This document analyzes the impact of ICT training for teachers using both quantitative and qualitative measurements. Questionnaires measured changes in teachers' computer self-efficacy (CSE) and teaching self-efficacy (TSE) over time, finding that Group A's CSE increased slightly while TSE remained stable, with no correlation between the two. Interviews explored sources of self-efficacy like mastery experiences. Qualitatively, Group B teachers already used technology in various ways, while Group A incorporated more uses over time. Though teachers used ICT, they did not necessarily link this to feeling like better educators, explaining the lack of CSE-TSE correlation. The study shows how mixed methods can provide complementary insights into

1. The value of measurement in
research practice:
Evaluating ICT training in
education
Francesca Fanni, Izak van Zyl, Isabella Rega, and Lorenzo Cantoni
New Media in Education Laboratory (NewMinE Lab), Università della
Svizzera italiana, Lugano, Switzerland

2. Isabella Rega
Isabella.rega@usi.ch

3. Objectives
• to describe the use of a blended approach in analysing the
impact of ICTs in education.
• quantitative (based on questionnaire data) measurements
• qualitative (based on interview data) measurements
• to show how each may complement the other

4. Self-Efficacy (SE) Construct
People’s judgment of their capabilities to organize and execute
courses of action required to attain designated types of
performances.
Bandura, 1995
• 4 main sources
• mastery experiences,
• vicarious experiences,
• social persuasion,
• and emotional states.

5. Computer SE (CSE) & Teacher SE
(TSE)
CSE
an individual perception of his or her ability to use computers in
the accomplishment of a task
Compeau & Higgins, 1995
TSE
Judgment of his or her capabilities to bring about desired
outcomes of student engagement and learning, even among
those students who may be difficult or unmotivated
Bandura, 1995

6. The Sample and the Measurements
• Group A: 42 teachers - Rosmead and Zimasa
• Group B: 68 teachers - Vukukhanye, Blossom,
Thembani and Moshesh
Group A Group B
• Quantitative Approach • Quantitative Approach
• July 2009 - beginning • July 2009
• January 2010 - middle • January 2010
• May 2010 – end • --
• Qualitative Approach • Qualitative Approach
• February/April 2010 • June/August 2010

7. Quantitative Results/1
Group A
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
July 2009 January 2010 May 2010
TSE 7.2 6.7 7
CSE 5.7 6.1 6.3

8. Quantitative Results/2
Group B
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
July 2009 January 2010
TSE 7.2 6.9
CSE 5.7 5.7

9. 10
15
20
25
30
0
5
internal psychology (A)
internal psychology (B)
student engagement (A)
student engagement (B)
classroom management (A)
classroom management (B)
instructional strategies (A)
instructional strategies (B)
preparation (A)
preparation (B)
admin (A)
admin (B)
Mastery Experience Positive
personal use (A)
Qualitative Results/1
personal use (B)
general (A)
general (B)
support (A)
support (B)
ACTUAL
POSSIBLE

10. 0
10
20
30
40
50
60
internal psychology (A)
internal psychology (B)
student engagement (A)
student engagement (B)
classroom management (A)
classroom management (B)
instructional strategies (A)
instructional strategies (B)
personal use (A)
personal use (B)
technical issues (A)
Qualitative Results/2
technical issues (B)
Negative Mastery Experience
general (A)
general (B)
support (A)
support B)
ACTUAL
POSSIBLE

11. Qualitative Results/3
Vicarious Experience Positive
60
50
40
30
20 POSSIBLE
ACTUAL
10
0

12. Qualitative Results/4
Vicarious Experience Negative
60
50
40
30
20
POSSIBLE
10 ACTUAL
0

13. Hints on Complementarity
• Quantitative results
• Group A:
• CSE slightly increased, TSE stable.
• No correlation between CSE and TSE.
• CSE and TSE starting values: high
• Qualitative results:
• High starting CSE value:
• Group B: already using technologies in a variety of ways : to engage their students
in learning activities, to manage their classes, to design and deliver their
instructional strategies, for lesson preparation, and to perform administrative tasks
• Group A started using more technologies within their working activities, featuring
many usages from the realm of possible to the realm of actual and increasing their
perceptions of mastery experiences in ICT.
• No correlation between CSE and TSE
• It is not a matter of not adoption, teachers are in fact using ICTs (for various
purposes), but cannot explicitly relate this to their perceptions of being better
educators

14. THANK YOU!
Isabella Rega
Isabella.rega@usi.ch