Computers & Education 175 (2021) 104314

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers & Education

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compedu

Teacher professional identity and the nature of

technology integration☆
Chun Lai a, 1, *, Tan Jin b, 2
a
The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China
b
Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Professional identity shapes teachers’ sense making of how to understand and behave in their
Teacher technology adoption teaching work, and thus may play a significant role in determining how teachers position and
Professional identity appropriate technology in the teaching process. However, how different aspects of teacher pro­
Types of technology use
fessional identity might influence teachers’ approaches to technology integration is not well
understood. SEM analysis of the survey responses of 280 English language teachers in mainland
China on three aspects of professional identity and their use of technology in language instruction
revealed that teachers’ educator identity orientation towards educational goals, didactic and
pedagogical identity orientation towards professional knowledge base and learner-centered
orientation towards instruction were significant determinants of teachers’ use of technology for
content delivery, for learning enrichment and for learning transformation. Moreover, different
types of technology use were influenced differently by professional identity. The findings advo­
cate greater attention to these professional identity orientations when examining and supporting
teachers’ technology integration.

1. Introduction

Teacher adoption of technology has drawn research attention for decades. Research has identified two groups of influencing
factors: extrinsic or first-order factors and intrinsic or second-order factors (Ertmer, 1999). The extrinsic factors are often related to the
subject and school culture, and the availability of resources such as equipment, time, training and support (Brown, Englehardt &
Mathers, 2016; Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010; Lucas, 2020). The intrinsic factors entail teachers’ perceptions and beliefs about
change and the instructional value of technology, their general beliefs about teaching and learning, their self-efficacy beliefs about
their technological literacy and relevant skills, and their knowledge and skills of pedagogical use of technology (Kim, Kim, Lee,

☆
The research is funded by HKU University Seed Fund for Basic Research (grant no.: 104004888). The authors would like to thank the staff at
Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press for their support as well as the editor and anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments on earlier
drafts of the article.
* Corresponding author. Faculty of Education, The University of Hong Kong, 623 Meng Wah Complex, Hong Kong, China.
E-mail addresses: laichun@hku.hk (C. Lai), jintan6@mail.sysu.edu.cn (T. Jin).
1
Dr. Chun Lai is an Associate Professor at the Faculty of Education, the University of Hong Kong. Her research interest is in technology-enhanced
language learning. Her recent research focuses on learner self-directed language learning with technology beyond the classroom.
2
Dr. Tan Jin is an Associate Professor in the School of Foreign Languages at Sun Yat-sen University in China. His research interests include corpus
linguistics and computer-assisted language learning.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104314
Received 22 April 2021; Received in revised form 23 August 2021; Accepted 27 August 2021
Available online 30 August 2021
0360-1315/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
C. Lai and T. Jin Computers & Education 175 (2021) 104314

Spector, & DeMeester, 2013; Nelson, Voithofer, & Cheng, 2019; Scherer, Siddiq, & Tondeur, 2019). The intrinsic factors, teacher
fundamental beliefs about teaching and learning in particular, may interfere with technology adoption and approaches to technology
integration even after the extrinsic barriers are overcome (Kim et al., 2013; Tondeur, Van Braak, Ertmer, & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2017).
Ertmer, Ottenbreit-Leftwich, Sadik, Sendurur, and Sendurur (2012) identified these intrinsic factors as the strongest barriers to
technology adoption.
Despite increased understanding of factors that influence teacher adoption of technology, this body of literature has two research
gaps: 1) Existing research has predominantly taken teachers’ intention and frequency of technology adoption as the outcome variable.
Not much attention has paid to the nature of technology integration (Kim et al., 2013; Liu, Geertshuis, & Grainger, 2020; Scherer et al.,
2019). Since similar technologies might be appropriated differently by teachers to fulfil distinct pedagogical purposes (Tarling &
Ng’ambi, 2016), it is important to delve deeper into the nature of teacher technology adoption and the factors that might shape
differentiated approaches to technology in fulfilling pedagogical goals (Liu et al., 2020). 2) Although increasing attention has been
directed to the intrinsic factors that influence teachers’ technology adoption, existing research has primarily focused on teachers’
perception of the technological characteristics and their technology efficacies and attitudes. The influence of teachers’ professional
needs and beliefs in relation to their profession is not well understood (Chere-Masopha, 2018; Liu & Geertshuis, 2021). Acknowledging
teachers’ membership to professional and social communities and investigating teachers within the framework of their professional
identity might offer a more comprehensive approach to understanding teacher technology adoption (Chere-Masopha, 2018; Liu &
Geertshuis, 2021) since professional identity stands at the core of teachers’ sense making of how to behave, act and understand their
work, and different aspects of teacher professional identity might influence how teachers position technology in the teaching process
(Badia & Iglesias, 2019; Liu & Geertshuis, 2016; Popper-Giveon & Shayshon, 2017).
This study intended to fill in these research gaps by focusing specifically on teachers’ professional identity, and examining how
teacher professional identity might shape the nature of their technology adoption.

2. Literature review

2.1. Professional Identity and Technology Adoption

Professional identity refers to the various self-imposed or other-attributed meanings of “who one is” as a professional (Beijaard,
Verloop, & Vermunt, 2000; Marcelo, 2009). Teacher professional identity is essentially a role identity, which entails teachers’
perception of the different aspects of teacher role in the teaching profession and is “a lens through which teachers look at their job, give
meaning to it and act in it” (Brenner, Serpe, & Stryker, 2018; Kelchtermans, 2009, p. 260; Popper-Giveon & Shayshon, 2017). Pro­
fessional identity contains various sub-identities, and teachers integrate various perceived status and roles into a “coherent image of
self” (Beijaard et al., 2000; Sachs, 2001). Chere-Masopha (2018) conceptualized three aspects of teacher professional identity: the
personal landscape (i.e., teachers as individuals with personal skills and epistemological beliefs); the situational landscape (i.e.,
teachers as members of a school community); and the contextual landscape (i.e., teachers as members of the socio-cultural commu­
nities that one live in). This study focused specifically on the situational landscape of teacher professional identity, i.e., teachers’
role-based identity within the school community, since teachers’ conception of the role of the teacher stands at the core of their
professional identity (Popper-Giveon & Shayshon, 2017).
Existing literature has identified three aspects of professional identity in relation to teachers’ disciplinary roles. The first aspect is
teachers’ conception of their roles with regard to educational goals (van Veen, Sleegers, Bergen & Klaassen, 2001). Two distinct
orientations are conceptualized: an instructor orientation with primary attention on developing students’ subject knowledge and skills
for qualification purposes, and an educator orientation with a broader interest in students’ well-being and the whole person devel­
opment (Billig et al., 1988; Popper-Giveon & Shayshon, 2017). The second aspect is teachers’ conception of their roles in relation to
instruction, namely orientations towards instructional methods (Billig et al., 1988; van Veen et al., 2001). Teachers may assume a
student/learning-centered orientation, where greater emphasis is put on students’ active role in knowledge construction and in the
learning process, or a content/teacher-centered orientation where greater attention is on transmitting a fixed set of knowledge and
skills (Billig et al., 1988). The third aspect is teachers’ conception of their roles in relation to the professional knowledge base. Teachers
may position themselves as subject matter experts who take pride in their strong foundations in subject knowledge and skills, or
position themselves as didactic and pedagogical experts who value student learning the most and prioritize their expertise in creating
significant and effective subject learning experience for the learners (Beijaard et al., 2000; Lachner, Jarodzka, & Nückles, 2016;
Pennington & Richards, 2016).
This study operationalized teacher professional identity in terms of the three discipline-specific role-based identity: professional
identity in relation to education goals (i.e., teachers’ educational goal orientation); professional identity in relation to instruction (i.e.,
teachers’ conception of teaching); and professional identity in relation to professional knowledge base (i.e., teachers’ orientation
towards professional knowledge). Teachers’ educational goal orientation consisted of two dimensions: educator orientation (EO) and
instructor orientation (IO). Teachers’ conception of teaching consisted of two dimensions: learner-centered orientation (LCO) and
teacher-centered orientation (TCO). Teachers’ orientation towards professional knowledge consisted of two dimensions: subject
matter orientation (SMO) and didactic and pedagogical orientation (DPO).
These discipline-specific role-based teacher professional identity orientations have been found to associate with teachers’ will­
ingness and ability to respond to changes and innovate teaching practices (Beijaard et al., 2000; Oyserman, 2009). For instance, van
Veen & Sleegers (2006) found that teachers with content/teacher-centered professional identity orientation perceived
student-centered school innovations as incongruent with their professional orientations and responded negatively to such innovations.

2
C. Lai and T. Jin Computers & Education 175 (2021) 104314

Whereas, teachers with students/learning-centered orientation perceived more congruity between their professional orientations and
such innovations. The associations suggest that these role-based professional identities may be key determinants of teachers’ tech­
nology integration since technology adoption signifies changes (Kimmerl, 2020; Liu & Geertshuis, 2021). People engage in
identity-congruity actions (Oyserman, 2009), and teachers’ technology adoption is hence a sense-making process where teachers seek
coherence and continuity between their existing professional orientations and the practices implied by technology (Blin & Munro,
2008; Errington, 2004). Research has found that learner-centered orientation contributes positively and significantly to teachers’
intention for instructional use of technology via perceived usefulness and value of technology use (Liu, Lin, & Zhang, 2017; Taimalu &
Luik, 2019), whereas teacher-centered orientation is associated negatively with beliefs about the instructional value of technology
(Taimalu & Luik, 2019; Tondeur et al., 2017). Subject matter expert orientation and didactic expert orientation are also found to
associate with teachers’ attitudes towards the adoption of learning management system (Kimmerl, 2020). Other studies have revealed
that teachers who hold extended views about being a teacher may be more likely to adopt technology for the greater sense of
involvement technology might bring to them (Liu & Geertshuis, 2016). However, since role-based professional identities shape how
teachers approach teaching (Richter, Brunner, & Richter, 2021), their associations with technology adoption may manifest not just in
teachers’ perceptions and frequency of technology adoption but also in the nature of technology integration (Liu & Geertshuis, 2021).

2.2. Nature of technology integration

Teachers may interpret and appropriate the same technology differently. For instance, teachers are found to interpret e-learning
dispersedly as a self-study tool, a facilitator of student/teacher interaction, or a collaborative learning platform (Stein, Shephard, &
Harris, 2011). Accordingly, teachers may use technology for instruction in qualitatively different ways. For instance, Hall (2010) found
some teachers used interactive whiteboard to project content, while others used it to support student inquiry. Focusing on the use of
the Web in general, Trentin (2008) identified different use patterns among university teachers: some used it to deliver course infor­
mation and learning materials (e.g., informative and distributive use), some used it to foster interaction and collaboration around
course content (e.g., interactive use) or to create integral learning experience to replace or supplement face-to-face instruction (e.g.,
blended solutions), and others used it to create learning materials to support personalized learning (e.g., content-driven learning) or
educational processes to integrate self-study with collaborative learning content-driven learning (e.g., networked learning). These
different types of technology use vary in the level of sophistication of technology integration, which corresponds with the continuum of
technology integration identified by Zemsky and Massy (2004). According to them, there are four stages of technology integration: 1)
enhancement to traditional course configurations (i.e., providing digitalized learning materials); 2) course management systems (i.e.,
to organize and distribute teaching materials and facilitate teacher/student interaction); 3) imported course objects (i.e., providing
richer and motivating learning materials and experience); and 4) new course configurations (i.e., to make substantial changes to the
way of teaching to facilitate students’ learning process). Although Zemsky and Massy (2004) identified four stages, the first two stages
are fundamentally about using technology to present existing content in a more appealing and convenient way, and could be lumped
into one type. Examining the nature of twelve K-12 teachers’ technology integration, Ertmer et al. (2012) summarized three types of
technological practices that could represent and synthesize observations from previous studies: 1) to use technology for content de­
livery and skill reinforcement; 2) to use technology to complement and enrich learning experience; and 3) to use technology to
transform teaching and learning and bestow learners more active roles in learning. These three types of technology use were adopted as
the framework in this study to categorize the nature of teacher technology integration.

2.3. Professional identity and nature of technology integration

Ertmer et al. (2012) found a close alignment between teachers’ conception of teaching and their classroom practices with tech­
nology: teachers who held learner-centered beliefs tended to use technology to enrich student learning. This association is also sub­
stantiated in other research, where teachers with learner-centered orientation towards instruction are found to be more likely to use
technology in innovative ways beyond information delivery, such as facilitating learning and allowing and supporting
student-centered technology use (Becker, 2000; Li, Garza, Keicher, & Popov, 2019; Liu & Geertshuis, 2021), and to use technology to
experiment with new approaches to teaching and learning (Tondeur et al., 2017). Learner-centered orientation towards instruction is
also found to be associated with the use of technology in more dispersed ways (Ravitz, Becker, & Wong, 2000; Tarling & Ng’ambi,
2016). In contrast, teachers with teacher-centered orientation are found to have the tendency to use technology in a more regulated
and restricted manner to primarily serve the instructional purpose of facilitating skill acquisition (Martin & Vallance, 2008). Thus, we
hypothesized:
H1. Learner-centered orientation (LCO) positively predicted both technology use for enrichment (TU_E) and technology use for
transformation (TU_T)
H2. Teacher-centered orientation (TCO) positively predicted technology use for delivery (TU_D)
Teachers’ orientation towards their professional knowledge base is closely related to their conception of teaching and has impli­
cations on the act of teaching itself (Beijaard et al., 2000; Löfström, Anspal, Hannula, & Poom-Valickis, 2010). A subject matter
orientation is often associated with content/teacher-centered conception of teaching that primarily focuses on the transmission of
information (Kember & Kwan, 2000; Löfström et al., 2010). This information transmission focus may lead to greater engagement in the
use of technology for content delivery. In contrast, teachers who hold didactic and pedagogical orientation are more learner-oriented
in instruction, focusing more on constructing positive learning environment to inspire and support student development and creating

3
C. Lai and T. Jin Computers & Education 175 (2021) 104314

effective learning experience to spark students’ interest and facilitate student learning in an engaging and memorable way (Beijaard
et al., 2000; Löfström & Poom-Valickis, 2013). These teachers may be more likely to use technology to support the construction of
student-centered learning environment and to enrich student learning experience. Thus, we hypothesized:
H3. Didactic and pedagogical orientation (DPO) positively predicted both technology use for enrichment (TU_E) and technology use
for transformation (TU_T) indirectly via learner-centered orientation (LCO)
H4. Subject matter orientation (SMO) positively predicted technology use for delivery (TU_D) indirectly via teacher-centered
orientation (TCO)
Since goals reflect the purposes of behavior and influence how people think and behave (Schutz, Crowder, & White, 2001),
teachers’ educational goal orientation may shape their conception of teacher role in relation to both instruction and professional
knowledge base. Teachers with an instructor orientation that focuses on enhancing student qualification often prioritize the impor­
tance of subject matter and adopt content/teacher-centered instructional orientation (Popper-Giveon & Shayshon, 2017; van Veen
et al., 2001). Thus, they may use technology more for content delivery. In contrast, teachers with an educator orientation who perceive
their responsibility for student holistic development beyond subject matter qualification may pay more attention to creating a caring
and inspiring learning environment and establishing high-quality interactions and relationships with students, and are more likely to
adopt learner-centered instructional orientation (Arvaja, Sarja, & Rönnberg, 2020; Billig et al., 1988; van Veen et al., 2001).
Consequently, they may be more likely to engage in the use of technology to enrich and transform teaching and learning. For instance,
Li et al. (2019) found teachers’ broadly defined learning goals beyond the subject knowledge associated positively with the utilization
of learner-centered instructional approaches and engagement in student-centered technology use. Thus, we hypothesized:
H5. Educator orientation (EO) positively predicted both technology use for enrichment (TU_E) and technology use for transformation
(TU_T) indirectly via didactic and pedagogical orientation (DPO) and learner-centered orientation (LCO)
H6. Instructor orientation (IO) positively predicted technology use for delivery (TU_D) indirectly via subject matter orientation
(SMO) and teacher-centered orientation (TCO)
A review of relevant literature suggested a conceptual framework (see Fig. 1) that indicated the potential associations of different
aspects of discipline role-based teacher professional identity with different types of technology adoption (see Fig. 1). This study aimed
at testing this conceptual framework of association to answer the following research question:
How do different aspects of teachers’ professional identity associate with their approaches to technology integration?

3. Method

3.1. Participants

The participants were recruited from a group of university English as a foreign language (EFL) teachers from mainland China who
attended a professional development event on the use of technology for language teaching. The professional development event
consisted of two 3-h workshops on the integration of technological tools for language teaching and learning. An invitation email with
the link to an online survey was sent out to the workshop attendees two weeks after the workshops. The rationale behind targeting a
cohort of participants who were interested in technology integration was that the research focus of this study was on the influencing

Fig. 1. The conceptual model of the relationship between professional identity and the nature of teacher technology use.

4
C. Lai and T. Jin Computers & Education 175 (2021) 104314

factors of different types of technology integration, the exploration of which was premised on a certain degree of understanding of and
engagement with technology. 280 participants volunteered to complete the survey. Around 85% of the participants were female. The
participants were in general experienced teachers, with 50% of the participants having more than 15 years of teaching experience, 42%
having 6–15 years of teaching experience, and only around 8% being within the first 5 years of teaching. The participants also reported
high education levels, with 88% of them reporting postgraduate degrees. Only 10% of them reported having no prior experience, and
the rest reported prior experience with technology: 32% of the participants reported having less than one year of experience using
technology for English instruction; and for the participants who reported more than one year of instructional technology use, their
average experience was 7.5 years. The participants self-evaluated their ability of using technology for English teaching somewhere in
between average and good (M = 3.25 out of 5, SD = 0.76). The majority of them had attended prior professional development events
related to technology integration in English instruction, and only 9% reported having had no prior training.

3.2. Instrument

The questionnaire surveyed the participants on their engagement in different types of technology integration in English teaching
and the three types of discipline-specific role-based professional identity.
Types of technology integration. The participants were surveyed on the frequency of engaging in three types of technology integration
(Ertmer et al., 2012; Baş et al., 2016): (1) technology use for delivery (TU_D, 3 items, α = 0.95). This construct measured the frequency of
using technology to facilitate information transmission, using items like “I use technology to deliver instructional content more
effectively”; (2) technology use for enrichment (TU_E, 3 items, α = 0.91). This construct measured the frequency of using technology to
enrich student learning experience, using items like “I use technology to bring authentic resources and experiences to enrich students’
learning”; (3) technology use for transformation (TU_T, 5 items, α = 0.95). This construct measured the frequency of using technology to
transform learning through innovative pedagogies and positioning learners as active agents of learning both inside and outside the
classroom, using items like “I use technology to enhance students’ strategies and skills to make better use of technology for English
language learning on their own”.
Professional identity in relation to professional knowledge base. Beijaard et al. (2000) identified three professional identity from
personal knowledge perspective –subject matter expert, didactics expert and pedagogical expert. The researchers found that teachers
who regarded them as didactics expert and pedagogical expert exhibited similar instructional behavior, i.e., focusing primarily on the
conditions of student learning and the preparation of interesting lessons. Given the similarity in their instructional behaviors, we
pooled these two dimensions under one construct “didactic & pedagogical orientation” (DPO, 3 items, α = 0.90) to examine its asso­
ciation with instructional actions with technology. This construct measured the participants’ perception of their roles in creating
meaningful learning experience for students, using adapted items from Beijaard et al. (2000). The participants were asked to indicate
the degree of agreement with statements like “I constantly seek new English teaching pedagogy to boost students’ participation in
class”, and “Students’ needs and self-development is one aspect that I strongly consider in my lessons”. The construct “subject matter
orientation” (SMO, 3 items, α = 0.80) measured the participants’ perception of their roles in maintaining and using subject matter
expertise, using statements like “I keep improving my English ability through self-study or professional training”.
Professional identity in relation to educational goals. We constructed a few items to measure the two constructs on professional
identity in relation to educational goals identified in previous literature (Billig et al., 1988; Popper-Giveon & Shayshon, 2017): (1)
educator/personal development orientation (EO, 3 items, α = 0.92) was measured using items like “My primary focus is to make a
difference in students’ life”; (2) instructor/qualification orientation (IO, 3 items, α = 0.82) was measured using items like “Enhancing
my students’ understanding of English is my main focus”.
Professional identity in relation to instruction. Adapted items from Chan and Elliot (2004) were used to measure the participants’
professional orientation towards instruction: (1) learner-centered orientation (LCO, 5 items, α = 0.93) was measured using items like
“Good teachers always encourage students to think of answers themselves”; and (2) teacher-centered orientation (TCO, 5 items, α =
0.91) was measured using items like “A teacher’s major task is to impart knowledge/information, assign students drill and practice and
test their recall”.
The items on technology integration approaches were measured using 1–6 Likert scale (1 = Never; and 6= (Almost) At least once
every lesson), and the items on professional identity were measured using 1–6 Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree; and 6 = strongly
agree). In addition, some demographic, education and teaching background data were collected.
The questionnaire was administered in the participants’ native language, Chinese. Since quite a few items were adapted items from
existing instruments, back-translation method was used by two English-Chinese bilingual assistants to ensure the meanings of the
original items were not lost or distorted in the process of translation. The questionnaire items were pilot tested with 4 participants who
were not included in the main study to adjust any potential confusing or misleading wording.

3.3. Data Collection and analysis

The questionnaire was administered online in the participants’ native language. Since the theoretical dimensions of professional
identity in relation to professional knowledge base were re-conceptualized into 2 constructs and the survey items on professional
identity were primarily self-constructed, we conducted factor analysis on the survey items that measured professional identity to check
the factor structure. The data were randomly split in half, with half of the data (N = 140) analyzed via exploratory factor analysis (EFA)
to examine the factor structure and the other half (N = 140) via subsequent confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to test and confirm the
structure. Structural equation modeling (SEM) was conducted on the whole dataset afterwards to evaluate and modify the

5
C. Lai and T. Jin Computers & Education 175 (2021) 104314

hypothesized conceptual model, using the three technology integration constructs as the endogenous variables and the professional
identity constructs as the exogenous variables. EFA was conducted in SPSS, using principal axis factoring and promax rotation since the
constructs are related. Scale factorability was assessed by Bartlett’s test and Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) (>0.60), and scree plot and
parallel analysis were used to determine the number of factors (Kline, 2015; Worthington & Whittaker, 2006). A cut-off value of 0.32
for item loadings and 0.15 difference for cross-loadings were adopted for item screening (Worthington & Whittaker, 2006). CFA and
SEM were conducted in Amos 26.0, using Maximum Likelihood Estimation as the estimation method. Following Hu and Bentler’s
(1999) recommendation, a RMSEA value (the parsimonious indices) smaller than 0.06, a SRMR value (the absolute fit indices) smaller
than 0.08, and a CFL and TLI value (the incremental fit indices) larger than 0.90 (acceptable fit) and larger than 0.95 (good fit) were
used to assess the fit between the hypothesized model and the observed data. In addition, the absolute goodness-of-fit indices
(CMIN/DF < 3) was also used. Before model evaluation, full collinearity variance inflation factors (VIFs) and Harman’s single factor
test via principal component factor analysis were applied to check the data for potential common method bias that might be introduced
by one-shot self-reported questionnaire responses from a single cohort of participants (Kock & Lynn, 2012; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee,
& Podsakoff, 2003). The general construct accounted for 34% of the variance, smaller than the threshold value (50%), which indicated
a satisfactory Harman’s single factor test result. The VIFs for all the constructs were smaller than 5, the threshold value for judging
multicollinearity. Thus, both tests indicated no common method bias in the dataset.

4. Results

4.1. Measurement model

Exploratory factor analysis revealed satisfactory scale factorability: KMO = 0.90 and Bartlett’s test was significant (p < .000). The
communalities were all above 0.6 with the only exception of one item, exceeding the threshold value of 0.4 (Osborne, Costello, &
Kellow, 2008). Parallel analysis and the scree plot suggested 6 factors for professional identity as hypothesized, and the 6 factors
explained 81.6% of the variation in the dataset. Subsequent confirmatory factor analysis revealed acceptable values in most relative
and absolute fit indices: CMIN/DF = 1.97, CFI = 0.93, TLI = 0.91, SRMR = 0.07. The only exception was RMSEA value (RMSEA =
0.088 (0.075, 0.101)). The slightly large RMSEA might be due to the small sample size (N = 140) after splitting the data in half
(Taasoobshirazi & Wang, 2016). The analysis confirmed the conceptualized factor structure of professional identity (see Appendix 1).
Confirmatory factor analysis on the measurement model revealed good fitness: CMIN/DF = 1.70, CFI = 0.96, TLI = 0.96, SRMR =
0.05, RMSEA = 0.05 (0.044, 0.056), which suggested that the indicators were well represented by the constructs. The factor loadings of
all the indicators were above 0.70, showing satisfactory unidimensionality test result (Hair, Black, Babin, & Anderson, 2010).
Convergent validity (AVEs >0.50) and discriminant validity (the square root of AVEs > inter-construct correlations) were used to
check the construct validity. Table 1 showed that all the AVEs were above 0.60 and the square root of AVEs were all larger than the
inter-construct correlations. Thus, the construct validity was satisfactory. The construct reliability was measured using Cronbach
alpha, which were all above 0.80 (>0.70), and composite reliability, which were all above 0.85 (>0.70). Both reliability indicators
suggested good construct reliability as well. See Appendix 2 for the measurement model.
Table 1 revealed that the participants reported, on the average, using technology for instructional purposes around at least once
every month. They reported using technology for content delivery the most frequently (M = 4.41, SD = 1.25), in-between once every
month and once every week (see Appendix). Their use of technology to enrich learning was relatively less frequent (M = 4.07, SD =
1.22). They reported using technology to transform learning the least frequently (M = 3.87, SD = 1.23). The greater use of technology
to aid content delivery than to support student-centered learning is consistent with previous research findings (Liu, Wang, & Koehler,
2019). In terms of their professional identity in relation to instruction, they reported a strong learner-centered orientation (M = 5.18,
SD = 0.69) but a slightly negative teacher-centered orientation (M = 3.09, SD = 1.08). The participants perceived positively on both
their subject matter expert role (M = 4.96, SD = 0.74) and their didactic and pedagogical expert role (M = 4.91, SD = 0.76). With
regard to educational goals, they agreed slightly more with their educator identity (M = 4.97, SD = 0.75) than with their instructor
identity (M = 4.41, SD = 0.84). Thus, the participants in general held a more constructivism conception of teaching, valued both their
subject expertise and didactic expertise, and hold onto both the role of helping students develop English proficiency and facilitating
their whole-person development.

Table 1
The measurement model.
Mean (SD) Composite reliability α AVE TU_D TU_E TU_T LCO TCO DPO SMO EO IO

TU_D 4.41 (1.25) 0.97 0.95 0.85 (0.92)

TU_E 4.07 (1.22) 0.95 0.91 0.78 0.73 (0.88)
TU_T 3.91 (1.22) 0.92 0.95 0.78 0.69 0.84 (0.88)
LCO 5.18 (0.69) 0.95 0.93 0.69 0.21 0.21 0.15 (0.83)
TCO 3.09 (1.08) 0.95 0.91 0.67 0.08 0.12 0.18 − 0.23 (0.82)
DPO 4.91 (0.76) 0.92 0.90 0.69 0.34 0.31 0.28 0.69 − 0.07 (0.83)
SMO 4.96 (0.74) 0.89 0.80 0.61 0.33 0.32 0.28 0.60 − 0.04 0.70 (0.78)
EO 4.97 (0.75) 0.96 0.92 0.79 0.22 0.22 0.20 0.69 − 0.05 0.65 0.62 (0.89)
IO 4.41 (0.74) 0.89 0.82 0.62 0.19 0.23 0.25 0.19 0.35 0.26 0.37 0.36 (0.79)

Notes: Diagonal in parentheses: square root for AVE from observed variables (items); off-diagonal numbers: correlations between constructs.

6
C. Lai and T. Jin Computers & Education 175 (2021) 104314

4.2. Structural model

SEM analysis on the hypothesized conceptual model yielded unsatisfactory model fit (CMIN/DF = 3.48, TLI = 0.87, CFI = 0.89,
SRMR = 0.23, RMSEA = 0.09). To improve the model fit, we revised the model by adding five paths suggested by the model modi­
fication indices that were theoretically meaningful. One added path was from subject matter orientation to the use of technology for
content delivery (SMO→TU_D), which is reasonable since the more priority teachers give to subject knowledge as the professional
knowledge base, the more likely they may focus on knowledge transmission when using technology. We also added two paths on the
interrelation of different types of technology use: TU_T→TU_E and TU_E→TU_D. These two paths make sense since previous literature
has found that different categories of teacher technology use may correlate with one another since teachers who use technology for one
pedagogical purpose may use it for other purposes as well (Bebell, Russell, & O’Dwyer, 2004). Since the more sophisticated level of
technology use builds upon the lower levels (Zemsky & Massy, 2004), there is a greater likelihood that teachers who use technology for
more sophisticated pedagogical purposes may use it for less sophisticated pedagogical purposes than the other way around. In
addition, two more paths on the interrelation of different professional identity orientations were added: DPO→SMO and LCO→TCO.
These interrelations make sense given that sub-identities of teacher professional identity do interact with one another (Beijaard,
Meijer, & Verloop, 2004). The path from didactic and pedagogical expert to subject matter expert is theoretically sound in that didactic
and pedagogical orientation emphasizes making the subject matter meaningful to the students and thus is preconditioned on the
subject matter orientation. A stronger orientation in the former may very well imply a stronger foundation in the latter (Hooge,
Honingh, & Langelaan, 2011; Makovec, 2018). The path from learning-centered orientation to teacher-centered orientation is also
supported by existing research where learning-centered orientation is found to correlate negatively with teacher-centered orientation
(Bahari, 2018; Teo, Chai, Hung, & Lee, 2008). After adding the five paths, the structural model (Fig. 2) revealed satisfactory model fit
(CMIN/DF = 1.71, CFI = 0.96, TLI = 0.96, SRMR = 0.08, RMSEA = 0.050 (0.044; 0.056)).
The model explained 88% of the variation in teachers’ use of technology for learning enrichment, 63% of the variation in tech­
nology use for content delivery and 4% of the variation in technology use for learning transformation (see Table 2). All three aspects of
professional identity were significant factors in shaping teachers’ technology integration. For professional identity in relation to
educational goals, educator orientation was a significant predictor of all three types of technology use, with a total effect of 0.14 for
transformation (p < .05), 0.19 for enrichment (p < .01) and 0.21 for delivery (p < .01). In contrast, instructor orientation predicted
neither type of technology use.
For professional identity in relation to professional knowledge base, didactic and pedagogical orientation associated positively with
the use of technology for transformation (β = 0.09, p < .05), enrichment (β = 0.12, p < .01) and delivery (β = 0.19, p < .01). Whereas,
subject matter orientation associated with the use of technology for delivery only (β = 0.11, p < .05). With regard to professional
identity in relation to instruction, learner-centered orientation positively associated with all three types of technology use: trans­
formation (β = 0.19, p < .05), enrichment (β = 0.25, p < .01) and delivery (β = 0.19, p < .01). In contrast, teacher-centered orientation

Fig. 2. The structural model of the relationship between professional identity and the nature of teacher technology use.

7
 C. Lai and T. Jin
Table 2
Association of professional identity and different types of technology use.
Technology Use for Content Delivery Technology Use for Enrichment Technology Use for Transformation

Professional Identity Mediator(s)/Path Direct Indirect Total Mediator(s)/Path Direct Indirect Total Mediator Direct Indirect Total
effect effect effect effect effect effect (s)/Path effect effect effect

In relation to Educator DPO→LCO→TU_T→ – 0.049** 0.21** DPO→LCO→TU_T – 0.066* 0.19** DPO→LCO – 0.070** 0.14*
education goals orientation TU_E
DPO→LCO→ TU_E – 0.020* DPO→LCO – 0.026* LCO – 0.072**
DPO→LCO→TCO – 0.002 LCO→TU_T – 0.067**
DPO→SMO→ TCO – 0.000 LCO – 0.027**
DPO→SMO – 0.066*
LCO→TU_T→TU_E 0.051**
LCO→TU_E – 0.02**
LCO→TCO – 0.002
Instructor TCO − 0.006 0.03
8

– – – – – – – – –
orientation SMO→TCO – 0.000
SMO – 0.025**
In relation to Didactic and LCO→TU_T→ TU_E – 0.066** 0.19** LCO→TU_T – 0.087* 0.12** LCO – 0.093* 0.09*
professional pedagogical LCO→ TU_E – 0.034* LCO – 0.034*
knowledge orientation LCO→TCO – 0.003
base SMO→ TCO – 0.000
SMO – 0.088*
Subject matter – 0.11* – 0.11* – – – – – – – –
orientation TCO – 0.000
In relation to Learner-centered TU_T→ TU_E – 0.134* 0.20** – 0.074* – 0.25** – 0.19* – 0.19*
instruction orientation TU_E – 0.053* TU_T – 0.177*
TCO – 0.005
Teacher-centered – − 0.014 – − 0.014 – – – – – – – –

Computers & Education 175 (2021) 104314

orientation
R2 63% 88% 4%
C. Lai and T. Jin Computers & Education 175 (2021) 104314

predicted neither type of technology use. The non-significant influence of teacher-centered orientation on the use of technology for
content delivery, although against our hypothesis, corroborated previous research findings (Liu et al., 2017; Taimalu & Luik, 2019).
This non-significant association might be explained by the fact that the link between instructional approach and technology use is
subject to the influence of context (Liu et al., 2019). English language teachers in China tended to use technology more for lesson
preparation and administrative purposes than for in-class instructional purposes (Li & Ni, 2011). Under such a contextual culture,
teachers with teacher-centered instructional orientation may be likely to choose not to engage with technology at all. In all, the
findings on the association of the three professional identity aspects and the nature of technology integration showed that a broader
and more learner-focused role positioning, i.e., educator orientation, didactic and pedagogical orientation and learner-centered
orientation, predicted teachers’ use of technology for different instructional purposes. Whereas, a narrower and teacher-focused
role positioning showed little association with teachers’ technology use.
The three broad and learner-oriented professional identity orientations were significant determinants of both technology use for
learning transformation and technology use for learning enrichment. The narrow and teacher/content-focused professional identity
orientations had no contribution to both types of technology use. Learner-centered orientation was the strongest predictor in both
cases, directly influencing these two types of technology use, and mediating the influences of educator identity orientation and didactic
and pedagogical orientation. Educator identity orientation to educational goals and didactic and pedagogical orientation to profes­
sional knowledge base accounted for 67% of the variation in learner-centered orientation to instruction.
For technology use for content delivery, in addition to the three broad and learner-focused professional identity orientation, subject
matter orientation was also a significant predictor. Subject matter orientation had a direct influence on technology use for content
delivery (β = 0.11, p < .05).
The three broad and learner-focused professional identity orientations all had indirect effects: The stronger an educator identity
orientation teachers held, the more likely they valued didactic and pedagogical expertise as professional knowledge base and learner-
centered orientation to instruction. Learner-centered orientation influenced technology use for content delivery via technology use for
transformation and for learning enrichment. Didactic and pedagogical orientation influenced technology use for content delivery both
via learner-centered orientation and the associated two types of high-level technology use and via subject matter orientation.

5. Discussion

Previous studies have identified the influence of various aspects of teacher professional identity on instructional technology
adoption, including the personal landscapes of teacher professional identity (Chere-Masopha, 2018), the emotional and affective
dimension of teacher professional identity (Shelton, 2018), and professional identity orientations to change and innovation (Liu &
Geertshuis, 2021). Corroborating these empirical evidences on the link between teacher professional identity and instructional
technology adoption, this study shed further light on their association from the perspective of discipline-specific professional identity
orientations. It found that language teachers’ professional identity orientations in relation to educational goals, professional knowl­
edge base and instructional approaches were significant determinants of teachers’ technology use for different pedagogical purposes.
More importantly, this study found that the interaction of different discipline-specific professional identity orientations accounted for a
significant proportion of the variation in teachers’ technology use for content delivery and for learning enrichment (60%–90%). The
findings support that professional identity is a significant influencing factor and should be given its due attention in the research on
teacher technology adoption (Chere-Masopha, 2018; Liu & Geertshuis, 2021). Professional development initiatives on teachers’
technology integration may need to feature intervention components on teachers’ discipline-specific professional identity (e.g.,
Kwihangana, 2020). This study found that the broad and learner-focused professional identity orientations were the major de­
terminants of technology use for content delivery and the sole determinants of technology use for learning enrichment and for learning
transformation. Thus, professional identity interventions in support of technology integration may focus on fostering teachers’
educator identity orientation that prioritizes students’ holistic development, rather than language proficiency only, as the educational
goals, developing teachers’ didactic and pedagogical identity orientation that values expertise in creating meaningful and relevant
learning experience for the students, and facilitating teachers’ learner-centered orientation towards instructional approaches that
supports students’ active role in learning.
Although previous studies have examined and attested to the influence of individual discipline-specific professional identity
orientation on technology integration, these studies have focused primarily on professional identity in relation to instructional ap­
proaches (Li et al., 2019; Liu & Geertshuis, 2021; Taimalu & Luik, 2019). Consistent with previous research findings that
learner-centered orientation is a significant determinant of teacher technology adoption and student-centered technology use (Li et al.,
2019; Liu et al., 2017; Liu & Geertshuis, 2021), this study found it to be the strongest predictor of technology use for learning
enrichment and technology use for learning transformation. The finding supports the importance of fostering learner-centered
orientation to instruction among teachers. This study further revealed two more discipline-specific professional identity orienta­
tions that were significant predictors of teacher technology integration but are rarely discussed in this body of literature: professional
identity in relation to educational goals and professional identity in relation to professional knowledge base. Moreover, these two
aspects of professional identity were found to be significant antecedents of learner-centered orientation to instruction and explain a
large proportion of teachers’ variation in learner-centered instructional orientation. Thus, to foster learner-centered instructional
orientation, more fundamental discussions on teacher positioning in relation to educational goals and professional knowledge base
may be needed.
More importantly, this study brought together these different aspects of professional identity and took into account of their in­
teractions under one conceptual umbrella, and contributed new insights to the understanding of the association between professional

9
C. Lai and T. Jin Computers & Education 175 (2021) 104314

identity and teacher technology integration. For instance, contrary to the previous research findings on the association of teacher-
centered orientation and restricted use of technology for knowledge and skill delivery (Martin & Vallance, 2008), this study found
that teacher-centered orientation was not a significant predictor of technology use for delivery. Rather, subject matter expert orien­
tation directly influenced teachers’ use of technology to present information in more appealing and effective way. The finding suggests
that what is fundamental behind teacher-centered delivery-focused technology use might be teachers’ fixation with subject matter
knowledge and their subject matter expertise, rather than their interpretation of the best ways to impart the knowledge. Thus, to push
technology use beyond content delivery towards more sophisticated, learning-centered use, it is important to not only facilitate
learning-centered instructional orientation but also broaden teachers’ perception of professional knowledge base beyond the preoc­
cupation on subject matter expertise towards valuing and prioritizing their didactic and pedagogical expertise.
The study further revealed that these discipline-specific professional identity orientations influenced different types of technology
use differently, which supports the arguments for in-depth research into the relation of professional identity with the nature of
technology integration (Liu & Geertshuis, 2021). The three aspects of professional identity accounted for a large proportion of the
variation in teachers’ technology use for content delivery (63%) and learning enrichment (88%), but a very small proportion of the
variation in teachers’ technology use to transform learning (4% only). The findings suggest that the three types of teacher technology
use is subject to different influencing factors.
The finding on the greater influence of professional identity on technology use for learning enrichment than on content delivery is
consistent with Li and colleagues’ (2019) findings, where teachers’ instructional approach was the most significant determinant of
technology use to support student-centered teaching whereas technology self-efficacy was the strongest predictor of technology use to
support traditional teaching. The findings showed that, although equally important, teachers’ discipline-specific professional identity
orientations mattered more to technology use for learning enrichment than to technology use for content delivery. Thus, it seems that
professional identity played an increasingly important role in more sophisticated, learner-centered instructional technology use.
The extremely small explanation power of professional identity on technology use for learning transformation is rather puzzling. A
possible explanation is that this type of technology use expects teachers to have updated knowledge and experience with newer
technologies and the will and skill to support learner autonomy with technology within and beyond the classroom, which demands
different skillset than the more teacher-directed technology use inside the classroom and is often lacking among teachers (Liu et al.,
2019; Stockwell & Reinders, 2019). For instance, Liu et al. (2019) found that Chinese EFL teachers were doubtful of students’ ca­
pacities for student-centered learning with technology, and thus engaged less in using technology to facilitate student agency despite
their student-centered pedagogical orientations. Unfortunately, such skillset was often not featured in teacher professional develop­
ment programs (Liu et al., 2019; Stockwell & Reinders, 2019). The lack of relevant attitudes and skillset might serve as a major hurdle
to this type of technology use, despite the presence of facilitative professional identities. Moreover, this construct emphasized the use
of technology to support student agency both inside and outside the classroom. The professional identity measures in this study focused
primarily on teachers’ instructional behaviors inside the classroom, and thus may be inadequate to capture the professional identity
orientations that are essential to this type of technology use. Thus, future research may explore further into factors that influence
teachers’ technology use for learning transformation.

6. Conclusion

This study examined the association of teacher professional identity and the nature of instructional technology use. It identified
that broader and more learner-focused professional identity orientations, including educator identity orientation towards educational
goals, didactic and pedagogical orientation towards professional knowledge base and learner-centered orientation towards instruc­
tional approaches, were significant predictors of teacher technology use for content delivery, learning enrichment and learning
transformation. It further revealed that professional identity orientations had differential influences on different types of teacher
technology use. The findings support greater attention to discipline-specific professional identity in supporting teacher technology
adoption and in understanding different approaches to technology integration.
Despite the new insights the study brought to the field, the study has a few limitations. First, the research findings might be biased
by the particularities of the research population. The research was conducted with a cohort of university language teachers who were
predominantly experienced teachers with postgraduate degrees, had years of technology integration experience, and reported a strong
learner-centered orientation towards instructional approaches. As the majority of the participants had more than 5 years of teaching
experience, they might be a cohort with more positive attitudes towards using technology to support student learning, as Russell,
Bebell, O’Dwyer, and O’Connor (2003) found that teachers with more than 6 years of teaching experience had less reservations about
the potential negative impact of technology for student learning and engaged more in teacher-directed student use than those with
fewer years of experience. Their strong learner-centered orientation and prior technology integration experience might also have
enhanced their self-efficacy in technology use for educational purposes and reduced the attitudinal and cognitive hurdles in translating
their professional identity orientations into their technological practices, especially the more sophisticated learner-centered tech­
nology use. Thus, the particularities of the participants might have boosted the explanatory power of professional identity on tech­
nology adoption observed in this study, technology use for learning enrichment in particular. The influence of professional identity on
technology use might be weaker for teacher populations who work in more restricting curriculum and instruction context, such as K-12
schools, have limited teaching and technology integration experience and align less with learner-centered teaching. Thus, more
research is needed to examine the association of discipline-related professional identity and the nature of technology integration in
different teaching contexts. Second, the study tried to validate the factor structure of professional identity via EFA and CFA by
randomly splitting dataset in half, a practice recommended by some researchers (Fabrigar, Wegener, MacCallum, & Strahan, 1999;

10
C. Lai and T. Jin Computers & Education 175 (2021) 104314

Fokkema & Greiff, 2017). Although arbitrarily creating two sample sets for EFA and subsequent CFA by splitting data may help
circumvent the methodological fallacy of conducting the two analyses on the same dataset, the method may still run the risk of
capitalizing on the chance characteristics of the data and overfitting. Moreover, splitting the dataset led to a relatively small sample
size for EFA and CFA analysis (N = 140 respectively). The sample size was adequate for factor analysis given that it satisfied the
recommended minimum participant-to-item ratio (5:1) and the dataset showed large item communalities (>0.6) (Gorsuch, 1983;
Worthington & Whittaker, 2006). Nonetheless, the relatively small sample size may constrain factor-structure stability and general­
izability. Although not the focus of the study, the factor structure of professional identity needs more rigorous validation through
studies that employ EFA and CFA on different samples of larger sample sizes. Third, the study took a quantitative approach to examine
the influence of existing professional identity on types of technology use, which could only reveal one side of the story. Since pro­
fessional identity is constantly reconstructed in response to experience and interacts with technology adoption in a two-way dialectic
manner (Ertmer et al., 2012), future research may adopt more sophisticated design to examine into the longitudinal two-way recip­
rocal relationship between professional identity and the nature of technology use (Liu & Geertshuis, 2021).

Author contribution

Chun Lai: Conceptualization; Data Collection; Formal analysis; Writing – original draft, Jin Tan: Conceptualization; Data Collec­
tion; Writing – review & editing.

Appendix 1. The Factor Structure of Professional Identity

1 2 3 4 5 6

LCO1 .67
LCO2 1.04
LCO3 .94
LCO4 .53
LCO5 .56
TCO1 .66
TCO2 .95
TCO3 .81
TCO4 .80
TCO5 .78
DPO1 .82
DPO2 .77
DPO3 .42
SMO1 .86
SMO2 .90
SMO3 .66
IO1 .90
IO2 .83
IO3 .73
EO1 .88
EO2 .87
EO3 .65

Appendix 2. The Measurement Model and Descriptive Statistics

Standardized factor Mean SD

loading

Technology Use for Delivery (Ertmer et al., 2012; Baş et al., 2016) (α ¼ 0.95) (R2 ¼ 63%) 4.41 1.25
I use technology to deliver instructional content more effectively .90*** 4.43 1.31
I use technology to help present instructional content in a more appealing way .94*** 4.42 1.35
I use technology to help students access instructional materials more easily .93*** 4.38 1.30
Technology Use for Enrichment (Ertmer et al., 2012; Baş et al., 2016) (α ¼ 0.91) (R2 ¼ 88%) 4.07 1.22
I use technology to bring authentic resources and experiences to enrich students’ learning .84*** 4.08 1.33
I use technology to give students more choices in learning and/or for homework .87*** 4.11 1.30
I use technology to engage students in collaborative learning and sharing .89*** 4.01 1.33
Technology Use for Transformation (Ertmer et al., 2012; Baş et al., 2016) (α ¼ 0.95) (R2 ¼ 4%) 3.87 1.23
I use technology to implement new ways of teaching and learning .88*** 3.99 1.32
I use technology to redefine the role of teachers and students in teaching and learning .85*** 3.84 1.38
I use technology to enhance students’ strategies and skills to make better use of technology for English language .91*** 3.81 1.38
learning on their own
I introduce technological resources/tools to students to use on their own .85*** 3.93 1.31
I use technology to help students learn how to use different technological resources/tools to enhance their work .88*** 3.77 1.36
(continued on next page)

11
C. Lai and T. Jin Computers & Education 175 (2021) 104314

(continued )
Standardized factor Mean SD
loading

Educator Identity Orientation (α ¼ 0.92) 4.97 0.75

As a teacher, my main responsibility is to support my students’ development including English .85*** 4.97 0.84
I’m mostly with concerned with the English learning experience my students get from our program .93*** 4.97 0.81
My primary focus is to make a difference in students’ life .89*** 4.98 0.80
Instructor Identity Orientation (α ¼ 0.82) 4.41 0.84
I’m mostly concerned with what students gain from my English class .82*** 4.33 1.03
As a teacher, my main responsibility is to help my students learn English .83*** 4.48 0.91
My primary focus is to be a good English teacher .71*** 4.42 1.00
Didactic and Pedagogical Orientation (Beijaard et al., 2000) (α ¼ 0.90) (R2 ¼ 57%) 4.91 0.76
I constantly seek new methods to engage my students and help them learn in my English class .81*** 4.93 0.82
My first priority is to create a class atmosphere where students feel safe and valued .83*** 4.94 0.84
Students’ needs and self-development is one aspect that I strongly consider in my lessons .84*** 4.87 0.83
Subject Matter Orientation (Beijaard et al., 2000) (α ¼ 0.80) (R2 ¼ 81%) 4.96 0.74
I constantly update my English knowledge .80*** 5.04 0.78
I constantly update my English skills in a self-taught way or by following training .78*** 4.98 0.84
During the preparation of my courses, I spend a lot of time choosing the most appropriate learning content for the .78*** 4.85 0.90
students
Learner-centered orientation (Chan and Elliot (2004)) (α ¼ 0.93) (R2 ¼ 67%) 5.18 0.69
Learning means students have ample opportunities to explore, discuss and express their ideas .83*** 5.12 0.81
Teaching should be flexible to suit students’ individual differences .90*** 5.27 0.78
Good teachers always encourage students to think for answers themselves .86*** 5.27 0.80
A good classroom is one that promotes students’ knowledge construction through active thinking .80*** 5.19 0.75
Effective teaching encourages hands on activities for students .75*** 5.07 0.81
Teacher-centered orientation (Chan and Elliot (2004)) (α ¼ 0.91) (R2 ¼ 25%) 3.09 1.08
The authoritative way of instruction is the best for classroom teaching .76*** 3.28 1.29
A teacher’s major task is to impart knowledge/information, assign students drill and practice and test their recall .91*** 2.82 1.27
Learning means remembering what the teacher has taught .88*** 2.90 1.25
The main way to learn is through drill and practice .70*** 3.55 1.20
The traditional/lecture method for teaching is best because it covers more information/knowledge .80*** 2.87 1.33

References

Arvaja, M., Sarja, A., & Rönnberg, P. (2020). Pre-service subject teachers’ personal teacher characterisations after the pedagogical studies. European Journal of Teacher
Education, 1–17.
Badia, A., & Iglesias, S. (2019). The science teacher identity and the use of technology in the classroom. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 28(5), 532–541.
Bahari, A. (2018). Nonlinear dynamic motivation-oriented learner-centered L2 classroom. Uludağ Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 31(2), 781–810.
Baş, G., Kubiatko, M., & Sünbül, A. M. (2016). Teachers’ perceptions towards ICTs in teaching-learning process: Scale validity and reliability study. Computers in
Human Behavior, 61, 176–185.
Bebell, D., Russell, M., & O’Dwyer, L. (2004). Measuring teachers’ technology uses: Why multiple-measures are more revealing. Journal of Research on Technology in
Education, 37(1), 45–63.
Becker, H. J. (2000). Findings from the teaching, learning, and computing survey. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8, 51–80.
Beijaard, D., Meijer, P. C., & Verloop, N. (2004). Reconsidering research on teachers’ professional identity. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20(2), 107–128.
Beijaard, D., Verloop, N., & Vermunt, J. D. (2000). Teachers’ perceptions of professional identity: An exploratory study from a personal knowledge perspective.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 16(7), 749–764.
Billig, M., Condor, S., Edwards, D., Gane, M., Middleton, D., & Radley, A. (1988). Ideological dilemmas: A social psychology of everyday thinking. Sage Publications, Inc.
Blin, F., & Munro, M. (2008). Why hasn’t technology disrupted academics’ teaching practices? Understanding resistance to change through the lens of activity theory.
Computers & Education, 50(2), 475–490.
Brenner, P. S., Serpe, R. T., & Stryker, S. (2018). Role-specific self-efficacy as precedent and product of the identity model. Sociological Perspectives, 61(1), 57–80.
Brown, C. P., Englehardt, J., & Mathers, H. (2016). Examining preservice teachers’ conceptual and practical understandings of adopting iPads into their teaching of
young children. Teaching and Teacher Education, 60, 179–190.
Chan, K. W., & Elliott, R. G. (2004). Relational analysis of personal epistemology and conceptions about teaching and learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20(8),
817–831.
Chere-Masopha, J. (2018). Personal landscapes of teacher professional identities versus digital technology adoption and integration in Lesotho schools. International
Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 17(3), 28–42.
Errington, E. (2004). The impact of teacher beliefs on flexible learning innovation: Some practices and possibilities for academic developers. Innovations in Education &
Teaching International, 41(1), 39–47.
Ertmer, P. A. (1999). Addressing first-and second-order barriers to change: Strategies for technology integration. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47
(4), 47–61.
Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T. (2010). Teacher technology change: How knowledge, confidence, beliefs, and culture intersect. Journal of Research on
Technology in Education, 42(3), 255–284.
Ertmer, P. A., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T., Sadik, O., Sendurur, E., & Sendurur, P. (2012). Teacher beliefs and technology integration practices: A critical relationship.
Computers & Education, 59(2), 423–435.
Fabrigar, L. R., Wegener, D. T., MacCallum, R. C., & Strahan, E. J. (1999). Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological
Methods, 4(3), 272–299.
Fokkema, M., & Greiff, S. (2017). How performing PCA and CFA on the same data equals trouble. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 33(6), 399–402.
Gorsuch, R. L. (1983). Factor analysis (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis. Prentice Hall.
Hall, G. E. (2010). Technology’s Achilles heel: Achieving high-quality implementation. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(3), 231–253.

12
C. Lai and T. Jin Computers & Education 175 (2021) 104314

Hooge, E. H., Honingh, M. E., & Langelaan, B. N. (2011). The teaching profession against the background of educationalisation: An exploratory study. European
Journal of Teacher Education, 34(3), 297–315.
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation
Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55.
Kelchtermans, G. (2009). Who I am in how I teach is the message: Self-understanding, vulnerability and reflection. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 15(2),
257–272.
Kember, D., & Kwan, K. P. (2000). Lecturers’ approaches to teaching and their relationship to conceptions of good teaching. Instructional Science, 28(5), 469–490.
Kim, C., Kim, M. K., Lee, C., Spector, J. M., & DeMeester, K. (2013). Teacher beliefs and technology integration. Teaching and Teacher Education, 29, 76–85.
Kimmerl, J. (2020). Does who Am I as a teacher matter? Exploring determinants of teachers’ learning management system Adoption in education style. In Conference
presentation at ICIS 2020, December 13-16, 2020. Making digital inclusive: Blending the local and the global – digital learning environment and future IS curriculum
(India).
Kline, R. B. (2015). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. Guilford publications.
Kock, N., & Lynn, G. (2012). Lateral collinearity and misleading results in variance-based SEM: An illustration and recommendations. Journal of the Association for
Information Systems, 13(7).
Kwihangana, F. (2020). Preservice language teachers developing digital teacher identities through the process of positioning. In Society for information technology &
teacher education international conference (pp. 1179–1184). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). April.
Lachner, A., Jarodzka, H., & Nückles, M. (2016). What makes an expert teacher? Investigating teachers’ professional vision and discourse abilities. Instructional
Science, 44(3), 197–203.
Li, Y., Garza, V., Keicher, A., & Popov, V. (2019). Predicting high school teacher use of technology: Pedagogical beliefs, technological beliefs and attitudes, and teacher
training. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 24(3), 501–518.
Li, G., & Ni, X. (2011). Primary EFL teachers’ technology use in China: Patterns and perceptions. RELC Journal, 42(1), 69–85.
Liu, Q., & Geertshuis, S. (2016). Professional identity and teachers’ learning technology adoption: A review of adopter-related antecedents. In S. Barker, S. Dawson,
A. Pardo, & C. Colvin (Eds.), Show me the learning. Proceedings ASCILITE 2016 adelaide (pp. 365–374) (Adelaide).
Liu, Q., & Geertshuis, S. (2021). Professional identity and the adoption of learning management systems. Studies in Higher Education, 46(3), 624–637.
Liu, Q., Geertshuis, S., & Grainger, R. (2020). Understanding academics’ adoption of learning technologies: A systematic review. Computers & Education, 151, 103857.
Liu, H., Lin, C. H., & Zhang, D. (2017). Pedagogical beliefs and attitudes toward information and communication technology: A survey of teachers of English as a
foreign language in China. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 30(8), 745–765.
Liu, H., Wang, L., & Koehler, M. J. (2019). Exploring the intention-behavior gap in the technology acceptance model: A mixed-methods study in the context of foreign-
language teaching in China. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(5), 2536–2556.
Löfström, E., Anspal, T., Hannula, M. S., & Poom-Valickis, K. (2010). Metaphors about" the teacher": Gendered, discipline-specific and persistent. Teacher’s Personality
and Professionalism, 105–122.
Löfström, E., & Poom-Valickis, K. (2013). Beliefs about teaching: Persistent or malleable? A longitudinal study of prospective student teachers’ beliefs. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 35, 104–113.
Lucas, M. (2020). External barriers affecting the successful implementation of mobile educational interventions. Computers in Human Behavior, 107, 105509.
Makovec, D. (2018). The teacher’s role and professional development. International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education, 6(2), 33–46.
Marcelo, C. (2009). Professional development of teachers: Past and future. Sísifo. Educational Sciences Journal, 8, 5–20.
Martin, S., & Vallance, M. (2008). The impact of synchronous inter-networked teacher training in Information and Communication Technology integration. Computers
& Education, 51, 34–53.
Nelson, M. J., Voithofer, R., & Cheng, S. L. (2019). Mediating factors that influence the technology integration practices of teacher educators. Computers & Education,
128, 330–344.
Osborne, J. W., Costello, A. B., & Kellow, J. T. (2008). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis. In J. W. Osborne (Ed.), Best practices in quantitative methods (pp.
86–99). CA: Sage Publications.
Oyserman, D. (2009). Identity-based motivation: Implications for action-readiness, procedural-readiness, and consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 19
(3), 250–260.
Pennington, M. C., & Richards, J. C. (2016). Teacher identity in language teaching: Integrating personal, contextual, and professional factors. RELC Journal, 47(1),
5–23.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and
recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.
Popper-Giveon, A., & Shayshon, B. (2017). Educator versus subject matter teacher: The conflict between two sub-identities in becoming a teacher. Teachers and
Teaching, 23(5), 532–548.
Ravitz, J., Becker, H. J., & Wong, Y. T. (2000). Constructivist-compatible beliefs and practices among US teachers. In Teaching, learning, and computing: 1998 national
survey report #4, center for research on information technology and organizations. University of California, Irvine and University of Minnesota. Retrieved from http://
www.crito.uci.edu/tlc/findings/report4.
Richter, E., Brunner, M., & Richter, D. (2021). Teacher educators’ task perception and its relationship to professional identity and teaching practice. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 101, Article 103303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2021.103303
Russell, M., Bebell, D., O’Dwyer, L., & O’Connor, K. (2003). Examining teacher technology use: Implications for preservice and inservice teacher preparation. Journal
of Teacher Education, 54(4), 297–310.
Sachs, J. (2001). Teacher professional identity: Competing discourses, competing outcomes. Journal of Education Policy, 16(2), 149–161.
Scherer, R., Siddiq, F., & Tondeur, J. (2019). The technology acceptance model (TAM): A meta-analytic structural equation modeling approach to explaining teachers’
adoption of digital technology in education. Computers & Education, 128, 13–35.
Schutz, P. A., Crowder, K. C., & White, V. E. (2001). The development of a goal to become a teacher. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(2), 299–308.
Shelton, C. (2018). “You have to teach to your personality”: Caring, sharing and teaching with technology. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 34(4),
92–106.
Stein, S. J., Shephard, K., & Harris, I. (2011). Conceptions of e-learning and professional development for e-learning held by tertiary educators in New Zealand. British
Journal of Educational Technology, 42(1), 145–165.
Stockwell, G., & Reinders, H. (2019). Technology, motivation and autonomy, and teacher psychology in language learning: Exploring the myths and possibilities.
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 39, 40–51.
Taasoobshirazi, G., & Wang, S. (2016). The performance of the SRMR, RMSEA, CFI, and TLI: An examination of sample size, path size, and degrees of freedom. Journal
of Applied Quantitative Methods, 11(3), 31–39.
Taimalu, M., & Luik, P. (2019). The impact of beliefs and knowledge on the integration of technology among teacher educators: A path analysis. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 79, 101–110.
Tarling, I., & Ng’ambi, D. (2016). Teachers pedagogical change framework: A diagnostic tool for changing teachers’ uses of emerging technologies. British Journal of
Educational Technology, 47(3), 554–572.
Teo, T., Chai, C. S., Hung, D., & Lee, C. B. (2008). Beliefs about teaching and uses of technology among pre-service teachers. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education,
36(2), 163–174.
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 & Development, 65(3), 555–575.
Trentin, G. (2008). TEL and university teaching: Different approaches for different purposes. International Journal on E-Learning, 7(1), 117–132.
Van Veen, K., & Sleegers, P. (2006). How does it feel? Teachers’ emotions in a context of change. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 38(1), 85–111.

13
C. Lai and T. Jin Computers & Education 175 (2021) 104314

Van Veen, K., Sleegers, P., Bergen, T., & Klaassen, C. (2001). Professional orientations of secondary school teachers towards their work. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 17(2), 175–194.
Worthington, R. L., & Whittaker, T. A. (2006). Scale development research: A content analysis and recommendations for best practices. The Counseling Psychologist, 34
(6), 806–838.
Zemsky, R., & Massy, W. F. (2004). Thwarted innovation. What happened to e-learning and why, A final report for the Weather station Project of the Learning Alliance
at the University of Pennsylvania in cooperation with the Thomson Corporation. Pennsylvania. Retrieved online in April 2021 from https://www.researchgate.
net/profile/Robert-Zemsky/publication/201382274_Thwarted_Innovation_What_Happened_to_E-Learning_and_Why/links/59edcae30f7e9bc36521e770/
Thwarted-Innovation-What-Happened-to-E-Learning-and-Why.pdf.

14