | 68 | 26 | 33 | 1.70 | |
| Access to useful software | 69 | 65 | 37 | 35 | 1.64 | 58 | 73 | 22 | 28 | 1.69 | |
On the other hand, some teachers, regardless of gender, may express caution or hold a neutral stance towards technology in teaching. Their perspective may stem from concerns about the effectiveness, impact, or potential drawbacks associated with technology use (Ertmer, Ottenbreit-Leftwich, & York, 2015). Research indicates that caution can be influenced by various factors, including technological competence, perceived relevance of technology in the curriculum, and access to resources (Cuban, 2013). Conversely, studies suggest that teachers who resist technology use may have concerns related to pedagogical beliefs, lack of training or support, perceived loss of control, or skepticism about its impact on learning outcomes (Ertmer, Ottenbreit-Leftwich, & York, 2015; Selwyn, 2016).
Statistically, the results of the t-test analysis reveal that there is no significant difference between the two groups, namely male and female teachers, regarding the use of technology in teaching mathematics. All the t-values obtained from the analysis were greater than .05, indicating that the observed differences between the two groups are not statistically significant.
5.3 Teachers’ years of teaching experience and integration of technology
In this section, we explore the correlation between teachers’ years of experience and the integration of technology in the classroom. The aim is to determine whether there is a statistically significant difference between these two variables.
The findings presented in Table 4 shed light on the perspectives of different participant teaching experience groups (1: novice, 2: advanced beginner, 3: competent, and 4: professional-expert) regarding the barriers to technology use. Among novice participants, less than one fourth of them recognized both direct and indirect barriers as hindrances to their use of technology. This suggests that novice teachers may have a relatively lower awareness of the various barriers that can impede their technology use. This contradicts the findings in previous empirical studies. A study by Ertmer, Ottenbreit-Leftwich, and York (2015) found that teachers with more years of experience were more likely to integrate technology effectively in their teaching. The authors noted that experienced teachers possess a deeper understanding of pedagogical strategies and are better equipped to select appropriate technology tools that align with their instructional goals. Additionally, they have had more opportunities for professional development and continuous learning, which enhances their technological skills and confidence in utilizing technology in the classroom. Johnson, Becker, Estrada, and Freeman (2015) found that teachers with more years of experience were more likely to incorporate technology into their instructional practices and showed higher levels of confidence and competence in using technology tools. These studies suggest that as teachers gain experience, they become more comfortable and proficient in utilizing technology as a valuable instructional tool. They are better able to leverage technology to engage students, enhance learning experiences, and facilitate deeper understanding of subject matter. Russell, Bebell, O’Dwyer, and O’Connor, (2003) found that new teachers who were highly skilled with technology more than older teachers did not incorporate ICT in their teaching. The researchers cited two reasons: new teachers focus could be on how to use ICT instead of how to incorporate ICT in their teaching. Secondly, new teachers could experience some challenges in their first few years of teaching and spend most of their time in familiarizing themselves with school’s curriculum and classroom management.
In contrast, for advanced beginner, competent, and proficient-expert participants, a higher percentage (just below half) acknowledged the presence of direct barriers to technology use. This indicates that teachers with more experience are more attuned to the specific challenges they face in implementing technology in their teaching practices. Additionally, over 82% of these participants highlighted the constraint of time as a major ‘barrier. This aligns with the common perception that time limitations can significantly impact teachers’ ability to effectively incorporate technology into their instructional routines.
Furthermore, the role of preparation in hindering technology use was particularly notable for advanced beginner and competent participants. This suggests that teachers at these stages of experience may encounter difficulties in adequately preparing themselves to integrate technology into their teaching. This could include challenges in acquiring the necessary knowledge, skills, and resources to effectively incorporate technology tools and strategies. This contradicts the results found by Ertmer, Ottenbreit-Leftwich, and York (2015), who found that both novice and experienced teachers benefit from comprehensive preparation in technology use. The researchers found that novice teachers, in particular, require targeted support and training to build their
Table 4. Teachers’ years of teaching experience and use of technology
| Barrier | Group 1 (0-5)
(n = 50) |
Mean | Group 2 (5-10)
(n = 57) |
Mean | Group 3 (11-15)
(n = 39) |
Mean | Group 1 (> 15)
(n = 40) |
Mean | ||||||||||||
| Yes | No | Yes | No | Yes | No | Yes | No | |||||||||||||
| n | % | n | % | n | % | n | % | n | % | n | % | n | % | n | % | |||||
| Direct barrier | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Dedication | 18 | 36 | 32 | 64 | 1.28 | 25 | 44 | 32 | 56 | 1.39 | 13 | 33 | 26 | 67 | 1.23 | 43 | 23 | 57 | 43 | 1.35 |
| Attitude | 26 | 14 | 24 | 86 | 1.48 | 24 | 42 | 33 | 58 | 1.40 | 18 | 46 | 21 | 54 | 1.41 | 38 | 25 | 63 | 38 | 1.35 |
| Confidence | 19 | 10 | 31 | 90 | 1.30 | 26 | 46 | 31 | 54 | 1.46 | 18 | 46 | 21 | 54 | 1.46 | 48 | 21 | 53 | 48 | 1.45 |
| Time | 45 | 24 | 5 | 76 | 1.88 | 49 | 86 | 8 | 14 | 1.86 | 32 | 82 | 7 | 18 | 1.77 | 88 | 5 | 13 | 88 | 1.88 |
| Preparation | 29 | 16 | 21 | 84 | 1.56 | 34 | 60 | 23 | 40 | 1.58 | 23 | 59 | 16 | 41 | 1.59 | 45 | 22 | 55 | 45 | 1.43 |
| Effectiveness | 21 | 11 | 29 | 89 | 1.32 | 26 | 46 | 31 | 54 | 1.44 | 16 | 41 | 23 | 59 | 1.38 | 48 | 21 | 53 | 48 | 1.43 |
| Indirect barrier | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Curriculum | 40 | 22 | 10 | 78 | 1.78 | 49 | 86 | 8 | 14 | 1.86 | 30 | 77 | 9 | 23 | 1.74 | 83 | 7 | 18 | 83 | 1.78 |
| Training | 33 | 18 | 17 | 82 | 1.64 | 44 | 77 | 13 | 23 | 1.77 | 29 | 74 | 10 | 26 | 1.69 | 63 | 15 | 38 | 63 | 1.60 |
| Culture of the school | 27 | 15 | 23 | 85 | 1.48 | 35 | 61 | 22 | 39 | 1.61 | 19 | 49 | 20 | 51 | 1.49 | 53 | 19 | 48 | 53 | 1.50 |
| Access to technology | 34 | 18 | 16 | 82 | 1.64 | 40 | 70 | 17 | 30 | 1.70 | 28 | 72 | 11 | 28 | 1.69 | 60 | 16 | 40 | 60 | 1.60 |
| Access to useful software | 34 | 18 | 16 | 82 | 1.64 | 40 | 70 | 17 | 30 | 1.70 | 27 | 69 | 12 | 31 | 1.69 | 63 | 15 | 38 | 63 | 1.63 |
confidence and competence in using technology, but experienced teachers may also need professional development opportunities to update their technological skills and stay abreast of new advancements.
The results did not show substantial differences among participants with more than 5 years of teaching experience. Approximately 80% of them identified the curriculum as a barrier, indicating that even experienced teachers encounter challenges related to aligning technology use with the curriculum requirements and objectives. Because the Lebanese curriculum in secondary classes does encourage the use of technology in teaching, we see that this result goes the results of a study conducted by Christensen and Knezek (2019) showed that curriculum design and implementation can significantly impact the successful use of technology in teaching practices. The researchers found that novice teachers often rely heavily on the prescribed curriculum, as they may be less confident in deviating from established instructional materials. On the other hand, experienced teachers, with a deeper understanding of the curriculum, may have more flexibility to explore and incorporate technology-based resources that align with their instructional goals. The study highlights the need for curriculum frameworks that explicitly address the use of technology and provide guidance to both novice and experienced teachers. A well-designed curriculum should offer opportunities for teachers to leverage technology tools and resources in meaningful ways, promoting student engagement, critical thinking, and collaboration. Moreover, a significant percentage (ranging from 60% to 72%) of these experienced participants identified access to technology and useful software as barriers. This suggests that despite their experience, issues related to technology accessibility and availability of suitable software still persist. It is worth noting that the responses for both access to technology and access to useful software were similar, contrary to what was observed during the pilot phase. This indicates that participants perceived these two factors as interconnected and interdependent barriers to their technology use. The similarity in responses highlights the importance of addressing both aspects in order to facilitate effective technology use in the classroom. Overall, the findings from Table 4 provide valuable insights into the perceived barriers to technology use among different groups of participants, emphasizing the significance of time, preparation, curriculum alignment, and access to technology and suitable software. These findings can inform educators and policymakers in designing targeted interventions and support systems to address these barriers and promote successful technology use in teaching and learning.
Statistically, the one-way ANOVA alpha analysis was conducted to examine the potential differences in the use of technology in teaching mathematics among four distinct groups: novice, advanced beginner, competent, and proficient-expert teachers. The analysis aimed to determine whether these groups significantly differed from each other in terms of their use of technology in the classroom. The obtained results from the statistical analysis revealed that the p-values associated with the one-way ANOVA test were all greater than the predetermined alpha level of .05. This indicates that there is no statistically significant difference between the four groups in terms of technology use in mathematics teaching. These findings suggest that the levels of technology use among novice, advanced beginner, competent, and proficient-expert teachers are not significantly distinct. In other words, the observed differences between these groups regarding the use of technology in teaching mathematics are likely due to chance and not meaningful variations. It implies that the teachers’ proficiency levels, ranging from novice to proficient-expert, do not have a significant impact on their utilization of technology in the mathematics classroom.
In summary, based on the statistical evidence, it can be concluded that there is no significant difference in technology use among the four groups of teachers. This implies that the proficiency level or expertise of teachers does not necessarily influence their adoption and use of technology in the teaching of mathematics. Further research may explore other factors or variables that could potentially explain the observed differences in technology use in mathematics education.
6. Conclusion
This study investigated the barriers that hinder the use of technology in the Lebanese public secondary schools from the perspective of the mathematics teachers. It also investigates whether gender (male and female) and/or the teaching years of experience (novice, advanced beginner, competent, expert) make any significant difference in the use of technology in teaching.
The findings about the barriers to effective technology integration in teaching is crucial. Prioritizing initiatives such as allocating dedicated time in the curriculum, adapting the educational framework, providing comprehensive training programs, and ensuring equitable access to resources can support teachers in overcoming these challenges. By taking proactive steps to address these barriers, teachers can enhance their ability to use technology effectively, leading to more engaging and impactful learning experiences for students. These efforts will contribute to creating a technologically inclusive educational environment that fosters innovation, creativity, and effective knowledge acquisition among learners. Furthermore, it is noteworthy that 53 participants underscored the significance of ability, uncertainty, motivation, infrastructure, and trust as primary impediments affecting their utilization of technology in instructional practices. This collective insight distinctly highlights the tangible influence of these barriers on their technological engagements within classroom settings.
The study found no statistically significant differences in the use of technology between male and female teachers in teaching mathematics. The observed variations in technology use by gender may be attributed to chance or factors unrelated to gender. These results are specific to the sample and context of the study, and further research with a larger and more diverse sample is needed for generalization. Overall, the study concludes that there is no significant disparity between male and female teachers in their use of ICT in teaching mathematics.
Based on the statistical evidence, the results indicate that there are no significant differences in the use of technology among the four groups of teachers. This implies that the level of proficiency or expertise possessed by teachers does not play a substantial role in influencing their adoption and implementation of technology in the teaching of mathematics. It suggests that factors other than teachers’ proficiency, such as external conditions or contextual factors, may be more influential in shaping their technology use in the classroom. While these findings provide valuable insights, further research is needed to delve deeper into the factors that could potentially explain the observed variations in technology use within the field of mathematics education. Exploring alternative variables, such as teachers’ attitudes, beliefs, access to resources, or support systems, may shed light on the underlying reasons behind the differences in technology adoption and implementation.
REFERENCES
Alanazy, M. M., & Alrusaiyes, R. F. (2021). Saudi Pre-Service Special Education Teachers’ Knowledge and Perceptions toward Using Computer Technology. International Education Studies, 14(3), 125-137.
Albirini, A. (2006) ‘Teachers’ attitudes towards information and communication technologies: the case of Syrian EFL teachers’, Computers and Education, Vol. 47, No. 4, pp.373–398.
Andriani, S., Kesumawati, N., & Kristiawan, M. (2018). The influence of the transformational leadership and work motivation on teachers performance. International journal of scientific & technology research, 7(7), 19-29.
Baroud, F. (2011). The Development of E-Learning in a Lebanese Higher Educational Context (Doctoral dissertation). Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield, UK.
Baturay, M. H., Gökçearslan, Ş., & Ke, F. (2017). The relationship among pre-service teachers’ computer competence, attitude towards computer-assisted education, and intention of technology acceptance. International Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning, 9(1), 1-13.
Benner, P. (1984). From novice to expert. Menlo Park, 84(1480), 10-1097.
Brody, D., & Hadar, L. (2011). “I speak prose and I now know it.” Personal development trajectories among teacher educators in a professional development community. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(8), 1223-1234.
Bulman, G., & Fairlie, R. W. (2016). Technology and education: Computers, software, and the internet. In Handbook of the Economics of Education (Vol. 5, pp. 239-280). Elsevier.
Byrne, V. L., Hogan, E., Dhingra, N., Anthony, M., & Gannon, C. (2021). An exploratory study of how novice instructors pivot to online assessments strategies. Distance Education, 42(2), 184-199.
Čekse, I., Geske, A., & Pole, O. (2018, May). Teacher in Citizenship Education Learning Process. In SOCIETY. INTEGRATION. EDUCATION. Proceedings of the International Scientific Conference (Vol. 2, pp. 84-92).
Chai, C. S., Koh, J. H. L., & Tsai, C. C. (2016). A review of the quantitative measures of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK). Handbook of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) for educators, 87-106.
Choy, B. H. (2016). Snapshots of mathematics teacher noticing during task design. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 28(3), 421-440.
Çoklar, A. N., & Yurdakul, I. K. (2017). Technology integration experiences of teachers. Discourse and Communication for Sustainable Education, 8(1), 19-31.
Collins, A., & Halverson, R. (2018). Rethinking education in the age of technology: The digital revolution and schooling in America. Teachers College Press.
Conti, G. J., & Fellenz, R. A. (1991). Assessing adult learning strategies. Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Adult Education Research Conference. University of Oklahoma, Norman
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage publications.
Cussó-Calabuig, R., Farran, X. C., & Bosch-Capblanch, X. (2018). Effects of intensive use of computers in secondary school on gender differences in attitudes towards ICT: A systematic review. Education and Information Technologies, 23, 2111-2139.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Constructing 21st-century teacher education. Journal of teacher education, 57(3), 300-314.
Dreyfus, S. E., & Dreyfus, H. L. (1980). A five-stage model of the mental activities involved in directed skill acquisition.
Drijvers, P. (2015). Digital technology in mathematics education: Why it works (or doesn’t). In Selected regular lectures from the 12th international congress on mathematical education (pp. 135-151). Springer International Publishing.
Emre, D. (2019). Prospective teachers’ perceptions of barriers to technology integration in education. Contemporary Educational Technology, 10(4), 381-398.
Erlangga, D. T. (2022). Student Problems in Online Learning: Solutions to Keep Education Going on. Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning, 3(1), 21-26.
Ertmer, P. (1999) ‘Addressing first- and second-order barriers to change: strategies for technology implementation’, Educational Technology Research and Development, Vol. 47, No. 4, pp.47–61.
Forgasz, H. (2002). Teachers and computers for secondary mathematics. Education and Information Technology, 7(2), 111-125.
Fox, R., & Henri, J. (2005). Understanding teacher mindsets: IT and change in Hong Kong schools. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 8(2), 161-169.
Gess-Newsome, J., Blocher, J. M., Clark, J., Menasco, J., & Willis, E. M. (2003). Technology infused professional development: A framework for development and analysis. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 3(3), 324-340.
Gorder, L. M. (2008). A study of teacher perceptions of instructional technology integration in the classroom. Delta Pi Epsilon Journal, 50(2).
Grossman, P., Hammerness, K., & McDonald, M. (2009). Redefining teaching, re‐imagining teacher education. Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice, 15(2), 273-289.
Hackman, S. T., & Reindl, S. (2022). Challenging EdTech: Towards a more inclusive, accessible and purposeful version of EdTech. Knowledge Cultures, 10(1), 7-21.
Hanny, C. N., Arnesen, K. T., Guo, Q., Hansen, J., & Graham, C. R. (2021). Barriers and enablers to K-12 blended teaching. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 1-22.
Hernández-Ramos, P. (2005). If not here, where? Understanding teachers’ use of technology in Silicon Valley schools. Journal of Research on Technology in education, 38(1), 39-64.
Hew, K. F., & Brush, T. (2007). Integrating technology into K-12 teaching and learning: Current knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research. Educational technology research and development, 55, 223-252.
Ifinedo, E., Rikala, J., & Hämäläinen, T. (2020). Factors affecting Nigerian teacher educators’ technology integration: Considering characteristics, knowledge constructs, ICT practices and beliefs. Computers & education, 146, 103760.
International Society for Technology in Education (2008). NETS for teachers, Retrieved from. http://www.iste.org/standards/nets-for-teachers/nets-for-teachers-2008.aspx.
Juan, C. M., & Bellonch, M. D. M. D. (2021). Female Higher Education teachers use Digital Technologies more and better than they think. Digital Education Review, (40), 172-184.
Kafyulilo, A., Fisser, P., & Voogt, J. (2016). Factors affecting teachers’ continuation of technology use in teaching. Education and Information Technologies, 21, 1535-1554.
Khalid, M. S., & Buus, L. (2014). A theoretical framework mapping barriers of integrating and adopting educational technology. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 1(1).
Koehler, M. J., Mishra, P., & Yahya, K. (2007). Tracing the development of teacher knowledge in a design seminar: Integrating content, pedagogy and technology. Computers & Education, 49, 740-762.
Körtesi, P., Simonka, Z., Szabo, Z. K., Guncaga, J., & Neag, R. (2022). Challenging Examples of the Wise Use of Computer Tools for the Sustainability of Knowledge and Developing Active and Innovative Methods in STEAM and Mathematics Education. Sustainability, 14(20), 12991.
Korthagen, F., Loughran, J., & Russell, T. (2006). Developing fundamental principles for teacher education programs and practices. Teaching and teacher education, 22(8), 1020-1041.
Lawrence, J. E., & Tar, U. A. (2018). Factors that influence teachers’ adoption and integration of ICT in teaching/learning process. Educational Media International, 55(1), 79-105.
Mahdi, H. S., & Al-Dera, A. S. A. (2013). The Impact of Teachers’ Age, Gender and Experience on the Use of Information and Communication Technology in EFL Teaching. English Language Teaching, 6(6), 57-67.
McCulloch, A. W., Hollebrands, K., Lee, H., Harrison, T., & Mutlu, A. (2018). Factors that influence secondary mathematics teachers’ integration of technology in mathematics lessons. Computers & Education, 123, 26-40.
McGarr, O. (2009). The development of ICT across the curriculum in Irish schools: A historical perspective. British journal of educational technology, 40(6), 1094-1108.
Ministry of Education and Higher Education Strategic Planning Development Team. (2012). Teaching and Learning in the Digital Age: Lebanon’s National Educational Technology Strategic Plan. Lebanon: Ministry of Education and Higher Education.
Mirzajani, H., Mahmud, R., & Luan, W. S. (2015). A review of research literature on obstacles that prevent use of ICT in pre-service teachers’ educational courses. International Journal of Education & Literacy Studies, 3(2), 26-31.
Mohsenishad, M., Shirani, S., & Kia Heirati, J. (2020). Raising teachers’ awareness of technology-enhanced language instruction through teacher education: Insights from Scaffolded dialogues. Cogent Education, 7(1), 1831686.
Njiku, J., Mutarutinya, V., & Maniraho, J. F. (2022). Exploring Mathematics Teachers’ Technology Integration Self-Efficacy and Influencing Factors. Journal of Learning for Development, 9(2), 279-290.
Pelgrum, W. J. (2001). Obstacles to the integration of ICT in education: results from a worldwide educational assessment. Computers & education, 37(2), 163-178.
Permatasari, D. (2016). The role of productive struggle to enhance learning mathematics with understanding. In Proceedings of 3rd International Conference on Research, Implementation and Education of Mathematics and Science (pp. 95-100).
Pittman, T., & Gaines, T. (2015). Technology integration in third, fourth and fifth grade classrooms in a Florida school district. Educational Technology Research and Development, 63, 539-554.
Russell, M., Bebell, D., & O’Dwyer, L. (2003). Use, support, and effect of instructional technology study: An overview of the USEIT study and the participating districts. Boston, MA: Technology and Assessment Study Collaborative. Retrieved August, 29, 2004.
Schleicher, A. (2016). Teaching excellence through professional learning and policy reform. Lessons from Around the World, International Summit on the Teaching Profession.
Siddiq, F., & Scherer, R. (2019). Is there a gender gap? A meta-analysis of the gender differences in students’ ICT literacy. Educational research review, 27, 205-217.
Stoilescu, D. (2011). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: Secondary school mathematics teachers’ use of technology (Doctoral dissertation). Ontario Institute for Studies in Education of the University of Toronto. Department of Curriculum, Teaching, and Learning.
Teo, T., Fan, X., & Du, J. (2015). Technology acceptance among pre-service teachers: Does gender matter?. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 31(3).
Thomas, M. O. J. (1996). Computers in the mathematics classroom: A survey. In P. Clarkson (Ed.), Technology in mathematics education (Proceedings of the 19th annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia, pp. 556-563). Melbourne: MERGA.
Thomas, M. O. J. (2006). Teachers using computers in mathematics: A longitudinal study. In J. Novotna, H. Moraova, M. Kratka, & N. Stehlikova (Eds.), Proceedings of the 30th annual conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 5, pp. 265-272). Prague: PME.
Thompson, A. D., Schmidt, D. A., & Davis, N. E. (2003). Technology collaboratives for simultaneous renewal in teacher education. Educational Technology Research and Development, 51(1), 124-128.
Thurm, D., & Barzel, B. (2020). Effects of a professional development program for teaching mathematics with technology on teachers’ beliefs, self-efficacy and practices. ZDM, 1-12.
Tondeur, J., Van Braak, J., Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. (2017). Understanding the relationship between teachers’ pedagogical beliefs and technology use in education: a systematic review of qualitative evidence. Educational technology research and development, 65, 555-575.
Tondeur, J., Van Keer, H., Van Braak, J., & Valcke, M. (2008). ICT integration in the classroom: Challenging the potential of a school policy. Computers & education, 51(1), 212-223.
U.S. Department of Education. (2001). Education through technology act of 2001. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/pg34.html
Wiseman, A. W., Al-bakr, F., Davidson, P. M., & Bruce, E. (2018). Using technology to break gender barriers: gender differences in teachers’ information and communication technology use in Saudi Arabian classrooms. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 48(2), 224-243.
Yukselturk, E., & Bulut, S. (2009). Gender differences in self-regulated online learning environment. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 12(3), 12-22.
[1] – PhD candidate, Math education, Doctoral School of Literature, Humanities & Social Sciences, Lebanese University, Beirut, Lebanon, e-mail: husseinballout21@gmail.com
طالب دكتوراه، تعليم رياضيات، المعهد العالي للدكتوراه في الآداب والعلوم الإنسانية والاجتماعية، الجامعة اللبنانية، بيروت.
[2] – Full professor, Math education, Faculty of Education, Lebanese University, Beirut, Lebanon, e-mail: ninhay@yahoo.fr
أستاذ في تعليم الرياضيات كلية التربية، الجامعة اللبنانية، بيروت، لبنان.
