Cited by 78Education and Communication StudiesEducation and Technology IntegrationTeacher Education and Leadership Studies

Key Factors Influencing Teachers’ Motivation to Transfer Technology-Enabled Educational Innovation

Open access
Stumbrienė, Dovilė, Jevsikova, Tatjana, Kontvainė, Vita·2024·Education and Information Technologies

Abstract

In response to the digital transformation in education, teachers are expected to develop new competencies. Although teachers gained valuable experience in digital technology use during the COVID-19 pandemic, research and practice show that primary school teachers need to be supported and trained for the new normal of innovative, advanced use and adoption of digital technologies in educational practice. This study aims to identify the key factors that influence teachers' motivation to transfer technology-enabled educational innovation in primary education. The Learning Transfer System Inventory (LTSI) factors and the adoption factors of technology-enabled educational innovation have been conceptually mapped. The LTSI model has been empirically validated with data collected from 12.7% of Lithuanian primary school teachers. The structural equation modeling technique was utilized to analyze causal relationships of factors influencing teachers' motivation to transfer technology-enabled educational innovation. The qualitative research method was used to provide a deeper understanding of key factors that influence motivation to transfer. The conducted analysis shows that motivation to transfer is significantly influenced by all five domains of factors: perceived value, personal characteristics, social practices, organizational and technology-enabled innovation factors. Motivation to transfer innovation varies according to teachers' perceived digital technology integration skills, which underpin the importance of applying different roles and strategies based on the teachers' skills. This study provides implications for designing effective professional development for in-service teachers and creating a suitable environment in schools for the adoption of innovation in post-COVID-19 education.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10639-023-11891-6

Cites

67 of 67 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. Chang J Chiang T The impact of learner characteristics on transfer of training Journal of Information Technology and Application in Education 2013 2 1 16 22
  2. Howard S Tondeur J Hutchison N Scherer R Siddiq F A t(r)opical journey: Using text mining to explore teachers’ experiences in the great online transition Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2022 2022 930 935
  3. IEEE Standards Association (2020). IEEE standard for digital intelligence (DQ) – Framework for digital literacy, skills, and readiness, IEEE 3527.1–2020.
  4. Kirkland K Sutch D Overcoming the barriers to educational innovation: A literature review 2009 Futurelab
  5. Koehler, M. & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK)? Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 60–70. Waynesville, NC USA: Society for information technology & teacher education. Retrieved May 16, 2023, from https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/29544/
  6. Punie, Y., & Redecker, C. (2017). European framework for the digital competence of educators: DigCompEdu, EUR 28775 EN, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, JRC107466. 10.2760/159770 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Stumbrienė, D., Jevsikova, T., & Kontvainė, V.
Affiliations
  • Vilnius University (LT)
  • Lithuanian Centre for Social Sciences (LT)
Corresponding author
Stumbrienė, Dovilė
Venue
Education and Information Technologies
Published
2023-05-20
Volume
29
Issue
2
Pages
1697-1731
ISSN
  • 1360-2357 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-7608
OpenAlex
W4377140514
Cited by
78
References
67
Citations by year
2026: 28 · 2025: 29 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 2
FWCI
57.70
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Education and Information Technologies (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Education and Communication Studies
  • Social Sciences › Education › Education and Technology Integration
  • Social Sciences › Education › Teacher Education and Leadership Studies
Keywords
teacher motivation, innovation transfer, Learning Transfer System Inventory, primary school teachers, perceived value, social practices, organizational factors, technology adoption, in-service teacher professional development, post-COVID-19 education, digitalization of education

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review