Education Tech Research Dev

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-018-9591-0

DEVELOPMENT ARTICLE

A basic model of integration of ICT by teachers:

competence and use

Jesús Suárez-Rodrı́guez1 • Gonzalo Almerich1 • Natividad Orellana1 •

Isabel Dı́az-Garcı́a1

 Association for Educational Communications and Technology 2018

Abstract The process to integrate information and communication technologies (ICT),

where teachers play a decisive role, is complex. The objective of this study is to build a
basic model that connects teachers’ ICT technological and pedagogical competences with
the use of these technological resources by teachers (both personal-professional use and
use with students). The model also considers how personal and contextual factors influence
this relationship. A secondary analysis study was used, whose sample included 1095 male
and female Primary, Secondary and Higher Education teachers from the Valencian
Community (east Spain). Information was collected with a questionnaire from two survey
design studies. Using an MIMIC model, teachers’ integration of ICT was optimally
modeled. This model shows a complex relation between competence and use. Techno-
logical competences influence pedagogical competences and personal-professional use,
while pedagogical competences influence personal-professional use and use in class. Use
in class is influenced by both pedagogical competences and personal-professional use.
Personal and contextual factors influenced the four dimensions of use and competence.
This basic model of the relationship between teachers’ ICT competences and using these
educational resources helps us to understand the complex process of integrating ICT into
classrooms. Therefore, this model is a key element to guide teacher training in ICT.

Keywords ICT competences
ICT use
Teachers
Primary education
Secondary

education
Higher education

& Gonzalo Almerich

Gonzalo.Almerich@uv.es
1
Department of Research Methods and Educational Diagnosis, Faculty of Phylosophy and Sciencies
Education, University of Valencia, Av. Blasco Ibáñez 30, 46010 Valencia, Spain

123
 J. Suárez-Rodrı́guez et al.

Introduction

In the last two decades, information and communication technologies (ICT) have been
incorporated into the education system. In most countries, plans have been devised to
include ICT in education systems (Eurydice 2011; Fraillon et al. 2014). Thus, infras-
tructures of education centers have considerably improved, such as in primary and sec-
ondary education (Wastiau et al. 2013).
Nevertheless, this incorporation has not led to the impact and development that these
technological resources were expected to have, which is the paradox indicated by Cuban
et al. (2001), showing good ICT access, but their infrequent use in class. Cuban et al.
(2001) report that teachers infrequently use ICT in classrooms and laboratories, and the
way classes are taught has not been changed by using such resources. In recent years,
teachers have employed more ICT in their teaching practice (European Commission 2013;
Gray and Lewis 2009), but they use ICT more for preparing classes and other tasks than
with students in class (Frailon et al. 2014; Sipilä 2014; Wastiau et al. 2013), which Cuban
et al. (2001) previously pointed out. What this means is that the process of integrating ICT
into class is still a challenge (Pittman and Gaines 2015).
Consequently, teachers are a decisive actor as to whether technological resources are
integrated into their teaching practice because the process of integrating ICT will not take
place if they do not collaborate. Teachers ultimately decide about applying ICT to their
teaching practice and the way to put them into practice (Ertmer 2005).
Thus, teachers need to be competent in, and have to master, these technological
resources. In this way, the ICT competences used by teachers are essential for the process
of integrating ICT (Kabakci et al. 2014), and for linking them with teachers’ use of ICT in
their teaching practice (Sipilä 2014). Yet despite the time that has elapsed, Vanderlinde
et al. (2014) maintain that it is still necessary to deal with the influence of teaching
competences on ICT in order to learn about the integration of these resources into their
teaching practice.
Therefore, it is necessary to build relational models for teachers that describe the
complexity of the process of integrating ICT into classrooms (Inan and Lowther 2010;
Ritzhaupt et al. 2012). In these models, Karaca et al. (2013) point out the need to include
pedagogic knowledge and skills, and those of a technological kind. In line with this, the
pedagogic component comes over as an important predictor of the process of integrating
ICT by teachers (Law and Chow 2008; Knezek and Christensen 2016). In these models for
ICT to be integrated into classrooms, teacher-related personal and contextual factors need
to be considered (Almerich et al. 2016). Moreover, rather than being a simple linear
relationship between each factor and integration, it is fundamental to contemplate different
factors and their interaction in order to favor a more complete analysis of using ICT in
class (Miranda and Rusell 2012).
Therefore, the present study centers on advancing in the process of teachers integrating
ICT into different stages of education (Primary, Secondary and University) by considering
a model that deals with both teachers’ competences in ICT and their use of technological
resources from the same perspective of personal and contextual factors. This implies
asking the following questions in the present study:
• Does a basic model exist about the relationship between teachers’ ICT competences
and the use of these resources at all levels of education?
• How do the dimensions of teachers’ competences in ICT and the dimensions of
teachers’ use of these resources link?

123
A basic model of integration of ICT by teachers…

• How do personal and contextual factors influence the relationship?

Competences and use by teachers. Key components in ICT integration

Teachers are a key element for integrating ICT into the education system. Therefore,
teachers have to feel confident about using ICT, and must consider both technological and
pedagogical components because both are essential for using ICT in classrooms (Ertmer
and Ottenbreit-Leftwich 2013). Consequently, this means acquiring technological and
pedagogical knowledge and skills in ICT, which will allow teachers to integrate these
technological resources into their teaching practice (Almerich et al. 2016). In this way,
those teachers who feel competent with them will use them more in their teaching practice
(Frailon et al. 2014; Suárez et al. 2010; Wastiau et al. 2013). The relationship between
teachers’ competences in ICT and using educational resources in their teaching practice is
key for the integration process of ICT.

Teachers’ competences in ICT

Teachers’ competences in ICT are a factor that can change their teaching practice
(Almerich et al. 2016) as they are a very important aspect for integrating ICT into
classrooms (Vanderlinde et al. 2014). ICT competences, considered to be the knowledge
and skills that teachers have to acquire in order to integrate technological resources into
their teaching practice (Almerich et al. 2016), have recently drawn attention in the liter-
ature about ICT.
According to Almerich et al. (2016), competences frameworks in ICT can be arranged
in three main groups. The first is made up of the frameworks of teachers’ competences that
different institutions have proposed and developed (ISTE 2008; UNESCO 2011). A second
group includes proposals from technological pedagogical and content knowledge (TPACK
Angeli and Valanides 2005, 2009; Kabakci et al. 2014; Koehler and Mishra 2005),
although their development is still in the early stages. The third group results from several
researchers who have developed competence-based models for teachers (Guzman and
Nussbaum 2009; Hsu 2010; Krumsvik 2011; Markauskaite 2007). Based on the works of
several authors (Almerich et al. 2016; Baylor and Ritchie 2002; Law 2009; Law and Chow
2008; Orellana et al. 2013; Pelgrum 2009; Suárez-Rodrı́guez et al. 2013), two large subsets
of teachers’ competences in ICT are considered: technological and pedagogical.
Technological competences refer to the knowledge and skills that teachers possess,
which allow them to suitably master technological resources for their teaching practice
(Almerich et al. 2016). They cover handling and mastering computer use; basic computing
applications; multimedia; educational software; and the Internet (searching for informa-
tion, communication, etc.).
Pedagogical competences are considered to comprise knowledge and skills that teachers
have on ICT for their learning and teaching process (curriculum design, planning, etc.), and
allow teachers to use these educational resources in their teaching practice in the classroom
(Almerich et al. 2016). They contemplate teaching–learning guidelines according to ICT;
classroom organization; creating a teaching–learning environment into which ICT are
integrated; communication with the educational community (parents, students, etc.); par-
ticipation in projects and innovations in which ICT are the core focus; and ethical and legal
matters that arise from employing ICT.

123
 J. Suárez-Rodrı́guez et al.

Teachers’ use of ICT

Teachers’ use of ICT in their teaching practice is a complex process (Vanderlinde et al.
2014) that has been dealt with in several studies in the last decade (Gil-Flores et al. 2017;
Gray, Thomas and Lewis 2010; Ibieta, Hinostroza, Labbé and Claro 2017; Meneses et al.
2012; O’Dwyer et al. 2004; Orellana et al. 2013; Sang et al. 2011; Suárez et al. 2010, 2012;
Tondeur et al. 2007; Tondeur et al. 2008; van Braak et al. 2004; Vanderlinde et al. 2014).
From these studies, two different teacher uses of technological resources are considered:
personal-professional and with students in class.
The personal-professional use refers to employing ICT in the different tasks of their
teaching practice when students are not present. This use encompasses basic aspects like
the administrative and management tasks that teachers do as a result of their teaching work,
preparing classes, and creating didactic materials to employ them in their teaching practice.
The use of ICT when students are in class refers to ICT being used in classroom
practice. This use acts as a support to offer explanations, employing technological
resources with students in class, and including these resources in students’ curricula by
creating environments into which ICT have been completely incorporated.

Influence of competences in ICT on the use of these technologies by teachers

and the incidence of personal and contextual factors on that relationship

In recent years, several studies have investigated the process to integrate ICT into class
(Kabakci et al. 2014; Karaca et al. 2013; Knezek and Christensen 2016; Inan and Lowther
2010; Liu et al. 2017; Miranda and Russell 2012; Ritzhaupt et al. 2012; Vanderlinde et al.
2014). These works establish a positive predictive relationship of teachers’ competences in
ICT for their use with students. However, each model includes different dimensions of
competence and use.
When focusing on this problem in the link between competencies in ICT and the use of
these technological resources, the department of Evaluation and Accountability of the
Department of Education and Training of Western Australia (EADETWA 2007) found that
the most influential factor in teachers’ competences in ICT is personal-professional use.
Law and Chow (2008) found a significant relationship between using ICT in class and
competences in ICT by teachers, and indicated that both competence types (technological
and pedagogical) are predictors of their use in class, where the pedagogical component is
more influential than the technological one. Mueller et al. (2008) pointed out that acquiring
experience in ICT meant increases ICT use in class. Suárez et al. (2010) also observed a
close connection between both components, and that personal-professional use is more
clearly related with teachers’ pedagogical and technological competences than their use
with students in class. Almerich et al. (2011b) structured the competences in ICT and use
dimensions to link technological competences with personal-professional use, and peda-
gogical competences with use in class. Nevertheless, the structural relationship model
between the competences and use dimensions has not been performed to study this
complex link more accurately.
Integrating ICT into education is a complex and dynamic process (Liu et al. 2017) and
many factors intervene in it, as several studies have cited (Ertmer 2005; Hsu and Kuan,
2013; Inan and Lowther 2010; Ritzhaupt et al. 2012; Salinas et al. 2016; Wozney et al.
2006). It is generally possible to distinguish between teachers’ own personal factors and
the contextual factors that surround them (Ertmer 2005). The literature about teachers’

123
A basic model of integration of ICT by teachers…

competences and use of ICT cites gender (EADETWA 2007; Gil-Flores et al. 2017; Sipilä
2014; Suárez-Rodrı́guez et al. 2012), age (EADETWA 2007; Frailon et al. 2014; Suárez-
Rodrı́guez et al. 2012), level of education (EADETWA 2007, Liu et al. 2017; Suárez-
Rodrı́guez et al. 2012) and a computer available in the workplace (Liu et al. 2017;
O’Dwyer et al. 2004; Suárez-Rodrı́guez et al. 2012) as influential factors, among others.

Structural model of competences in ICT and use of ICT

The proposed basic model of the relationship between competences in ICT and use of ICT
is structured into four latent variables: technological competences and pedagogical com-
petences make up the competences in ICT; personal-professional use and use with students
in class comprise the use of ICT. Given the complexity of integrating ICT, different
personal and contextual factors are considered (gender, age, frequency of using a computer
at home, level of education and using a computer in the classroom), which affect both
competences and use, as Fig. 1 shows.
A relationship is established in the model between technological and pedagogical
competences, where technological competences influence pedagogical competences, which
is based on the basic model of competences determined by Suárez-Rodrı́guez et al. (2013)
and by Almerich et al. (2016).
The relationship between both uses, personal-professional use influences use in class, is
established with the basic model about ICT use by Suárez et al. (2012) and Orellana et al.

Fig. 1 Model of teachers’ competences in ICT and use of ICT

123
 J. Suárez-Rodrı́guez et al.

(2013), and by the model of Sang et al. (2011), which indicate that using teachers’ support
is a predictor of use in class with students.
Finally, a relationship can be found between technological competences and peda-
gogical competences with both use types, where both types of competences influence both
types of use. It is based on several of the aforementioned studies conducted into the
relationship between competences and using technological resources (Almerich et al.
2011b; Inan and Lowther 2010; Law and Chow 2008; Suárez et al. 2010).

Purpose

The purpose of this study is to build a basic model of the explanatory relationship of
competences in ICT with teachers’ use of these technological resources. For this purpose,
four areas are considered: technological competences, pedagogical competences, personal-
professional use and use with students in class. A series of personal and contextual factors
is also contemplated which, together with these four areas, establishes the relational
structure as a whole. This is contemplated from a multivariate perspective given the
existence of different interrelated factors, just as several authors have previously suggested
(Inan and Lowther 2010; Law and Chow 2008; Tondeur et al. 2008; Ritzhaupt et al. 2012;
Almerich et al. 2016).
Three objectives were covered in this study:
• Validating a basic model that relates ICT competences and the use of these
technological resources at all levels of education
• Establishing the relationship between the ICT competences dimensions and those
related with using technological resources, by particularly determining how the
technological and pedagogical competence dimensions in ICT influence the dimensions
of professional-personal ICT use and use with students in class
• Determining the influence of personal and contextual factors on the structure of
competences and ICT use

Method

Design

This work employs a secondary data analysis design (McMillan and Schumacher 2010).
Data come from two former survey-based studies: one that used a survey with Primary and
Secondary Education teachers, and another that conducted a survey with university
teachers.

Participants

The study population is made up of Primary, Secondary and University Education teachers
from the Valencian Community (east Spain). The sample comprises 1095 male and female
teachers, whose sample characteristics are shown in Table 1. Stratified random sampling is
employed in both studies. In the study conducted with Primary and Secondary Education
teachers, level of education and province in the Valencian Community are taken as the
sampling variables, where the primary sampling unit is the education centers and teachers
are the second sampling unit. In the study done with university teachers, who come from

123
A basic model of integration of ICT by teachers…

Table 1 Sample characteristics in the key personal and contextual variables

Gender Male teachers (48.3%), female teachers (51.7%)

Age Mean = 41.3 years; range 20–69

Professional experience
Frequency of using a computer at
home
Educational level
Regular access to the computer
classroom
Mean = 15.3 years; range 1–45
Once a month or less (14.6%)
Several times a month or weekly (23.7%)
Several times a week (30.0%)
Everyday (31.6%)
Primary: 32.1%. Male teachers: 34.8% and female teachers: 65.2%.
Compulsory secondary: 31.9%. Male teachers: 52%; female
teachers: 48%.
High school: 18.4%. Male teachers: 56.3%; female teachers:
43.7%.
University: 17.6%. Male teachers: 64.6%; female teachers: 35.4%.
Yes: 51.8%
No: 49.2%

four public universities in the Valencian Community (University of Valencia, Polytechnic

University of Valencia, University of Alicante and the Universitat Jaume I of Castellón),
the sampling variables are university, gender, occupational situation and specialized area.

Instrument

The instrument used to collect information is a questionnaire, which was designed based on
two more extensive review studies whose purpose was to analyze implementing ICT into
teaching practice by university and non-university teachers from the Valencian Commu-
nity (E Spain). This questionnaire comprised eight sections: teacher characteristics; access
to computer equipment; knowledge of and skills in ICT; use of ICT (personal-professional
and with students); ICT integration into teaching practice; training requirements in both
technological resources and ICT integration; attitudes to ICT; obstacles for using them in
class. To devise the questionnaire, different references on ICT among teachers were first
taken into account. The questionnaire was sent to several specialists in education tech-
nology to assess its items. A definitive instrument was produced after considering 8
experts’ views and bearing their congruence in mind.
In particular, this study takes into account three questionnaire sections that are closely
related to the previously presented competences model (Almerich et al. 2016; Orellana
et al. 2013; Suárez-Rodrı́guez et al. 2013). These sections are: knowledge and skills of
technological resources, use of technological resources (personal-professional and with
students), and integrating technological resources into classrooms. Moreover, personal
(gender, age and frequency of using a computer at home) and contextual factors (level of
education and using a computer in classroom) are also considered.
The technological competences section (see Fig. 2) comprises 32 items (Cronbach’s
a = .98) grouped into four main dimensions: handling and using a computer, basic com-
puter applications, presentations-multimedia applications, and ICT. The items in each
dimension indicate what kind of knowledge and what skills teachers possess in applica-
tions. The first items reflect more basic knowledge, while the last items reflect advanced
knowledge about technological tools. The Likert-type scale with five response categories is

123
 J. Suárez-Rodrı́guez et al.

Fig. 2 The basic dimensions of teachers’ competences in ICT

progressively structured so that teachers can evaluate their knowledge of and skills in
technological resources according to what they know and do not know about them, which
range from (Nothing) to completely mastering all/nearly all their features (A lot).
The section on integrating technological resources (see Fig. 2) comprises 11 items
(Cronbach’s a = .92), among which teachers are asked how they integrate ICT into design
and curricular developments, and into planning and educational organization. This section
includes four basic dimensions: planning teaching, creating environments into which ICT

123
A basic model of integration of ICT by teachers…

are integrated, innovation and communication with the school community and ethical
aspects. The five-point Likert-type scale goes from Never to Always.
For use of technological resources, personal-professional use and use with students are
distinguished in Fig. 3. In this case, the two sections are arranged in three basic dimen-
sions: basic computer applications, multimedia and presentations, and ICT, with 12 items
in each one: Cronbach’s a = .92 for personal-professional use, and Cronbach’s a = .89 for
use with students. In both sections, teachers are asked which technological resources they
use (word processor, spreadsheet, etc.), and how frequently they use them for given tasks
and/or activities. In each section a Likert-type scale is used whose categories are pro-
gressively structured and range from not using this resource at all (Nothing) to using it for
all activities and/or tasks and innovating with it (At lot).
To arrange these indicators in the dimensions, we employ parcels of items, taken as the
sum or mean of several items that evaluate a unidimensional construct (Nasser and
Wisenbaker 2003). This option is taken to this end because the scale on which indicators
are measured (a five-point Likert scale; Schau et al. 1995) and the existence of clear
‘‘difficulty’’ associations among elements (Rushton et al. 1983) form a complex structure,
which we believe does not allow this field to be clearly structured. Regarding the unidi-
mensionality requirement (Nasser and Wisenbaker, 2003), an exploratory factor analysis of
the principal axes for each parcel allowed us to verify that all the parcels presented
unidimensionality. Moreover, Cronbach’s a is presented and McDonald’s x was calculated
for each parcel by the exploratory factor analyses (see Figs. 2, 3), where all the parcels are
adequate.

Procedure

Questionnaire data were collected mainly by online questionnaires. In the education

centers that lacked installations or teachers did not possess the corresponding knowledge,
printed questionnaires were sent and answered.
In the study done with non university teachers, we contacted the principals of schools
and informed them about the research to be conducted and how the teachers had to be
answered. After accepting the chance to participate in the study, instructions about how to
answer the online questionnaire were forwarded to each school. If teachers did not answer
online, printed questionnaires were sent to them. The period during which teachers could
answer the questionnaire lasted 3 months, and teachers were periodically reminded of the
need to complete it. The response rate was 78.3%.
In the study done with university teachers, after receiving the database of teachers from
the Rectorates of all four universities, we contacted teachers by means of email selection.
This email explained the type of research to be conducted and provided the instructions
about how to respond. Once again, if the teachers did not answer online, printed ques-
tionnaires were sent to them. The period during which teachers could answer the ques-
tionnaire lasted 4 months, and teachers were periodically reminded of the need to complete
it. The response rate was 71.8%.
Both studies indicated the importance of the participating teachers’ responses, and how
they would remain confidential and data would be kept anonymous. Participation in the
studies was voluntary and teachers had to sign informed consent. No participant was paid
to collaborate in it.

123
 J. Suárez-Rodrı́guez et al.

Fig. 3 The basic dimensions of use of ICT by teachers

123
A basic model of integration of ICT by teachers…

Data analysis

The statistical analyses are descriptive statistics, obtained by SPSS 22.0, and modeling by
structural equations with the LISREL 8.80 program.
For the second analysis (building the model), a structural equations model is used,
Multiple Indicators and Multiple Causes (MIMIC; Joreskog and Goldberger 1975; Muthén
1989). This model indicates the relationship between competences in ICT and teachers’ use
of ICT, as well as the influence of personal and contextual factors on latent variables
(mentioned above), which are taken as covariates. Model estimations are made by robust
maximum likelihood estimations given the non-normality of the employed dimensions (see
Tables 2, 3). To evaluate the model fit, and given the employed procedure, the adjusted v2
is employed following the Satorra-Bentler procedure. Several authors (Byrne 2006; Hair
et al. 2010) recommend using other indicators to evaluate fit by selecting, in this case: Root
Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA), with a good fit indicated by a value
below .05, along with its 90% confidence interval and its probability; the Comparative Fit
Index (CFI), considered a good fit with values over .95; Standardized Root Mean Square
Residual (SRMSR), which indicates a good model fit when values are below .05.

Results

The results are arranged in two sections. The first describes competences in ICT and the
use of ICT by teachers. The second section presents the basic model of competences in ICT
and use of ICT, along with personal and contextual factors.

Table 2 Descriptive statistics of the dimensions of competence

Dimensions Univariate descriptives

Mean Standard Form of distribution Normality test

deviation with skewness
and kurtosis

Skewness Kurtosis v2 P
value

Technological Handling and using a 2.83 1.15 0.24 - 1.01 67.406 .000
competences computer
Basic computer 2.94 1.16 0.08 - 0.98 53.147 .000
applications
Multimedia and 2.06 0.96 0.92 0.06 136.122 .000
presentations
ICT 2.73 1.18 0.14 - 1.06 64.709 .000
Pedagogical Planning teaching 2.88 1.09 - 0.18 - 0.73 35.749 .000
competences Design of enriched 2.08 0.95 0.70 - 0.16 88.049 .000
environments with ICT
Innovation and 2.07 0.94 0.75 - 0.02 98.810 .000
communication
Ethical and legal 2.84 1.51 0.09 - 1.43 112.248 .000
problems

123
 J. Suárez-Rodrı́guez et al.

Table 3 Descriptive statistics of the dimensions of competence and use

Dimensions Univariate descriptives

Mean Standard Form of distribution Normality test

deviation with skewness
and kurtosis

Skewness Kurtosis v2 P
value

Personal- Basic computer 2.87 1.13 0.08 - 0.93 47.661 .000

professional applications
use Multimedia and 2.12 0.97 0.76 - 0.11 101.648 .000
presentations
ICT 2.30 0.99 0.56 - 0.29 63.600 .000
Use with students Basic computer 1.62 0.88 1.74 2.69 716.123 .000
in class applications
Multimedia and 1.67 0.77 1.45 2.07 491.907 .000
presentations
ICT 1.45 0.69 1.93 3.65 1088.356 .000

Teachers’ competences and use of ICT

Both teachers’ competences and their use of technological resources generally present low
mean values, with higher values for competences than for use (see Tables 2, 3). Variability
in all sections is wide, which means that some teachers have a high level of competences
and a good use level, while others present low levels.
The technological competences values are higher than the pedagogical ones. In tech-
nological competences, teachers’ level almost equals that of a normal user; here a normal
user is understood as someone who masters technological resources, but does not display
an advanced use of its features. Teachers present a normal user level in basic applications,
and for handling a computer and ICT, but with limitations. The multimedia and presen-
tations dimension reveals quite a number of shortages. Pedagogical competences occa-
sionally come over in their teaching practice, but teachers consider them more when
planning the teaching/learning process, along with ethical problems. However, both the
dimensions that create learning environments into which ICT are integrated and innova-
tion-communication are barely considered in their teaching work, and are used only
sporadically.
Personal-professional use is greater than use with students in class. On the whole, teachers
resort to regular personal-professional use of technological resources and only for certain
teaching practices (management, exams, seeking information, etc.). Teachers mainly employ
basic applications and, to a lesser extent, ICT and multimedia/presentations. Regarding their
use with students in class, they employ technological resources for a few sporadic aspects and
only occasionally in class. It is worth stressing that teachers employ the multimedia-pre-
sentations dimension more, followed by basic applications and ICT.

Basic competences model and use of ICT, along with personal and contextual
factors

The model is made up of technological and pedagogical competences, personal-profes-

sional use and use with students, plus their indicators. Given the complexity of the process

123
A basic model of integration of ICT by teachers…

of integrating ICT, a series of personal and contextual factors is considered in this

structure. The model only presents significant effects according to parsimony (Sang et al.
2011).
First, the correlations among dimensions (see Fig. 4) suggest that within each compe-
tence component and use of the relationship among them is strong, but is weaker in relation
to the other components. We can also see that a relationship exists between the covariate
variables and the dimensions.
Secondly, the indicators of the proposed model’s fit clearly show its relevance. Indeed
all the considered indicators indicate an excellent fit, as we can see below in Table 4.
The measurement model firstly indicates that the indicators of the different latent
variables are congruent as they are all significant (p \ .01). Almost all the saturations are
above .70, except for the ethics dimension in pedagogic competences (.56). We can also
see in Table 5 that the reliability index composed of the dimensions is above .70, and that
the AVE value exceeds .50. Therefore, the values of saturations, composed reliability and
AVE are higher than the reference ones. This represents adequate construct validity (Hair
et al. 2010).
The links among the four latent variables considered in the proposed model (see Fig. 5
and Table 6) are significant, except for the relationship between technological compe-
tences and use with students in class (t = .37; p = .71), with which this relation was not
considered in the model, as previously mentioned. The most intense relationships appear
between technological competences and personal-professional use (.94), and also between
technological competences and pedagogical competences (.77). The other aforementioned
relationships present a lower degree. Here pedagogical competences obtain a higher value
for use with students (.38) than for personal-professional use (.12). The value obtained for
the connection between personal-professional use and use with students in class is .34. This
indicates the congruence of the proposed basic model, which relates teachers’ competences
and use of ICT. The variance explained in each competence and use dimension (see Fig. 5)
is medium-sized, and is very important in personal-professional use. In the case of use in
class with students is 61%.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
1. Handling and using a computer 1.00
2. Basic computer applications .85 1.00
3. Multimedia and presentations .79 .78 1.00
4. Information and communication
.83 .80 .82 1.00
technologies
5. Planning teaching .57 .59 .59 .59 1.00
6. Design of enriched environments
.51 .52 .58 .54 .76 1.00
with ICT
7. Innovation and communication .52 .53 .61 .55 .70 .82 1.00
8. Ethical and legal problems .33 .35 .36 .34 .54 .48 .52 1.00
9. Basic computer
.73 .83 .68 .72 .56 .50 .50 .33 1.00
applications_PPU
10. Multimedia and
.64 .65 .77 .69 .61 .63 .62 .39 .67 1.00
presentations_PPU
11. Information and communication
.73 .72 .79 .87 .59 .57 .59 .33 .71 .73 1.00
technologies_PPU
12. Basic computer
.44 .49 .48 .43 .44 .51 .49 .23 .49 .45 .44 1.00
applications_USC
13. Multimedia and presentations_
.47 .45 .58 .48 .52 .59 .55 .31 .42 .67 .50 .62 1.00
USC
14. Information and communication
.44 .45 .52 .49 .45 .53 .51 .26 .41 .49 .52 .70 .67 1.00
technologies_ USC
15. Gender -.50 -.38 -.32 -.39 -.15 -.14 -.16 -.15 -.35 -.26 -.32 -.19 -.14 -.18 1.00
16. Age -.14 -.16 -.17 -.23 -.17 -.17 -.14 -.07 -.07 -.15 -.17 -.02 -.07 -.06 -.13 1.00
17. Frequency of use a computer .56 .56 .50 .55 .39 .32 .32 .26 .54 .45 .51 .26 .31 .30 -.30 -.07 1.00
18. Level of education .34 .37 .33 .37 .26 .17 .20 .14 .41 .23 .37 .29 .23 .32 -.27 .07 .34 1.00
19. Computer classroom .20 .21 .16 .19 .21 .26 .24 .15 .14 .19 .17 .24 .31 .26 -.03 -.21 .08 -.10 1.00

Fig. 4 Matrix of correlation between the dimensions of competence, use and personal and contextual
factors

123
 J. Suárez-Rodrı́guez et al.

Table 4 Fit indicators of the MIMIC model

v2 S-B RMSEA
2
v S-B g.l. P RMSEA Int 90% Pclose CFI SRMR

151.19 130 .10 .01 (.00–.02) 1.0 1.0 .040

Table 5 Composite reliability and average variance extracted

Latent variables Composite reliability Average variance extracted (AVE)

Technological competence .93 .79

Pedagogical competence .88 .65
Personal-professional use .83 .71
Use in class with students .81 .66

Fig. 5 Basic model of the Multiple Indicators-Multiple Causes of teachers’ ICT competences and use of
ICT

If we consider the indirect and total effects between the latent variables (see Table 6),
we can see that the relationship between technological competences and personal-pro-
fessional use is almost perfect, which indicates a close link between both. Likewise, the

123
A basic model of integration of ICT by teachers…

Table 6 Standard effects of the latent variables

Dimensions Dimensions Direct effect Indirect effect Total effect

Technological competences Pedagogical competences .77** .77**

Personal-professional use .94** .06** 1.00**
Use in class .65** .65**
Pedagogical competences Personal-professional use .12** .24**
Use in class .38** .05** .43**
Personal-professional use Use in class .34** .34**

high degree of the indirect effect between technological competences and use with students
in class would suggests that the connection between both is emphasized by pedagogical
competences and personal-professional use. Pedagogical competences have a weaker
indirect effect with use with students, caused by the more direct link between both vari-
ables and also, to a certain extent, by the less close relationship between pedagogical
competences and personal-professional use. It is worth stressing the covariation between
the multimedia-presentations indicator between the dimensions of personal-professional
use and use with students, which results from using this dimension more frequently with
students, and also from the relationship between handling a computer and basic
applications.
Regarding the personal and contextual factors considered in the model (see Table 7 and
Fig. 5), gender, frequency of using a computer at home, level of education and using a
computer in the classroom are significantly connected with the competences and use
dimensions. Age does not come over as being significant in any case.
In line with technological competences, using a computer more frequently at home,
male teachers, a higher level of education and using a computer in the classroom imply an
increase in technological competences, where the first two variables are more relevant.
Regarding pedagogical competences, female teachers and using a computer in the
classroom are the variables that bring about an increase in these competences. Here we
stress that both indirect and total effects indicate that frequency of using a computer at
home is the most important variable, along with using a computer in the classroom and
level of education. Indeed we find that the more frequently a computer is used at home, the
more frequently a computer is used in the classroom, and a higher level of education leads
to an increase in pedagogical competences.
No variable has a significant and direct effect on personal-professional use. Conversely,
when considering indirect and direct effects, we perceive that male teachers, more fre-
quently using a computer at home, higher level of education and using a computer in the
classroom considerably increase this use dimension.
Finally, use of technological resources in class with students is directly related with
using a computer in the classroom and level of education. When we consider the total and
indirect effects, use indirectly increases with using a computer more frequently at home,
higher level of education, using a computer in the classroom and male teachers.

123
123
Table 7 Standard effects of the covariate variables on the latent variables
Technological competences Pedagogical competences Personal-professional use Use in class

Effects Effects Effects Effects

Direct Indirect Total Direct Indirect Total Direct Indirect Total Direct Indirect Total

Gender - .28** - .28** .16** - .22** - .06 .07 - .27** - .20** - .03 - .09** - .06
Age - .20 - .20 .03 - .16 - .13 .06 - .21 - .15 .09 - .10 - .01
Frequency of use .42** .42** - .04 .33** .29** - .01 .43** .42** - .05 .26** .21**
Level of education .20** .20** - .01 .16** .15** .02 .21** .23** .18** .14** .32**
Computer classroom .14** .14** .13** .11** .24** - .02 .16** .14** .20** .14** .34**
J. Suárez-Rodrı́guez et al.
A basic model of integration of ICT by teachers…

Discussion

The obtained results indicate that teachers have a higher level of technological compe-
tences than pedagogical competences in ICT, which falls in line with other studies (Frailon
et al. 2014; Sipilä 2014). Regarding their use of ICT, teachers present higher values in the
personal-professional use than for the use in class with students, a finding that other studies
have also reported (European Commision 2013; Frailon et al. 2014; Gray et al. 2010; Ibieta
et al. 2017).
Hence teachers preferentially use ICT to plan their daily teaching practice, instead of
creating environments into which ICT are completely integrated in curricula, except for the
multimedia-presentation dimension owing to the use of presentation programs. These
results are similar to those reported in other research works (Frailon et al. 2014; Ibieta et al.
2017; Sipilä, 2014; Wozney et al. 2006), where use of ICT for administrative tasks and for
planning lessons is more frequent than for communicative, collaborative or creative use.
This means that teachers’ use of ICT with students is quite poor as they employ ICT mainly
for seeking information (Frailon et al. 2014; Sipilä, 2014). This is consistent with the level
of competence of technological resources as teachers do not master certain resources, such
as creating web pages and educational software, which prevents them from integrating
more ICT into their daily classroom practice.
Regarding the basic model, relationships between the competence dimensions and use,
we first indicate that the proposed model closely links technological competences to
pedagogical competences, which supports the model of teachers’ competences in ICT
established by Suárez-Rodrı́guez (2013) and by Almerich et al. (2016). Moreover, a pre-
dictive relationship is found between personal-professional use and use in class with
students, which reinforces the findings reported in other research works (Frailon et al.
2014; Liu et al. 2017; Orellana et al. 2013; Sang et al. 2011; Suárez et al. 2012; Ritzhaupt
et al. 2012; van Braak 2004).
Secondly, the proposed model encounters a strong link between technological compe-
tences and personal-professional use, just as other studies have found (Liu et al. 2017;
Meneses et al. 2012). The link between pedagogical competences and such use is found,
but to a lesser extent, and this agrees with studies (Suárez et al. 2010).
Thirdly, a direct relationship is observed for use of ICT in class with pedagogical
competences and personal-professional use, which falls in line with other studies (Inan and
Lowther 2010; Knezek and Christensen 2016; Liu et al. 2017; Ritzhaupt et al. 2012). No
direct relation can be seen between technological competences and their use in class.
The relationship between the multimedia-presentation dimension in use backs other
results, like those of Frailon et al. (2014), who report that presentations software is more
widely used by teachers and also with their students, along with word processors.
Finally, the personal and contextual factors allow us to better understand the link among
the four contemplated dimensions. We note that more frequently using ICT increases all
the dimensions, which coincides with other studies (Kabakci Yurdakul and Coklar 2014;
Sipilä 2014; Wozney et al. 2006). Using a computer in the classroom has been found to
increase both teachers’ competences and use of ICT (Inan and Lowther 2010; Liu et al.
2017; Ritzhaupt et al. 2012; Wozney et al. 2006). Age is not significant, which agrees with
other studies (Inan & Lowther, 2010; Muller et al. 2008; Vanderlinde et al. 2014), but level
of education is (Liu et al. 2017; Ritzhaupt et al. 2012; Wozney et al. 2006). Regarding
gender, the difference found between the direct and total effects is the result of the
relationship with other personal and contextual variables, just as several studies have

123
 J. Suárez-Rodrı́guez et al.

demonstrated (Hsu, 2010; Liu et al. 2017; Ritzhaupt et al. 2012), and which also report that
the Primary Education stage integrates more technological resources. This situation
coincides with the fact that the teachers who teach this stage of education are mainly
females, which coincides with the research by Liu et al. (2017) about female teachers
better adopting technology in their classes.

Conclusions

The first objective of this study is to validate a basic model of the relationship between
teachers’ competences in ICT and their use of ICT at all levels of education. The obtained
results support this model, which is stable and representative of all teachers.
The second objective is to establish the relationship between the dimensions in teachers’
ICT competences and use of technological resources. It is noteworthy that the model
conveniently shows a connection between teachers’ competences in ICT and both uses
(personal-professional and in the classroom). Therefore, having more ICT competences
represents a more frequent use of these resources by teachers (Sipilä 2014; Wastiau et al.
2013). As a result, and as some studies highlight (Frailon et al. 2014; Salinas et al. 2016),
being more competent in or feeling more self-confidence with ICT implies a more
advanced stage of teachers adopting ICT.
In addition, the link between both components is a complex one that responds, to an
extent, to the modeling proposal by Inan and Lowther (2010) and Ritzhaupt et al. (2012).
Thus we find that teachers’ use of ICT in class with students is conditioned not only by
pedagogical competences, but also by personal-professional use. Hence, the teachers who
display greater technological and pedagogical competences use them more frequently in
their personal-professional area, and also use these educational resources with students in
class to a greater extent.
The model also indicates the essential role that this link plays among dimensions. A
direct relationship exists between technological competences and pedagogical compe-
tences, and also with personal-professional use, as a mediator with use in class, just as
other studies have indicated (Inan and Lowther 2010; Miranda and Russell 2012; Van-
derlinde et al. 2014). We also find a positive relationship between pedagogical compe-
tences and use of ICT in class (Inan and Lowther 2010; Law and Chow 2008). This last
relationship is a fundamental one as it supports not only the relevance of the pedagogical
component in the process of integrating ICT (Ertmer and Ottenbreit-Leftwich 2013), but
also its predictor role in that process (Law and Chow 2008; Knezek and Christensen,
2016). It also explains the results found by Frailon et al. (2014) and Wozney et al. (2006).
These authors state that teachers use ICT with students for simple (information, reinforcing
skills, etc.), but not complex (communication, creation, etc.), purposes because, just as our
study finds, teachers’ level of pedagogical competence centers mainly on planning their
daily teaching practice rather than on creating ICT-enriched environments, which reflects
their use of ICT with students. Moreover, personal-professional use becomes a background
for using ICT in class (Liu et al. 2017; Sang et al. 2011; Suárez et al. 2012).
The third objective, which examines the incidence of the personal and contextual
factors, reveals their complex role in the model (Law and Chow 2008; Meneses et al.
2012). Frequency of using a computer means that the dimensions of teachers’ competence

123
A basic model of integration of ICT by teachers…

in ICT and their use of ICT actually increase (Frailon et al. 2014; Ritzhaupt et al. 2012).
This result partly coincides with the findings of Miranda and Russell (2012) about the role
of experience with technology because the more experience acquired, the more trust they
place in technological skills, which influences the perception of ICT as relevant resources
for teaching. Similarly, Muller et al. (2008) also report that experience in ICT relates with
teachers integrating ICT into class to a greater extent. Similar results have been found in
Liu et al. (2017), where teaching experience with technology was found to increase trust in
and the convenient use of technology by teachers, teachers using technology and inte-
grating technology into classes. Liu et al. (2017) report that teachers’ use of technology
allows the integration of ICT into class last longer.
Another interesting matter to consider is the interaction of different factors with
appealing results, like age. A similar variable to this is years of teaching experience. The
variable age relates negatively and significantly when studied in a univariate manner
(Almerich et al. 2016), but becomes less significant when different factors come into play
(Mueller et al. 2008; Vanderlinde et al. 2014). When considering years of teaching
experience, Ritzhaupt et al. (2012) found no univariate relation to use with students, nor
with integration. However, Liu et al. (2017) found a relation with integrating technology
into class, but with a small effect size. In multivariate terms, Ritzhaupt et al. (2012) found
that this variable negatively related with teachers using technology and students using it
according to their teacher. Ibieta et al. (2017) also found a relation with using ICT, while
Liu et al. (2017) reported trust in and the convenient use of teachers using technology, and
integrating technology into classes. This responds to the request of Lim et al. (2013), and
of Miranda and Rusell (2012), of taking the comprehensive perspective of using ICT in
class. Finally, the availability of technological resources in the classroom increases in
teachers for both use of ICT in class and their ICT competences, and positively impacts the
integration of ICT into classrooms (Hsu and Kuan 2013; Pittman and Gaines 2015).
This study is not without its limitations. First, it is necessary to bear in mind that this
study was carried out in a region of Spain and it is, therefore, necessary to compare the
model in other regions and countries to verify and enrich the obtained results. Moreover,
the model uses certain personal and contextual factors, which means adding other key
teachers variables to the model (Ertmer and Ottenbreit-Leftwich 2013), such as beliefs
(Ertmer 2005; Sang et al. 2011; Inan and Lowther 2010), attitudes (Knezek and Chris-
tensen 2016; Pittman and Gaines 2015; Sang et al. 2011), obstacles (Ertmer and Ottenbreit-
Leftwich 2013), perception of ICT being important for teaching (Ibieta et al. 2017; Mir-
anda and Russell 2012), perception of impact on student learning (Ibieta et al. 2017), the
education center’s context and its policies (Salinas et al. 2016), training needs (Almerich
et al. 2011a), self-efficacy of ICT in teaching (Gudmundsdottir and Hatlevik 2017), etc.
By way of conclusion, according to the proposed model, we highlight that teachers’
competences in ICT are a key element for the use that teachers make of these educational
resources, hence their importance in initial teacher training (Eurydice 2011; Kabakci
Yurdakul and Coklar 2014; Krumsvik 2011). Finally, the complexity of integrating ICT
into class has been demonstrated (Sang et al. 2011). Thus part of teacher training plans has
to deal with certain matters where teacher training in ICT is a relevant factor to obtain
suitable programs.

Funding This work was founded through two research projects: ‘‘Teacher Training in ICT as a Key
Dimension of Impact in the Integration process: Needs, Curriculum and Training- Innovation Model’’.
Spanish Ministry of Sciencie and Technology and the FEDER (SEC2002-01927). ‘‘University faculty in the

123
 J. Suárez-Rodrı́guez et al.

integration of ICT. Needs, indicators and integration models’’. Project GV04-B-293 from the PVCiT
Consellerı́a de Cultura, Educación y Deporte. Generalitat Valenciana. Spain. (Regional Program R ? D).
Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References
Almerich, G., Orellana, N., Suárez-Rodrı́guez, J., & Dı́az-Garcı́a, I. (2016). Teachers’ information and
communication technology competences: A structural approach. Computers Education, 100, 110–125.
Almerich, G., Suárez-Rodrı́guez, J. M., Belloch, C., & Bo, R. M. (2011a). Training needs of teachers in ICT:
Training profiles and elements of complexity. Relieve, 17(2), 1–28. Retrieved from http://www.uv.es/
RELIEVE/v17n2/RELIEVEv17n2_1eng.htm.
Almerich, G., Suárez-Rodrı́guez, J. M., Jornet, J. M., & Orellana, M. N. (2011b). Las competencias y el uso
de las Tecnologı́as de Información y Comunicación (TIC) por el profesorado: Estructura dimensional.
Revista Electrónica de Investigación Educativa, 13(1), 28–42. Retrieved from https://redie.uabc.mx/
redie/article/view/269/432.
Angeli, C., & Valanides, N. (2005). Pre-service teachers as ICT designers: An instructional design model
based on an expanded view of pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Computer-Assisted
Learning, 21(4), 292–302. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2005.00135.x.
Angeli, C., & Valanides, N. (2009). Epistemological and methodological issues for the conceptualization,
development, and assessment of ICT-TPCK: Advances in techonological pedagogical content
knowledge (TPCK). Computers & Education, 52, 154–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2008.
07.006.
Baylor, A. L., & Ritchie, D. (2002). What factors facilitate teacher skill, teacher morale, and perceived
student learning in technology-using classroom? Computers & Education, 39(4), 395–414. https://doi.
org/10.1016/S0360-1315(02)00075-1.
Byrne, B. M. (2006). Structural equation modelling with EQS. Basic concepts, applications and programing
(2nd ed.). London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Cuban, L., Kirkpatrick, H., & Peck, C. (2001). High access and low use of technologies in high school
classrooms: explaining an apparent paradox. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 813–834.
Ertmer, P. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for technology integration?
Educational Technology Research and Development, 63(4), 25–39. https://doi.org/10.1007/
BF02504683.
Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. (2013). Removing obstacles to the pedagogical changes required
by Jonassen’s vision of authentic technology-enabled learning. Computers & Education, 64, 175–182.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.10.008.
European Commission. (2013). Survey of schools: ICT in education. Brussels: European Commission and
Directorate-General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology. Retrieved from https://
ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/node/51275.
Eurydice. (2011). Key data on learning and innovation through ICT at school in Europe 2011. Brussels:
Eurydice. Retrieved from http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/education/eurydice/documents/key_data_series/
129EN.pdf.
Evaluation and Accountability of Department of Education and Training of Western Australia
(EADETWA). (2007). Evaluation of the Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Knowl-
edge and Skills Levels of Western Australian Government School Teachers. Department of Education
and Training of Western Australia. Retrieved from http://det.wa.edu.au/accountability/detcms/
education/evaluation-and-accountability/binary-files/evaluation-reports/teacher-ict-skills-2006.en?cat-
id=13027342.
Fraillon, J., Ainley, J., Schulz, W., Friedman, T., & Gebhardt, E. (2014). Preparing for life in a digital age:
The IEA international computer and information literacy study international report. Cham: Springer.
Gil-Flores, J., Rodrı́guez-Santero, J., & Torres-Gordillo, J. J. (2017). Factors that explain the use of ICT in
secondary-education classrooms: The role of teacher characteristics and school infrastructure. Com-
puters in Human Behavior, 68, 441–449. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.11.057.
Gray, L. & Lewis, L. (2009). Educational Technology in Public School Districts: Fall 2008 (NCES
2010–003). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department
of Education. Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2010/2010003.pdf.

123
A basic model of integration of ICT by teachers…

Gray, L., Thomas, N., and Lewis, L. (2010). Teachers’ Use of Educational Technology in U.S. Public
Schools: 2009 (NCES 2010-040). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education
Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/
pubs2010/2010040.pdf
Gudmundsdottir, G. B., & Hatlevik, O. E. (2018). Newly qualified teachers’ professional digital compe-
tence: Implications for teacher education. European Journal of Teacher Education, 41(2), 214–231.
Guzman, A., & Nussbaum, M. (2009). Teaching competencies for technology integration in the classroom.
Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20, 453–469. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2009.00322.
x.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.).
Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River.
Hsu, S. (2010). Developing a scale for teacher integration of information and communication technology in
grades 1–9. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26, 175–189. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.
2010.00348.x.
Hsu, S., & Kuan, P. Y. (2013). The impact of multilevel factors on technology integration: The case of
Taiwanese grade 1–9 teachers and schools. Educational Technology Research and Development, 61(1),
25–50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-012-9269-y.
Ibieta, A., Hinostroza, J. E., Labbé, C., & Claro, M. (2017). The role of the Internet in teachers’ professional
practice: Activities and factors associated with teacher use of ICT inside and outside the classroom.
Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 26(4), 425–438.
Inan, F. A., & Lowther, D. L. (2010). Factors affecting technology integration in K-12 classrooms: A path
model. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(2), 137–154. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11423-009-9132-y.
International Society for Technology in Education. (2008). NETS for Teachers: National Educational
Technology Standards for Teachers. Second Edition. Retrieved from http://www.iste.org/docs/pdfs/20-
14_ISTE_Standards-T_PDF.pdf.
Joreskog, K. G., & Goldberger, A. S. (1975). Estimation of a model with multiple indicators and multiples
causes of a single latent variable. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 70(351), 631–639.
Kabakci Yurdakul, I., & Coklar, A. N. (2014). Modeling preservice teachers’ TPACK competencies based
on ICT usage. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 30(4), 363–376. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.
12049.
Karaca, F., Can, G., & Yildirim, S. (2013). A path model for technology integration into elementary school
settings in Turkey. Computers & Education, 68, 353–365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.05.
017.
Knezek, G., & Christensen, R. (2016). Extending the will, skill, tool model of technology integration:
Adding pedagogy as a new model construct. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 28(3),
307–325. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-016-9120-2.
Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2005). What happens when teachers design educational technology? The
development of technological pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Educational Computing
Research, 32(2), 131–152.
Krumsvik, R. J. (2011). Digital competence in the Norwegian teacher education and schools. Högre
utbildning, 1(1), 39–51.
Law, N. (2009). Mathematics and science teachers’ pedagogical orientations and their use of ICT in
teaching. Education and Information Technologies, 14(4), 309–323. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-
009-9094-z.
Law, N. & Chow, A. (2008). Teachers characteristics, constextual factors, and how these affect the peda-
gogical use of ICT. In En N. Law, W. Pelgrum and T. Plomp (Eds.), Pedagogy and ICT use in schools
around the World. Findings from the IEA SITES 2006 Study. New York: Springer.
Lim, C. P., Zhao, Y., Tondeur, J., Chai, C. S., & Tsai, C. C. (2013). Bridging the gap: Technology trends and
use of technology in schools. Educational Technology & Society, 16(2), 59–68.
Liu, F., Ritzhaupt, A. D., Dawson, K., & Barron, A. E. (2017). Explaining technology integration in K-12
classrooms: A multilevel path analysis model. Educational Technology Research and Development,
65(4), 795–813. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-016-9487-9.
Markauskaite, L. (2007). Exploring structure of trainee teachers’ ICT literacy: The main components of, and
relationships between, general cognitive and technical capabilities. Educational Technology Research
and Development, 55(6), 547–572. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-007-9043-8.
McMillan, J. H., & Schumacher, S. (2010). Research in education: Evidence-based inquiry (7th ed.).
Boston: Pearson.

123
 J. Suárez-Rodrı́guez et al.

Meneses, J., Fàbregues, S., Rodrı́guez-Gómez, D., & Ion, G. (2012). Internet in teachers’ professional
practice outside the classroom: Examining supportive and management uses in primary and secondary
schools. Computers & Education, 59(3), 915–924. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.04.011.
Miranda, H. P., & Russell, M. (2012). Understanding factors associated with teacher-directed student use of
technology in elementary classrooms: A structural equation modeling approach. British Journal of
Educational Technology, 43(4), 652–666. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2011.01228.x.
Mueller, J., Wood, E., Willoughby, T., Ross, C., & Specht, J. (2008). Identifying discriminating variables
between teachers who fully integrate computers and teachers with limited integration. Computers &
Education, 51(4), 1523–1537. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2008.02.003.
Muthén, B. (1989). Latent variable modeling in heterogeneous populations. Psychometrika, 54(4), 557–585.
Nasser, F., & Wisenbaker, J. (2003). A Monte Carlo study investigating the impact of item parceling on
measures of fit in confirmatory factor analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 63(5),
729–757. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164403258228.
O’Dwyer, L., Russell, M., & Bebell, D. J. (2004). Identifying teacher, school and district characteristics
associated with elementary teachers’ use of technology: A multilevel perspective. Education Policy
Analysis Archives, 12, 48.
Orellana, N., Almerich, G., Suárez-Rodrı́guez, J. M., & Belloch, C. (2013). Usos y competencias en TIC del
profesorado universitario. Aproximación a la modelización. In J. Gacel-Avila, & N. Orellana (Eds.),
Educación superior, gestión, innovación e internalización (pp. 241–271). Valencia: PUV (Publicacions
de la Universitat de València).
Pelgrum, W. J. (2009). Indicators on ICT in primary and secondary education. Brussels: Education,
Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency. Retrieved from http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/llp/studies/
documents/study_on_indicators_on_ict_education/final_report_eacea_2007_17.pdf.
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(4), 539–554. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s11423-015-9391-8.
Ritzhaupt, A. D., Dawson, K., & Cavanaugh, C. (2012). An investigation of factors influencing student use
of technology in K-12 classrooms using path analysis. Journal of Educational Computing Research,
46(3), 229–254. https://doi.org/10.2190/EC.46.3.b.
Rushton, J. P., Brainerd, J. C., & Pressley, M. (1983). Behavioral development and construct validity: The
principle of aggregation. Psychological Bulletin, 94(1), 18–38.
Salinas, Á., Nussbaum, M., Herrera, O., Solarte, M., & Aldunate, R. (2016). Factors affecting the adoption
of information and communication technologies in teaching. Education and Information Technologies.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-016-9540-7.
Sang, G., Valcke, M., van Braak, J., Tondeur, J., & Zhu, C. (2011). Predicting ICT integration into
classroom teaching in Chinese primary schools: Exploring the complex interplay of teacher-related
variables. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 27(2), 160–172. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-
2729.2010.00383.x.
Schau, C., Stevens, J., Dauphinee, T., & Vecchio, A. D. (1995). The development and validation of the
survey of attitudes toward statistics. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 55(5), 868–875.
Sipilä, K. (2014). Educational use of information and communications technology: Teachers’ perspective.
Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 23(2), 225–241. https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2013.
813407.
Suárez, J. M., Almerich, G., Gargallo, B., & y Aliaga, F. (2010). Las competencias en TIC del profesorado y
su relación con el uso de los recursos tecnológicos. Archivos Analı́ticos de Polı́ticas Educativas,
18(10). Retrieved from https://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/755.
Suárez, J. M., Almerich, G., Orellana, N., & Belloch, C. (2012). El uso de las TIC por el profesorado no
universitario. Modelo básico e influencia de factores personales y contextuales. RIEE. Revista
Iberoamericana de Evaluación Educativa. 5(1), 249–265. Retrieved from https://repositorio.uam.es/
bitstream/handle/10486/661708/RIEE_5_1_20.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y.
Suárez-Rodrı́guez, J. M., Almerich, G., Dı́az-Garcı́a, I., & Fernández-Piqueras, R. (2012). Competencias del
profesorado en las TIC. Influencia de factores personales y contextuales. Universitas Psychologica,
11(1), 293–309.
Suárez-Rodrı́guez, J., Almerich, G., Gargallo, B., Aliaga, F. M. (2013). Las competencias del profesorado en
TIC: Estructura básica. Educación XX1, 16(1), 39–62. https://doi.org/10.5944/educxx1.16.1.716.
Tondeur, J., Valcke, M., & van Braak, J. (2008). A multidimensional approach to determinants of computer
use in primary education: teacher and school characteristics. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning,
24, 494–506. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2008.00285.x.

123
A basic model of integration of ICT by teachers…

Tondeur, J., van Braak, J., & Valcke, M. (2007). Towards a typology of computer use in primary education.
Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23, 197–206. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2006.00205.
x.
UNESCO. (2011). UNESCO ICT Competency Framework for Teachers. Paris: UNESCO. Retrieved from
http://iite.unesco.org/pics/publications/en/files/3214694.pdf
van Braak, J., Tondeur, J., & Valcke, M. (2004). Explaining types of computer use among primary school
teachers. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 14, 407–422. https://doi.org/10.1007/
BF03173218.
Vanderlinde, R., Aesaert, K., & Van Braak, J. (2014). Institutionalised ICT use in primary education: A
multilevel analysis. Computers & Education, 72, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.10.
007.
Wastiau, P., Blamire, R., Kearney, C., Quittre, V., Van de Gaer, E., & Monseur, C. (2013). The use of ICT
in education: A survey of schools in Europe. European Journal of Education, 48, 11–27. https://doi.
org/10.1111/ejed.12020.
Wozney, L., Venkatesh, V., & Abrami, P. C. (2006). Implementing computer technologies: Teachers’
perceptions and practices. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 14(1), 173–207.

Jesús Suárez-Rodrı́guez is a full professor in the Department of Research Methods and Educational
Diagnosis at University of Valencia. His lines of research are ICT in education, test development and
research methods.

Gonzalo Almerich is an associate professor in the Department of Research Methods and Educational
Diagnosis at University of Valencia. His lines of research are ICT in education, educational measurement
and research methods.

Natividad Orellana is an associate professor in the Department of Research Methods and Educational
Diagnosis at University of Valencia. Her lines of research are ICT in education, research methods and
development of tools for collecting information.

Isabel Dı́az-Garcı́a is an assistant professor in the Department of Research Methods and Educational
Diagnosis at University of Valencia. Her lines of research are the ICT integration in education and
competences in ICT.

123