Factors Influencing the Integration of Technology of High School English Teachers in Indonesia: Analysis Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) and Partial Least Square (PLS)

Factors Influencing the Integration of Technology of High School English Teachers in Indonesia: Analysis Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) and Partial Least Square (PLS) | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Factors Influencing the Integration of Technology of High School English Teachers in Indonesia: Analysis Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) and Partial Least Square (PLS) Eddy Haryanto, Robi Hendra, Dian Arisandy Eka Putra Sembiring, and 4 more This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-5766778/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Under Review Version 1 posted 11 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract This study aims to present teachers’ understanding of TPACK (technology, pedagogy, and content knowledge) and how TPACK is manifested in use, and the research examines the concept of teachers’ technology integration (Tecint). In particular, the primary purpose of this study is to find out the factors that influence English teachers in technology integration in Jambi city, Indonesia. This study is a cross-sectional survey in which the data were collected at one point in time from a sample of 294 English teachers. This study reveals that perceived technology knowledge had a significant and positive effect. Perceived knowledge to integrate technology (PKforIT), perceived knowledge to integrate technology (PKforIT) significantly and positively influenced ICT pedagogical practice (ICTpedPra), ICT pedagogical practice (ICTpedPra) had a significant and positive effect on Teacher Knowledge (excluding technology) (TKexTEC), knowledge of technology perceptions (CAR), knowledge to integrate technology perceptions (PKforIT) had significant and positive influence on technology integration (TecInt) as well as significant and positive significant and positive effect on technology integration (TecInt), ICT pedagogical practices (ICTpedPra) significant and positive effect Technology integration (TecInt), teacher knowledge (excluding technology) (TKexTEC) had a positive and significant effect technology integration (TecInt), institutional support for ICT innovation and use (INStitSupport), technology integration (TecInt) significant effect and positive on motivation (MotVat) and motivation (MotVat) had a significant and positive effect on Work Engagement (WorkEgag) significantly and positively had a positive and significant impact on technology integration (TecInt). This finding shows that to integrate teachers must pay attention to teachers' understanding of technology, knowledge, and support from subsequent institutions. Job engagement is influenced by the work motivation of the English teacher. integration technology institution support work engagement partial least square – sequential equation modeling (PLS-SEM) Figures Figure 1 Background Policy on technology integration in the education context has shown a positive impact on teaching and learning in classrooms (Niederhauser et al., 2018 ). Kim, Kim, Lee, Spector & DeMeester, ( 2013 ) argues technology integration is one of the fundamental requirements in the twenty-first century as learning media to achieve effective learning and productivity in the digital society. Accordingly, it is important to take into account that technology integration support classroom activities and teachers’ skill in technology used for their teaching practices. However, it is necessary to know teachers’ technology integration skills as their capital to teach the students (Hansen & Rosenlund, 2020 ). Therefore, the teacher has an important role in transferring knowledge and as a model in preparing future generations in the digital age. In many years, previous research has demonstrated the integration of technology in teaching and learning that assumes on several factors such as schools, education systems and policy, and teachers (Kopcha, 2012 ; Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2013 ; Liu, 2011 ; Shin, Han, & Kim, 2014 ; Farjon, Smits, & Voogt, 2019 ; Backfisch, Lachner, Stürmer, & Scheiter, 2021 ). Many factors are influencing the technology integration in the classrooms process of teaching and learning (Aslam, Saleem, Khan, & Kim, 2021 ). Furthermore, Voithofer & Nelson ( 2021 ) argue factors influencing technology integration are complex in which the differences in the practices and conditions influence each other corresponding to the utilization of the integration process. Meanwhile, Jääskelä, Häkkinen, & Rasku-Puttonen, ( 2017 ), claim in analyzing the use of education technology that is necessary to understand the environment, knowledge, beliefs, and practices affect each other. According to the study of Ifinedo, Rikala, & Hämäläinen ( 2020 ), teachers integrating technology into classroom practices influenced by some aspects such as knowledge of using technology, knowledge of teachers, and perception of knowledge to integrate technology, however, pedagogical practices of ICT and perceptions of technology effect on students might not influence it. Furthermore, pedagogical teachers and technologically competent are more encouraged teachers to integrate technology into teaching and learning in the classroom (Uerz, Volman, & Kral, 2018 ; Al-Habsi, Al-Busaidi, & Al-Issa, 2021 ). Thus, mastering subjects, pedagogy, and being technologically competent as one of the requirements for teachers (Lestariningsih, Hope, Madya, & Nurkamto, 2018 ; Kundu & Bej, 2021 ). In this research, we adopted the TPACK framework based on Koehler and Mishra ( 2006 ); Ifinedo et al., ( 2020 ), for successful technology integration in teaching and learning. Kopcha ( 2012 ) argues that content, pedagogy, and technology lead to effective teaching. Hence, the TPACK framework based on Koehler and Mishra consists of seven categories of knowledge: technology knowledge (TK), pedagogical knowledge (PK), content knowledge (CK), pedagogical content knowledge (PCK), technological pedagogical knowledge (TPK). Nevertheless, several studies have been investigated that the TPACK framework distorted technology integration surrounding factors prevent various factors barriers, training, support, and access to resources (Mergel, 2012 ; Eichelberger & Leong, 2019 ; Tokareva, Smirnova, & Orchakova, 2019 ; Tatnall, 2020 ). This research aims to investigate the factors that affect the integration of technology in the public senior high school context in one province of Indonesia. Particularly, this study is to find out teachers’ characteristics, knowledge of technology perceptions, knowledge for integrating technology perceptions, pedagogical practices of ICT, and its impact on students, knowledge of teaching (excluding technology), integration of technology. This study uses PLS-SEM techniques to develop models that represent the relationship between the factors that support the integration of teacher integration technology. 1.1 Theoretical Framework and Literature Review Researchers have been focused on the interconnectedness of factors influencing technology integration used in classroom activities and beyond for more than 3 decades (Chanlin, Hong, Horng, Chang, & Chu, 2006 ; Liu, 2011 ; Liu, 2012 ). According to Sadaf, Newby, & Ertmer ( 2012 ), teachers in the digital age should prepare themselves with technology skills to perform better in teaching and learning. Furthermore, the skill of teachers in using technology might be influenced by teaching experience, subject taught, teacher’s age, and class size (Jimoyiannis & Komis, 2007 ;Sadaf et al., 2012 ; Smadi & Raman, 2020 ). Furthermore, technology integration in teaching and learning might also be influenced by teachers’ knowledge, perceptions, access to teaching, and culture (Ertmer, 2005 ; Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010 ; Ertmer & Ertmer, 2016 ) Hence, this study is focusing on the characteristics variable that influences teachers’ consideration in integrating technology in teaching and learning such as teacher characteristics, technical knowledge perceptions, technology pedagogical beliefs, and practice. Therefore, the TPACK framework was adopted to analyze the research findings. Effective teaching and learning in the classroom much depend on teacher competence in subjects’ mastery, pedagogy, and technology skills (Nousiainen, Kangas, Rikala, & Vesisenaho, 2018 ; Kong, 2014 ).These aspects of competence are based on the TPACK framework of Ling Koh, Chai, & Tay ( 2014 ) that is called pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) (Ching, Yang, Baek, & Baldwin, 2016 ). However, Niess ( 2011 ) developed a more complex model of PCK by adding technological integration. The framework developed by Koehler & Mishra become seven aspects of knowledge: technology knowledge (TK), pedagogical knowledge (PK), content knowledge (CK), pedagogical content knowledge (PCK), technological pedagogical knowledge (TPK), technology content knowledge (TCK), and technology pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK). Age is one of potential aspects influence the integration of technology in teaching and learning. Ifinedo et al., ( 2020 ), age has influenced to the use of technology in education, especially new teachers bear to apply the technology in teaching and learning. This study in similar vein with Oh & Reeves, ( 2014 ) that teachers tend to use technology in teaching their subjects. In addition, in some cases of study has shown relationship between teachers’ age and the knowledge varies (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010 ) 1.2 Teaching Knowledge Effects The Integration Of Technology Researchers have found out that there has been positive correlation between TPACK construction and teachers’ TPACK perceptions (Bower, 2017 ). This is in line with study of Nazari, Nafissi, Estaji, Marandi, & Wang ( 2019 ) that it found highly significant correlated between PCK and PK, between TCK and TPK. Furthermore, Khine, Ali, & Afari ( 2017 ) and Nazari et al., ( 2019 ) claim that CK, in turn, has positive affects TCK and PCK. Further claims that PCK has influence on teachers technology intergration. According to Uerz et al., ( 2018 ), integrating technology in teaching has significant contribution to pedagogical competence as well as technological competence. In similar vein, Bower ( 2017 ) argue integration practices of ICT influenced knowledge teacher technology integration, which means knowledge perceptions may lead to feeling of self-efficacy. 1.3 ICT and Teachers Pedagogical Practice Teachers’ pedagogical practices included teaching strategies and techniques, creating good atmosphere of learning, and providing two ways interaction between teachers and students lead to effective results of students learning and teachers’ knowledge (Hanuscin & Akerson, 2011). Teachers’ pedagogical practices would be more creative and innovative when ICT utilize in their classroom activities. ICT would offer many ways to improve teachers’ innovation in teaching and learning process as well as expand the teaching strategies and methods in different ways (Voithofer & Nelson, 2021 ;Bower, 2017 ; Ifinedo et al., 2020 ). On the other hand, the ability of teachers in integrating the ICT into teaching and learning is important because it reflects the effectiveness of learning (Donnelly, McGarr, & O’Reilly, 2011 ; Comi, Argentin, Gui, Origo, & Pagani, 2017 ). Therefore, according to Brinkley-Etzkorn ( 2018 ) teachers should consider overall learning situation, not only how to use technology but also more on how teachers use pedagogical practices, methods of assessment, objectives of curriculum, and social context. Technology may provide students’ better understanding toward learning materials of subjects, but teachers’ pedagogical knowledge has valuable perspective to achieve students’ outcomes, if teachers have better pedagogical knowledge, it would create better outcomes to students (Tai, Pan, & Lee, 2015 ). Furthermore, Nelson, Voithofer, & Cheng ( 2019 ) claim that teacher’s motivation and attitude toward ICT in their teaching is influenced by their pedagogy. Wang, Rodrigues & Evans, ( 2015 ) argue that the use of ICT in teaching lead to better pedagogical skills and change teachers’ knowledge. 1.4 Teachers' Perceptions of the Benefits of Technology Teachers’ perception is one of key elements to know their attitudes, beliefs and values about something; therefore, teachers’ action and practices in the classroom significantly influenced by their attitudes and beliefs (Koh, Chai, & Tsai, 2013 ; Nazari et al., 2019 ; Ifinedo et al., 2020 ). In conjunction with the perceptions of the benefits of technology, several previous studies have shown teachers with negative attitudes and beliefs toward technology tend to avoid to use it (Albirini, 2006 ; Nim Park, & Son, 2009 ). On the other hand, teachers have positive attitude toward technology would improve their level of ICT integration (Albion, Tondeur, Baruch & Peeraer, 2015; Dong, Chai & Zhai, 2020). Therefore, teachers play an important role in selecting their methods of teaching in which influence their choice in using technology. Teachers’ experience also will influence their attitudes and beliefs towards technology. The more teachers use technology in their teaching and learning, the higher their level in technology integration. According to Ifinedo et.al ( 2020 ), teachers with have good experience in utilizing the ICT assumes more confident technology users. Conversely, teacher aspects, such as subject taught and teaching experience, also greatly effect teacher perception (Lawrence & Tar, 2018 ). 1.5 Institutional Support for Innovation and Use of ICT ( Teo, 2011 ; Teo & Zhou, 2014 ) One factor that needs to consider when teachers use technology in teaching in the classroom is the school environment. The school environment might support teachers’ perception of innovative teaching for using technology in the classroom. Innovative teaching depends upon the support facilities or institutional support in school. Koh, Chai & Tay ( 2014 ) argue innovation perceptions among organizations members facilitate the use of new ideas and development. In addition, support innovation defines as a level of practical support, approval, and hope for introducing a better way of doing things in a work organization Avidov-Ungar, O., & Forkosh-Baruch, A. ( 2018 ). When using technology school support is important. Li, Garza, Keicher & Popov ( 2019 ) claim that teachers’ perception of school support would encourage them in teaching particularly project-based learning. Theoretically, school support would influence teacher's practice such as ideological setting, emotional and behavioral characteristics (Dong, Xu, Chai & Zhai, 2020 ). 1.6 Motivational Studies Have Become A Central Issue in Teacher Performance Motivation is one of the positive predictors for teacher performance in the classroom. Highly motivated teachers in teaching and learning lead to success in transferring their knowledge to students. Theoretically, motivation models regarding education have become an enormous issue in teachers' performance. Speaking to the most relevant theory on teachers' motivation is self-determination theory (Schiefele,2017). This theory includes some aspects such as introspection, integrated and identified regulation, intrinsic motivation, and external motivation. Furthermore, motivation leads to a better teacher’s performance in the classroom because it meets the need personal for competence and autonomy in expressing themselves (Bai, Hew, Sailer & Jia,2021). autonomous motivation is one of the variables that contribute to a positive predictor in future innovation. In several studies have shown intrinsic motivation of teachers to support their professional development (Klaeijsen, Vermeulen & Martens, 2018 ; Moreira-Fontán, E., García-Señorán, Conde-Rodríguez & González ( 2019 ). 1.7 Work Involvement Refers to the Relationship of Employees According to Li, Wang, & Zhou, (2017), work engagement is a personal resource that has a positive self-evaluation to control and influence their environment successfully. In this case, teachers as workers in the education sector and deal with students and people must have good personal resources for them to achieve their success in engaging themselves in teaching. As a result, work involvement is characterized as a work-related condition that has dedication, absorption, and passion (Carmona-Halty, Schaufeli & Salanova,2019). Furthermore, dedication is defined as a strong feeling in one’s work which includes inspiration, challenges, pride, and a feeling of enthusiasm. Absorption is known as concentrating on one’s work with happiness and fully with their work. Passion is someone’s willingness to invest and persistence with high energy and mental resilience (Li, F., Wang, G., Li, Y., & Zhou, R., 2017 ). Further studies have shown work involvement is highly correlated with teaching mastery practices, positive relationships with students, and self-assessment of responsibilities as well as satisfaction with career choices (Blackman, 2018 ). 2.2 Research Model and Hypothesis This study aims to see and assess what are the factors that influence the integration of technology for English language teachers in high schools in Jambi City. In this study the authors adopted several research models (Ifinedo et al., 2020 ) and the original of this study the researchers added the variables institutional support for innovation and ICT use, motivation and work engagement as for the hypothesis : H1: Technological knowledge (PTK) perception obtain compelling and affirmative influence on knowledge for integrating technology (PKforIT) H:2 Knowledge for integrating technology (PKforIT) perception obtains compelling and affirmative influence on ICT pedagogical practices (ICTpedPra) H: 3 ICT pedagogical practices (ICTpedPra) obtain compelling and affirmative influence on teachers' knowledge (excluding technology) (TKexTEC) H:4 Technological knowledge (PTK) perception obtain compelling and affirmative influence on technology integration (TecInt) H:5 Knowledge for integrating technology (PKforIT) perception obtain compelling and affirmative influence on technology integration (TecInt) H:6 ICT pedagogical practices (ICTpedPra) obtain compelling and affirmative influence on technology integration (TecInt) H:7 Teachers' knowledge (excluding technology) (TKexTEC) obtains compelling and affirmative influence on technology integration (TecInt) H:8 Institutional support for innovation and ICT use (INstitSupport) obtain compelling and affirmative influence on technology integration (TecInt) H:9 Technology integration (TecInt) obtain compelling and affirmative influence on motivation (MotVat) H: 10 Motivation (MotVat) obtain compelling and affirmative influence on work involvement (WorkInvol)_ Methods Survey research used in this study by distributing questionnaires to the participants to describe the characteristics of the participants, opinions, behaviors, and the attitudes. Survey studies better illustrate trends in the data than offer a rigorous explanation. 3.1 Data Collection Instruments The questionnaire instrument designed in this study was designed in two parts. The first part of the questionnaire, the researcher asked participants to be able to fill in demographic information and then contained a statement consisting of 28 of the 5 constructs that the authors adopted from Ifined, Rikala, & Hämäläinen (2019) consisting of Perceived technology Knowledge (CAR) (5 items), Perception of knowledge to integrate technology (PKforIT) (6 items), ICT pedagogical practice (ICTpedPra) (7 items), Teacher knowledge (excluding technology) (TKexTEC) (5 items) and Technology integration ( TecInt) (3 items), for Institutional support/Facilitating conditions of adoption from research, Teo ( 2011 ), Teo & Zhou ( 2014 ) contained (4 items) statements and for Motivation (WTMST) Fernet, Senécal, Guay, Marsh & Dowson ( 2008 ) there are (4 items) and for work engagement (UWES-9) Schaufeli, Bakker & Salanova ( 2006 ) each item is measured by the Likert scale always, frequent, sometimes, rarely and never. And the questionnaire was completely accepted by the participants and after that the questionnaire was tested on 100 teachers outside the sample and the results showed acceptable results with Cronbach's alpha were (WorkEgag) 0.881, (ICTpedPra) 0.939, (InstitSupport) 0.903, (MotVat) 0.857, (PKforIT) 892, (PTK) 0.920, (TKexTEC) 0.912, (TecInt) 0.900. 3.2 Data Collection and Samples The questionnaires distributed and collected through google forms. Data collection conducted with 294 respondents. The data analysis went through Cronbach Alpha to see its reality, the mean and standard deviation to understand their descriptive statistics, Pearson's moment-product coefficient for the relationship between variables, T-test and ANOVA for moderation variable differences, and the least partial modeling of box structural equations (PLS-SEM) for the factors that influence the best. in determining sampling, we use the G Power Application to analyze the strength of the sample. To assess the capacity in the analysis of this study, G Power was used to determine the least possible sample size required, and testing implied a total sampling of 294, reaching a strength of 0.95. The SEM-PLS used to analyze the data and be based on Smart PLS version 3.2.7 subsequent certain stride. The first stride is to test the model of measurement that tests the validity and reliability of the construct. Both Steps assess structural models that test the direct relationship between exogenous and endogenous variables (J. Hair, Hollingsworth, Randolph, & Chong, 2017 ). The research was ethically approved by the Ethics Committee of Universitas Jambi. Prior to participation, all participants were duly informed of their rights and responsibilities and provided explicit written consent. The study was conducted in agreement with the guidelines governing research involving human participants, as outlined by the Ethics Committee of Universitas Jambi. A sentence confirming that informed consents (Consent to Participate and Consent to Publish) were obtained from all participants. Results of Research and Discussion 4.1 Description of Research Data Table 1 Demographic Profiles of Participants Variable Content Frequencies (n-294) Percentage Mean Age 25–35 97 33,0 1,863946 36–45 140 47,6 46 57 19,4 Gender Male 113 38,4 1,615646 Women 181 61,6 Teaching experience < 10 Years 134 45,6 2,005102 11 to 20 Years 75 25,5 20 Years 84 28,6 Class Size < 30 115 39,1 1,608844 30 179 60,9 Technology used Phone 9 3,1 2,751701 Laptop 55 18,7 Combination 230 78,2 Table 1 statistical descriptive results from the demographics above can be shown that teachers are divided into ages, namely: 25–35 (97/33.0%), 36–45 years (140/47.6%), > 40 years (57/19.4%) then male gender ( 113/38.4%) and women ( 181/61.6%) furthermore for teaching experience that is 20 Thun ( 84/28.6%) furthermore for class size taught 30 (179/60,9) and the technology used that uses the phone as much as (9/3.1%) laptop (55/18.7%) and combination (230/78.2%) Table 2 Anova to See the Differences in Characteristic Research Subjects № Characteristics Variable Content Mean F count Sig/P value 1 Age Perceived Technological Knowledge (PTK) 25–35 4,247423 2,182 0,115 36–45 4,227143 46 4,368421 Master's Knowledge excluding technology (TKexTEC) 25–35 4,237113 9,720 0,000 36–45 4,227381 46 3,938596 2 Gender Perceived Technological Knowledge (PTK) Male 4,276106 0,210 0,647 Women 4,251934 Master's Knowledge excluding technology (TKexTEC) Male 4,190265 0,209 0,648 Women 4,164825 3 Teaching experience Perceived Technological Knowledge (PTK) < 10 Years 4,264179 1,014 0,387 11 to 20 Years 4,200000 20 Years 4,314286 Master's Knowledge excluding technology (TKexTEC) < 10 Years 4,279851 5,734 0,001 11 to 20 Years 4,160000 20 Years 4,023810 4 Class Size Perceived Technological Knowledge (PTK) < 30 4,273043 0,136 0,712 30 4,253631 Master's Knowledge excluding technology (TKexTEC) < 30 4,226087 2,340 0,127 30 4,141527 5 Technology used Perceived Technological Knowledge (PTK) Phone 4,000000 2,175 0,115 Laptop 4,323636 Combination 4,256522 Master's Knowledge excluding technology (TKexTEC) Phone 4,000000 17,757 0,000 Laptop 3,869697 Combination 4,254348 Anova table above explains the differences in perceived technological knowledge or PTK and teacher knowledge does not include technology in this case can be informed that: Differences in perceived technological knowledge or PTK seen from the age where there is no difference in knowledge or PTK seen from the age factor with a volume of 0.15. Then the teacher's knowledge does not include technology there is a difference in teacher knowledge excluding technology when viewed from the age at which the evaluation is 0.000. In terms of gender there is no difference in technological knowledge between male and female there is no difference in teacher knowledge excluding technology both for men and but when looking at the value of Mean where men if two knowledge, then there is no difference in technological knowledge that is felt when viewed from teaching experience both teaching under 10 years and over 20 years there is no difference in technological knowledge felt but there is a difference in the knowledge of teachers in this case does not include technology between learning or teaching experience under 10 years and over 20 years there is a difference with the value of gis. amounted to 0.001. Class size there is no difference when viewed from the class size between the perceived technological knowledge and the knowledge of the teacher does not include technology there is no difference when viewed from the class size with both class sizes below 30 and above 33 there are differences in knowledge both in both variables, then there is no difference in technological knowledge that is felt when viewed from the technology used and there is a difference in knowledge of teachers excluding technology when viewed from the technology used with P value of 0.000 4.2 Data Analysis PLS-SEM was selected for this study due to its strong predictive capabilities. It was also used to nalyze data and test hypotheses with the help of Smart PLS software (J. Hair et al., 2017 ). This method is particularly effective for developing models that explain the relationships between variables, especially in complex system where multiple factors influence the integration of technology (Mital, Moore, & Llewellyn, 2014 ). To ensure the instrument’s validity, the study employed both convergent and discriminant validity tests (Hair Jr., Matthews, Matthews, & Sarstedt, 2017 ). These tests were conducted using Smart PLS 3.0 and SPSS for additional calculations. The research process began woth basic data entry in a CSV format followed by advances data analysis steps as outlined below. Tabel 2 Description Statistics Questionnaire, loading factor, VIF, AVE and Cronbach's (Joe F. Hair, Howard, & Nitzl, 2020 ) Construct Item Code Mean Loading VIF AVE R Square Cronbach's Perceived technological Knowledge (PTK) PTK1 4,228669 0,886 3,441 0,881 0,629 PTK2 4,252560 0,899 2,352 PTK3 4,119454 0,829 2,851 PTK4 4,426621 0,871 2,743 PTK5 4,273038 0,868 3,441 Perceived knowledge for integrating technology (PKforIT) PKforIT1 4,167235 0,823 2,378 0,892 0,664 0,653 PKforIT2 3,897611 0,627 1,809 PKforIT3 4,160410 0,828 2,972 PKforIT4 4,361775 0,874 2,888 PKforIT5 4,262799 0,851 3,689 PKforIT6 4,197952 0,822 3,433 ICT pedagogical practices (ICTpedPra) ICTpedPra1 4,187713 0,876 3,234 0,939 0,801 0,767 ICTpedPra2 4,215017 0,821 2,627 ICTpedPra3 4,139932 0,894 3,962 ICTpedPra4 4,259386 0,895 3,460 ICTpedPra5 4,378840 0,871 4,108 ICTpedPra6 4,395904 0,894 4,661 Teachers' knowledge (excluding technology) (TKexTEC) TKexTEC1 4,351536 0,868 2,496 0,912 0,823 0,792 TKexTEC2 4,286689 0,886 2,812 TKexTEC3 4,262799 0,896 3,344 TKexTEC4 4,317406 0,910 3,561 TKexTEC5 4,361775 0,868 2,496 TKexTEC6 4,051195 0,886 2,812 Technology integration TecInt1 4,252560 0,895 2,744 0,900 0,766 0,834 TecInt2 4,160410 0,953 4,504 TecInt3 4,232082 0,891 2,839 Institutional support/ Facilitating conditions, (InstitSupport) INstitSupport1 4,167235 0,823 1,880 0,903 0,775 INstitSupport2 4,225256 0,877 3,030 INstitSupport3 4,368601 0,884 3,064 INstitSupport4 4,235495 0,933 4,303 Motivation (WTMST) (MotVat) MotVat1 4,228669 0,811 2,362 0,857 0,475 0,699 MotVat2 4,252560 0,839 2,553 MotVat3 4,119454 0,845 2,345 MotVat4 4,426621 0,848 2,340 Work Engagement (UWES-9) (WorkEgag) WorkEgag1 4,273038 0,730 1,836 0,881 0,541 0,629 WorkEgag2 4,167235 0,790 2,118 WorkEgag3 3,897611 0,826 2,392 WorkEgag4 4,160410 0,821 2,816 WorkEgag5 4,361775 0,842 2,822 WorkEgag7 4,262799 0,744 1,785 WorkEgag8 4,197952 0,730 1,836 WorkEgag9 4,187713 0,886 3,441 WorkEgag10 4,215017 0,899 2,352 From the table above can be informed that judging from the mean score that at the highest mean level (4,2) namely in the variable PTK, CTpedPra, TKexTE, TecInt, institutional support (category excellent) and at the second level namely in PKforIT, MotVa, with a score (mean 4,1) and the lowest on work gag, with a mean score (4,0) 4.3 Evaluation of the Outer Model Measurement Model The reliability objectives of the indicator is to test whether the indicator to measure the latent variables is predictable or not, that is, classifying the outer loading of every indicator results. The load value over 0.7 illustrates that the construction can explain more than 50% of the variance of its indicator (Hair Jr. et al., 2017 ). In this study, all exposure values ​​above 0.7 and only one below 0.7 and all above 0.7 can be displayed. The convergence validity regulated depend on the assumption that a form of criterion would be very highly corresponded (Joe F. Hair, Ringle, & Sarstedt, 2011 ). The reflective indicator established with convergent validity, classified with the mean variance extracted (AVE). The AVE must be 0.5 or more. Reliability test in smart PLS can use two methods, namely, Cronbach's Alpha and Composite reliability. According to Hair.et, al. (2017) Composite reliability and Cronbach’s alpha values are examined accompanied by the average extracted variance (AVE) to check the reliability of the valuation model. Composite reliability varies from 0.974 to 0.982. Additionally, average values vary from 635 to 707. All values in this study can be seen in the table, both Cronbach's alpha, composite reliability, and AVE can be accepted meaning that the above data can be concluded valid and reliable. Individual reflective measures are deemed valid and reliable if their correlation with the intended concept exceeds 0.70. In preliminary studies, a loading value ranging from 0.50 to 0.60 is considered adequate (Hair et al., 2011 ). The purpose of discriminant validity is to assess if a reflective indicator accurately represents its construct. This is founded on the premise that each indicator must have a robust association with its construct, whereas distinct constructs should not display strong correlations (Hair Jr. et al., 2017 ). In Smart PLS 3.2.7, discriminant validity is assessed by cross-loadings, the Fornell-Larcker Criterion, and the Heterotrait-Monotrait Ratio (HTMT) (Henseler et al., 2015 ). Validity assessment can be performed by multiple methodologies, including the Keizer-Meiser-Ohlin (KMO) procedure (Joseph F. Hair et al., 2020 ). The conventional Smart PLS 3 methodology advocates three techniques for assessing validity: (1) the Fornell-Larcker Criterion (Henseler, Ringle, & Sarstedt, 2015 ), (2) the cross-loading method (Joe F. Hair et al., 2020 ) and (3) heterotrait-monotrait ratio procedure analysis (Hair. et al, 2015). Statistical tests performed with the Smart PLS software indicated that the cross-loading values for all constructs in this study above 0.7, so validating that all research items fulfilled the validity criteria. The outcomes of the discriminant validity assessment, performed utilizing the Fornell-Larcker Criterion through the Smart PLS application are displayed in the subsequent table. Table 3 Fornell-Larcker Criterion (Work Egag)_ (ICT pedPra) (Instit Support)_ (MotVat) (PKforIT) (PTK) (Tkex TEC) (TecInt) Work engagement (WorkEgag)_ 0,793 ICT pedagogical practices (ICTpedPra) 0,599 0,876 Institutional support for innovation and ICT use (INstitSupport)_ 0,534 0,755 0,880 Motivation (MotVat) 0,736 0,745 0,779 0,836 Perceived knowledge for integrating technology (PKforIT) 0,610 0.815 0,749 0,726 0,808 Perceived technological knowledge (PTK) 0,571 0,823 0,752 0,718 0,815 0,871 Teachers' knowledge (excluding technology) (TKexTEC) 0,596 0,907 0,792 0,760 0.818 0,817 0,890 Technology integration (TecInt) 0,545 0,806 0,740 0,689 0,787 0,699 0,865 0,913 Discriminant validity is evaluated by the Fornell-Larcker criterion and cross-loading analysis. The diagonal entries in Table 5 denote the square root of the Average Variance Extracted (AVE), reflecting the AVE value for each construct. The diagonal values must exceed the correlations between the construct and other constructs inside the model. This guarantees that the construct is differentiated from others. Good discriminant validity is indicated when the square root of the Average Variance Extracted (AVE) for each construct surpasses the correlation values with other constructs (Joe F. Hair et al., 2011 ). This study presents the findings of discriminant validity testing utilizing the Heterotrait-Monotrait Ratio (HTMT) approach in the following table. Table 4 Heterotrait-Monotrait Ratio (HTMT) Work Egag ICT pedPra Instit Support MotVat PKforIT PTK Tkex TEC Work engagement (WorkEgag)_ ICT pedagogical practices (ICTpedPra) 0,659 Institutional support for innovation and ICT use (INstitSupport)_ 0,596 0,814 Motivation (MotVat) 0,835 0,835 0,897 Perceived knowledge for integrating technology (PKforIT) 0,679 0,863 0,817 0,817 Perceived technological knowledge (PTK) 0,632 0,883 0,822 0,812 0,891 Teachers' knowledge (excluding technology) (TKexTEC) 0,664 0,877 0,869 0,862 0,832 0,888 Technology integration (TecInt) 0,612 0,872 0,814 0,787 0,860 0,764 0,853 A few scholars claim that cross-loading and the Fornell-Larcker criterion are less sensitive when evaluating the validity of discriminants. HTMT is a confirmed substitute approach for evaluating the validity of discriminants. In this approach, use a multi-method multi-trait model as the ground of the assessment. The HTMT amount prerequisite below 0.9 to establish the validity of the discriminant in the dual reflexive design (Henseler et al., 2015 ). The result of the data in the table above obtained all values less than 0.9 so it can be concluded that the research instrument used is valid. 4.4 Evaluation of Structural Models or Inner Models The collinearity of the structural model was assessed utilizing the Variance Inflation Factor (VIF). Table 4 displays the VIF values, which assess multicollinearity among predictor variables. A VIF score beyond 5.0 signifies multicollinearity concerns (Hair et al., 2017 ). In this investigation, all VIF values were below 5.0, indicating the absence of multicollinearity issues. The research evaluated the model's predictive performance by the coefficient of determination (R²). Table 5 demonstrates that the R² values signify a robust predictive model for constructs such as IctPedpra, Tkcetec, Pkforlt, and Tecint, but moderate predictive power was noted for EorkEgag and Motvat. Cross-validation redundancy (Q²) was employed to assess the model's predictive usefulness. A Q² score beyond 0 signifies that the model possesses predictive significance, whereas a value of 0 or lower shows a lack of predictive relevance (Sarstedt et al., 2017 ). The Q² findings for this investigation are displayed in Table 5 . Table 5 Q 2 Square RMSE Mae Q²_predict Perceived knowledge for integrating technology (PKforIT) 0.509 0.362 0.636 ICT pedagogical practices (ICTpedPra) 0.445 0.322 0.650 Technology integration (TecInt) 0.440 0.326 0.491 Teachers' knowledge (excluding technology) (TKexTEC) 0.410 0.295 0.639 Motivation (MotVat) 0.286 0.212 0.542 Work engagement (WorkEgag)_ 0.279 0.200 0.196 Based on Fig. 1 about the output display of the partial influence measurement model of each research variable which includes leadership function, Leadership Nature to Learning Quality both partially and simultaneously. Further information on measurement results from: (1) Mean, (2) STDEV, (3) T-Values, and (4) P-Values can be seen in the following Table 6 . Table 6 Summary of Results of Hypothesis Testing Hypotheses Path Coefficient P Values H1 : Perceived technological knowledge(PTK) -> Perceived knowledge for integrating technology (PKforIT) 0,815 0,000 Supported H:2 Perceived knowledge for integrating technology (PKforIT) -> ICT pedagogical practices (ICTpedPra) 0,895 0,000 Supported H: 3 ICT pedagogical practices (ICTpedPra) -> Teachers' knowledge (excluding technology) (TKexTEC) 0,907 0,000 Supported H:4 Perceived technological knowledge (PTK) -> Technology integration (TecInt) 0,139 0,000 Supported H:5 Perceived knowledge for integrating technology (PKforIT) -> Technology integration (TecInt) 0,174 0,000 Supported H:6 ICT pedagogical practices (ICTpedPra) -> Technology integration (TecInt) 0,041 0,551 Not Supported H:7 Teachers' knowledge (excluding technology) (TKexTEC) -> Technology integration (TecInt) 0,673 0,000 Supported H:8 Institutional support for innovation and ICT use (INstitSupport)_ -> Technology integration (TecInt) 0,151 0,000 Supported H:9 Technology integration (TecInt) -> Motivation (MotVat) 0,689 0,000 Supported H: 10 Motivation (MotVat) -> Work engagement (WorkEgag)_ 0,736 0,000 Supported 4.5 Discussion The purpose of this study was to determine the factors that influence the integration of technology in English teachers in the city of Jambi by collecting a sample of 290 teachers and this study revealed the influence of each variable including the Perceived technology knowledge (PTK) variable. integration. (PKforIT) ), Knowledge perception to integrate technology (PKforIT), ICT pedagogical practice (ICTpedPra), ICT pedagogical practice (ICTpedPra), Teacher knowledge (excluding technology) (TKexTEC), Technology knowledge perception (PTK), Technology integration (TecInt ), Perception of knowledge to integrate technology (PKforIT), Technology integration (TecInt), ICT pedagogical practice (ICTpedPra), Technology integration (TecInt) Teacher knowledge (excluding technology) (TKexTEC), Technology integration (TecInt), Institutional support for innovative ICT and use (INStitSupport) Technology integration (TecInt), Technology Integration (TecInt) Motivation (MotVat) and Motivation (MotVat) and Work Involvement (WorkEgag) of the 10 hypotheses proposed, there is one hypothesis that has no effect and in the next section, the author writes about all hypotheses related to the research question. H1 Perceived technology knowledge (PTK) based on research data confirmation has a positive effect on Perceived knowledge for integrating technology (PKforIT), this is also in line with previous research, namely research (Koh et al., 2013 ; Ifinedo, Rikala, & Hmäläinen, 2020b). H2 Perceived knowledge to integration technology (PKforIT) affects ICT pedagogical practice (ICTpedPra), in this case it is also in line with research (Koh et al., 2013 ), that ICT competence affects the use of ICT in the classroom. class (Khine et al., 2017 ) H3. ICT pedagogical practice (ICTpedPra) affects teacher knowledge (excluding technology) (TKexTEC), in this case, it can be explained based on research data that technological practice certainly has an influence on the perception of teaching English knowledge and the application of their technology knowledge, this is also confirmed by other researchers that using and introducing ICT tools in teaching affect teachers in considering and giving their pedagogical beliefs (Tondeur, van Braak, Ertmer, & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2017 ) and ultimately gives them the desire to use technology and increase their knowledge about teaching. using technology (Ifinedo et al., 2020 a) H4. Perceived technology knowledge (CAR) affects Technology integration (TecInt), H5. Perceived knowledge to integrate technology (PKforIT) affects technology integration (TecInt), some studies agree with this result such as research (Bower, 2017 ) and (Li et al., 2017 ) H6. ICT Pedagogy Practice (ICTpedPra) Does Not Affect Technology Integration (TecInt) Based on the data that in this research ICT Pedagogy does not affect technology integration, it can be seen that there must be a modernization variable, namely the student perception variable ((Ifinedo et al., 2020 a) H7. Knowledge of teacher (excluding technology) (TKexTEC) affects technology integration (TecInt), in this case technology integration is influenced by perceived teaching knowledge that does not include technology, similar to the TPACK Framework research, (Tseng et al., 2019 ) ( Ifinedo et al., 2020 a), H8 Institutional support for innovation and use of ICT (INStitSupport) influences technology integration (TecInt). This is in line with research that institutional support affects technology integration (Wachira & Keengwe, 2011). In a similar vein, Buabeng-Andoh ( 2012 ) argued that professional development and facilities support lead to improve integration of technology and encourage teachers using technology in the teaching and learning process in school. Furthermore, the study of Lawrence & Tar ( 2018 ) revealed that attitude and beliefs on technology and support from government in schools is the success factors for integrating technology in the process of learning. H9. Technology integration (TecInt) affects motivation (MotVat), in this study sees that technology integration affect motivation (Cullen & Greene, 2011 ). According to Ilter ( 2009 ), motivation gives significant influence on learning English particularly in conversation situation for both teacher and student. Similarly, Siddiqui, Thomas, & Soomoro (2020) claim that technology integration offers enthusiasm and positive motivation in the learning process. H10. Motivation (MotVat) affects work engagement (WorkEgag), this hypothesis accepted and supported by the findings of Leal-Soto, Carmona-Halty, Dávila-Ramírez, & Valdivia ( 2018 ) and Pourtousi & Ghanizadeh ( 2020 ). With regards to this study, motivation has an influence toward work engagement. The more effort of motivated teachers do in teaching learning the better and professional teachers in carrying out the duties, and influenced their students and organizations (Ghanizadeh & Ghonsooly, 2014 ). Several studies, such as Pourtousi (2018) argued that motivation of teacher has positive correlation with teacher engagement in learning activities particularly in teaching English. 4.6 Conclusion The practicality of the TPACK framework is on the issue of technology integration for teachers and in this study the authors examine the factors that influence technology integration for English teachers in Jambi City and see the implications for motivation and also work on engagement. How does it affect teacher motivation and work engagement. We also include various previous studies that are relevant to this study. In addition, this research also contributes to the development of literature, presenting the factors that contribute to the integration of technology for English teachers in Jambi City. Technology integration requires and requires knowledge and consists of good factors. Certain things to consider. (Sipilä, 2014 ) in this case there are no factors that are considered separate considering that each factor chooses an influence on other factors in this study also provides support for previous research, namely research (Ifinedo et al., 2020 ) we add a factor Institutional support for innovation and the use of ICT, motivation and work engagement in this case it can also be seen that this research presents how the fact that access to ICT integration is not a barrier due to support from institutions and also the fact that the equipment they have is adequate to use, plus access to information in the city of Jambi which is quite good, adding to the understanding that there are no obstacles in integrating technology. One of the main findings of our research is that technology is the lowest variable in predicting technology, therefore good training and policies in providing support to teachers to increase their knowledge in using technology should be the concern of all parties in Jambi city. Studies from several studies show that training and professional development of teachers can certainly provide understanding and knowledge in improving their abilities and skills in the use of technology. (Sipilä, 2014 ) In this study, technology is of course very important for the learning process in the classroom, therefore the researcher provides a model of factors that influence technology integration and sees how the contribution of teacher motivation and involvement in learning English. teacher competition in Jambi City. One of the main findings from our research, which raises concern, is that which is indicated by the lowest contribution, which is indicated by the perceived technological knowledge of the ability to integrate technology which is still relatively low and also support from institutions for technology integration which must be considered and improved. Therefore, the implication for managers of educational institutions is the need for practical training, with examples showing how good technology integration should be informed to teachers and how facilities must also be considered and supported by the government so that technology integration can be maximized and further harmonize ICT pedagogical practices. them and the perceived benefits that students derive through their integration of technology. School administrators can encourage TEs to use their ICT tools for teaching. The study by Heitink et al. (2016) emphasize the benefits of supporting the teacher technology integration process using such “native” scenarios. Furthermore, training that is not only for teachers but also the introduction of technology must also be carried out in order to provide an initial understanding for students on the use of technology and institutions must also provide a productive and interactive environment so that teachers can reflect and also tell how their experiences and practices in integrating technology so that teachers can also provide input on factors that inhibit and also support technology integration, furthermore in this study another finding that pedagogical practices have no effect on technology integration This finding also shows that teacher teaching practices certainly do not guarantee technology integration, this of course must also be addressed. Look at students' perceptions of the use of technology in learning, for that the implications of this research for teachers in integrating technology, of course, must first understand the perceptions of students towards teachers. The use of technology means that the successful application of technology must also see students' understanding of technology. Another thing that must be considered for further research is that the work experience of teachers is also in the spotlight where there are differences in teacher knowledge excluding technology seen from the age where teacher knowledge above 46 begins to decline of course this must be a concern and when viewed from the gender factor it is not there are differences in both teacher knowledge without technology and teacher technology knowledge seen from gender, both men and women have the same understanding, and when viewed from teaching experience there are differences in knowledge without technology, meaning that the longer teaching time does not necessarily guarantee better understanding in this case understanding teachers under 10 years old are better than those 11 or over 20 years old and of course this needs to be a concern for school leadership, then in the use of technology there is no difference in technological knowledge for teachers who use laptop phones or desktop computers. In combination, however, there are differences in the knowledge of teachers without technology, seen from users of both phone laptops and combinations where the combination is better, knowledge does not include technology. From the findings of the ANOVa table, it is informed that teaching experience is important in integrating technology, especially to shape future professionals who demand competence in the work environment. In practice, integration of educational technology is difficult considering that there are so many factors that have not been investigated in this study, such as location demographics, parental perceptions, student perceptions and also the presence of equipment. Although it has been studied for 30 years (Finedo et al 2020) there is still no explanation of the theory, model and framework that can clearly explain the successful integration of technology and how it can be achieved. In this study, of course, highlights efforts that how technology integration is understood from various factors and how this technology integration is able to motivate teachers so that there is active teacher involvement in learning. Factors that influence the emphasis in this study include the teacher's level of understanding of knowledge, perception, characteristics and institutional support and finally can provide an understanding of the set of factors that contribute to technology integration in the classroom and of course technology integration will succeed if all parties, both parents, schools, students and teachers must be involved, the benefits of this research certainly provide a broad perspective and we realize that technology integration must be a joint effort and a critical and comprehensive consideration that many challenges and developments are ongoing and must be identified in both existing and future research. Declarations Author Contribution EH, RH and DAEPS wrote the main manuscript text, MY, AS, RF and IWW prepared the data analysis, figures and tables. All authors reviewed the manuscript. Data Availability The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are available in the figshare repository, https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.28220000.v1 References Al-Habsi, T., Al-Busaidi, S., & Al-Issa, A. (2021). Integrating technology in English language teaching through a community of practice in the Sultanate of Oman: implications for policy implementation. Educational Research for Policy and Practice. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10671-021-09291-z Admiraal, W., Louws, M., Lockhorst, D., Paas, T., Buynsters, M., Cviko, A., … Kester, L. (2017). Teachers in school-based technology innovations: A typology of their beliefs on teaching and technology. Computers & Education, 114, 57–68. Albion, P. R., Tondeur, J., Forkosh-Baruch, A., & Peeraer, J. (2015). Teachers’ professional development for ICT integration: Towards a reciprocal relationship between research and practice. Education and Information Technologies, 20(4), 655–673. Albirini, A. (2006). Teachers’ attitudes toward information and communication technologies: The case of Syrian EFL teachers. Computers & Education, 47(4), 373–398. Avidov-Ungar, O., & Forkosh-Baruch, A. (2018). Professional identity of teacher educators in the digital era in light of demands of pedagogical innovation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 73, 183–191. Aslam, J., Saleem, A., Khan, N. T., & Kim, Y. B. (2021). Factors influencing blockchain adoption in supply chain management practices: A study based on the oil industry. Journal of Innovation and Knowledge. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2021.01.002 Backfisch, I., Lachner, A., Stürmer, K., & Scheiter, K. (2021). Variability of teachers’ technology integration in the classroom: A matter of utility! Computers and Education. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104159 Bower, M. (2017). The Technology Pedagogy and Content Knowledge (TPACK) Framework and Its Implications. In Design of Technology-Enhanced Learning (pp. 17–33). https://doi.org/10.1108/978-1-78714-182-720171004 Bai, S., Hew, K. F., Sailer, M., & Jia, C. (2021). From top to bottom: How positions on different types of leaderboard may affect fully online student learning performance, intrinsic motivation, and course engagement. Computers & Education, 173, 104297. Blackman, T. E. (2018). An examination of individual teacher engagement and school climate characteristics that influence highly effective veteran teachers to remain teaching in low-performing schools. Brinkley-Etzkorn, K. E. (2018). Learning to teach online: Measuring the influence of faculty development training on teaching effectiveness through a TPACK lens. The Internet and Higher Education, 38, 28–35. Buabeng-Andoh, C. (2012). Factors influencing teachersâ adoption and integration of information and communication technology into teaching: A review of the literature. International Journal of Education and Development using ICT, 8 (1). Chanlin, L. J., Hong, J. C., Horng, J. S., Chang, S. H., & Chu, H. C. (2006). Factors influencing technology integration in teaching: A Taiwanese perspective. Innovations in Education and Teaching International. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703290500467467 Carmona-Halty, M. A., Schaufeli, W. B., & Salanova, M. (2019). The utrecht work engagement scale for students (UWES–9S): factorial validity, reliability, and measurement invariance in a chilean sample of undergraduate university students. Frontiers in psychology, 10, 1017. Cheng, S. L., & Xie, K. (2018). The relations among teacher value beliefs, personal characteristics, and TPACK in intervention and non-intervention settings. Teaching and Teacher Education, 74, 98–113. Comi, S. L., Argentin, G., Gui, M., Origo, F., & Pagani, L. (2017). Is it the way they use it? Teachers, ICT and student achievement. Economics of Education Review, 56, 24–39. Cullen, T. A., & Greene, B. A. (2011). Preservice teachers' beliefs, attitudes, and motivation about technology integration. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 45 (1), 29–47. Creswell, J. W. (2014). Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches. Sage. Ching, Y. H., Yang, D., Baek, Y. K., & Baldwin, S. (2016). Enhancing graduate students’ reflection in e-portfolios using the TPACK framework. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 32(5). https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.2830 Dong, Y., Xu, C., Chai, C. S., & Zhai, X. (2020). Exploring the structural relationship among teachers’ technostress, technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK), computer self-efficacy and school support. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 29(2), 147–157. Dong, Y., Xu, C., Chai, C. S., & Zhai, X. (2020). Exploring the structural relationship among teachers’ technostress, technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK), computer self-efficacy and school support. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 29(2), 147–157. Dong, Y., Xu, C., Chai, C. S., & Zhai, X. (2020). Exploring the structural relationship among teachers’ technostress, technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK), computer self-efficacy and school support. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 29(2), 147–157. Donnelly, D., McGarr, O., & O’Reilly, J. (2011). A framework for teachers’ integration of ICT into their classroom practice. Computers & education, 57(2), 1469–1483. Eichelberger, A., & Leong, P. (2019). Using TPACK as a framework to study the influence of college faculty’s beliefs on online teaching. Educational Media International. https://doi.org/10.1080/09523987.2019.1614246 Efthymiou, D., & Antoniou, C. (2012). Use of social media for transport data collection. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 48, 775–785. Fernet, C., Senécal, C., Guay, F., Marsh, H., & Dowson, M. (2008). The work tasks motivation scale for teachers (WTMST). Journal of Career assessment, 16(2), 256–279. Ertmer, P. A. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for technology integration? Educational Technology Research and Development, Vol. 53. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504683 Ertmer, P. A., & Ertmer, P. A. (2016). Teacher Pedagogical Beliefs: The Final Frontier in Our Quest for Technology Integration ? Teacher Pedagogical Beliefs : The Final Frontier in Our Quest for Technology Integration ? Educational Technology Research & Development, 53(4). Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. (2013). Removing obstacles to the pedagogical changes required by Jonassen’s vision of authentic technology-enabled learning. Computers and Education. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.10.008 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). https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2010.10782551 Farjon, D., Smits, A., & Voogt, J. (2019). Technology integration of pre-service teachers explained by attitudes and beliefs, competency, access, and experience. Computers and Education. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.11.010 Gawrisch, D. P., Richards, K. A. R., & Killian, C. M. (2020). Integrating technology in physical education teacher education: A socialization perspective. Quest, 72(3), 260–277. Ghanizadeh, A., & Ghonsooly, B. (2014). A tripartite model of EFL teacher attributions, burnout, and self-regulation: toward the prospects of effective teaching. Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 13 (2), 145–166. Hanuscin, D. L., Lee, M. H., & Akerson, V. L. (2011). Elementary teachers' pedagogical content knowledge for teaching the nature of science. Science education, 95(1), 145–167. Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the academy of marketing science, 43(1), 115–135. Hirsch, P., Michaels, S., & Friedman, R. (1987). " Dirty hands" versus" clean models": Is sociology in danger of being seduced by economics?. Theory and society, 317–336. Hair, J., Hollingsworth, C. L., Randolph, A. B., & Chong, A. Y. L. (2017). An updated and expanded assessment of PLS-SEM in information systems research. Industrial Management and Data Systems. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-04-2016-0130 Hair, Joe F., Howard, M. C., & Nitzl, C. (2020). Assessing measurement model quality in PLS-SEM using confirmatory composite analysis. Journal of Business Research. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.11.069 Hair, Joe F., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2011). PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice. https://doi.org/10.2753/MTP1069-6679190202 Hair, Joe F., Sarstedt, M., Hopkins, L., & Kuppelwieser, V. G. (2014). Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM): An emerging tool in business research. European Business Review. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-10-2013-0128 Hair, Joseph F., Astrachan, C. B., Moisescu, O. I., Radomir, L., Sarstedt, M., Vaithilingam, S., & Ringle, C. M. (2020). Executing and interpreting applications of PLS-SEM: Updates for family business researchers. Journal of Family Business Strategy. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfbs.2020.100392 Hair Jr., J. F., Matthews, L. M., Matthews, R. L., & Sarstedt, M. (2017). PLS-SEM or CB-SEM: updated guidelines on which method to use. International Journal of Multivariate Data Analysis, 1(2), 107. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijmda.2017.10008574 Hansen, J. J., & Rosenlund, L. T. (2020). Teaching in a networked world – skills, knowledge and beliefs. In Designing for Learning in a Networked World. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351232357-5 Ifinedo, E., Rikala, J., & Hämäläinen, T. (2020). Factors affecting Nigerian teacher educators’ technology integration: Considering characteristics, Ilter, B. G. (2009). Effect of technology on motivation in EFL classrooms. Turkish online journal of distance education, 10 (4), 136–158. knowledge constructs, ICT practices and beliefs. Computers and Education, 146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103760 Jääskelä, P., Häkkinen, P., & Rasku-Puttonen, H. (2017). Teacher Beliefs Regarding Learning, Pedagogy, and the Use of Technology in Higher Education. Journal of Research on Technology in Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2017.1343691 Jimoyiannis, A., & Komis, V. (2007). Teacher Development: An international journal of teachers ’ professional Examining teachers ’ beliefs about ICT in education : implications of a teacher preparation programme. Teacher Development: An International Journal of Teachers’ Professional Development, 11(2). Khine, M. S., Ali, N., & Afari, E. (2017). Exploring relationships among TPACK constructs and ICT achievement among trainee teachers. Education and Information Technologies, 22(4), 1605–1621. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-016-9507-8 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 Klaeijsen, A., Vermeulen, M., & Martens, R. (2018). Teachers’ innovative behaviour: The importance of basic psychological need satisfaction, intrinsic motivation, and occupational self-efficacy. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 62(5), 769–782. Koh, J. H. L., Chai, C. S., & Tay, L. Y. (2014). TPACK-in-Action: Unpacking the contextual influences of teachers' construction of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK). Computers & Education, 78, 20–29. Kukulska-Hulme, A., Lee, H., & Norris, L. (2017). Mobile learning revolution: Implications for language pedagogy. The handbook of technology and second language teaching and learning, 217–233. Kwon, K., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T., Sari, A. R., Khlaif, Z., Zhu, M., Nadir, H., & Gok, F. (2019). Teachers’ self-efficacy matters: Exploring the integration of mobile computing device in middle schools. TechTrends, 63(6), 682–692. Koh, J. H. L., Chai, C. S., & Tsai, C. C. (2013). Examining practicing teachers’ perceptions of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) pathways: A structural equation modeling approach. Instructional Science, 41(4), 793–809. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-012-9249-y Koh, J. H. L., Chai, C. S., & Tay, L. Y. (2014). TPACK-in-Action: Unpacking the contextual influences of teachers' construction of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK). Computers & Education, 78 , 20–29. Kong, S. C. (2014). Developing information literacy and critical thinking skills through domain knowledge learning in digital classrooms: An experience of practicing flipped classroom strategy. Computers and Education, 78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.05.009 Kopcha, T. J. (2012). Teachers’ perceptions of the barriers to technology integration and practices with technology under situated professional development. Computers and Education. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.05.014 Kundu, A., & Bej, T. (2021). Ingestion and integration of ICTs for pedagogy in Indian private high schools. E-Learning and Digital Media. https://doi.org/10.1177/2042753020957493 Khine, M. S., Ali, N., & Afari, E. (2017). Exploring relationships among TPACK constructs and ICT achievement among trainee teachers. Education and Information Technologies, 22(4), 1605–1621. Lawrence, J. E., & Tar, U. A. (2018). Factors that influence teachers’ adoption and integration of ICT in teaching/learning process. Educational Media International, 55(1), 79–105. Leal-Soto, F., Carmona-Halty, M., Dávila-Ramírez, J., & Valdivia, Y. (2018). Work engagement, teaching practices with motivational effects, and learning-oriented classroom motivational climate. Interamerican Journal of Psychology. https://doi.org/10.30849/rip/ijp.v52i2.106 Lawrence, J. E., & Tar, U. A. (2018). Factors that influence teachers’ adoption and integration of ICT in teaching/learning process. Educational Media International, 55 (1), 79–105. Li, F., Wang, G., Li, Y., & Zhou, R. (2017). Job demands and driving anger: The roles of emotional exhaustion and work engagement. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 98, 198–205. 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. Liao, D. (2021, January). Blended Teaching Mode of Tourism English Based on TPACK. In International Conference on Decision Science & Management (pp. 95–104). Springer, Singapore Lestariningsih, F. E., Hope, J., Madya, S., & Nurkamto, J. (2018). IST (In-Service Training) Model to Improve English Teachers’ Pedagogical and Professional Competencies in the Computer Science Department of Universities in Indonesia. Indonesian Journal of EFL and Linguistics. https://doi.org/10.21462/ijefl.v3i2.72 Ling Koh, J. H., Chai, C. S., & Tay, L. Y. (2014). TPACK-in-Action: Unpacking the contextual influences of teachers’ construction of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK). Computers and Education, 78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.04.022 Liu, S. H. (2011). Factors related to pedagogical beliefs of teachers and technology integration. Computers and Education. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.12.001 Liu, S. H. (2012). A multivariate model of factors influencing technology use by preservice teachers during practice teaching. Educational Technology and Society. Mergel, I. (2012). OpenCollaboration in Public Sector: The case of social codign on Github. Government Information Quarterly. Miller, A. D., Ramirez, E. M., & Murdock, T. B. (2017). The influence of teachers’ self-efficacy on perceptions: Perceived teacher competence and respect and student effort and achievement. Teaching and Teacher Education, 64, 260–269. Mital, P., Moore, R., & Llewellyn, D. (2014). Analyzing K-12 education as a complex system. Procedia Computer Science, 28, 370–379.] Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers college record, 108 (6), 1017–1054. Moreira-Fontán, E., García-Señorán, M., Conde-Rodríguez, Á., & González, A. (2019). Teachers' ICT-related self-efficacy, job resources, and positive emotions: Their structural relations with autonomous motivation and work engagement. Computers & Education, 134, 63–77. Moreira-Fontán, E., García-Señorán, M., Conde-Rodríguez, Á., & González, A. (2019). Teachers’ ICT-related self-efficacy, job resources, and positive emotions: Their structural relations with autonomous motivation and work engagement. Computers and Education, 134, 63–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.02.007 Nazari, N., Nafissi, Z., Estaji, M., Marandi, S. S., & Wang, S. (2019). Evaluating novice and experienced EFL teachers’ perceived TPACK for their professional development. Cogent Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2019.1632010 Niederhauser, D. S., Howard, S. K., Voogt, J., Agyei, D. D., Laferriere, T., Tondeur, J., & Cox, M. J. (2018). Sustainability and Scalability in Educational Technology Initiatives: Research-Informed Practice. Technology, Knowledge and Learning. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-018-9382-z Niess, M. L. (2011). Investigating TPACK: Knowledge growth in teaching with technology. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 44(3). https://doi.org/10.2190/EC.44.3.c Nousiainen, T., Kangas, M., Rikala, J., & Vesisenaho, M. (2018). Teacher competencies in game-based pedagogy. Teaching and Teacher Education, 74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2018.04.012 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. Nim Park, C., & Son, J. B. (2009). Implementing computer-assisted language learning in the EFL classroom: Teachers’ perceptions and perspectives. International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning, 5(2), 80–101. Oh, E., & Reeves, T. C. (2014). Generational differences and the integration of technology in learning, instruction, and performance. In Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology: Fourth Edition. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3185-5_66 Pourtousi, Z., & Ghanizadeh, A. (2020). Teachers’ Motivation and Its Association with Job Commitment and Work Engagement. Psychological Studies. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12646-020-00571-x Park, S., & Chen, Y. C. (2012). Mapping out the integration of the components of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK): Examples from high school biology classrooms. Journal of research in science teaching, 49(7), 922–941. Powell, C. G., & Bodur, Y. (2019). Teachers’ perceptions of an online professional development experience: Implications for a design and implementation framework. Teaching and Teacher Education, 77, 19–30. Sadaf, A., Newby, T. J., & Ertmer, P. A. (2012). Exploring pre-service teachers’ beliefs about using Web 2.0 technologies in K-12 classroom. Computers and Education, 59(3). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.04.001 Shin, W. S., Han, I., & Kim, I. (2014). Teachers’ technology use and the change of their pedagogical beliefs in Korean educational context. International Education Studies. https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v7n8p11 Shmueli, G., Sarstedt, M., Hair, J. F., Cheah, J. H., Ting, H., Vaithilingam, S., & Ringle, C. M. (2019). Predictive model assessment in PLS-SEM: guidelines for using PLSpredict. European Journal of Marketing. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-02-2019-0189 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 Smadi, M. A. L. M., & Raman, A. (2020). Time Factor Influencing Technology Integration in Social Studies Teaching in Jordanian School. European Journal of Interactive Multimedia and Education, 1(1). https://doi.org/10.30935/ejimed/8351 Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., & Hair, J. F. (2017). Partial least squares structural equation modeling. Handbook of market research, 26(1), 1–40. Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Salanova, M. (2006). The measurement of work engagement with a short questionnaire: A cross-national study. Educational and psychological measurement, 66(4), 701–716. Schiefele, U. (2017). Classroom management and mastery-oriented instruction as mediators of the effects of teacher motivation on student motivation. Teaching and teacher education, 64, 115–126. Siddiqui, S., Thomas, M., & Soomro, N. N. (2020). Technology integration in education: Source of intrinsic motivation, self-efficacy and performance. Journal of E-Learning and Knowledge Society, 16 (1), 11–22. Tatnall, A. (2020). Technological Innovation in ICT for Education. In Encyclopedia of Education and Information Technologies. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-10576-1_51 Tokareva, E. A., Smirnova, Y. V., & Orchakova, L. G. (2019). Innovation and communication technologies: Analysis of the effectiveness of their use and implementation in higher education. Education and Information Technologies. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-019-09922-2 (TPACK) model to develop an online English writing course for nursing students. Nurse education today, 35(6), 782–788. Teo, T. (2011). Factors influencing teachers’ intention to use technology: Model development and test. Computers & Education, 57(4), 2432–2440. Teo, T., & Zhou, M. (2014). Explaining the intention to use technology among university students: a structural equation modeling approach. Journal of Computing in Higher education, 26(2), 124–142. Tseng, J. J., Cheng, Y. S., & Yeh, H. N. (2019). How pre-service English teachers enact TPACK in the context of web-conferencing teaching: A design thinking approach. Computers & Education, 128, 171–182. Tondeur, J., van Braak, J., Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. (2017). Understanding the relationship between teachers’ pedagogical beliefs and technology use in education: a systematic review of qualitative evidence. Educational Technology Research and Development, 65(3), 555–575. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-016-9481-2 Tseng, J. J., Cheng, Y. S., & Yeh, H. N. (2019). How pre-service English teachers enact TPACK in the context of web-conferencing teaching: A design thinking approach. Computers and Education, 128, 171–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.09.022 Tai, H. C., Pan, M. Y., & Lee, B. O. (2015). Applying Technological Pedagogical and Content Knowledge Uerz, D., Volman, M., & Kral, M. (2018). Teacher educators’ competences in fostering student teachers’ proficiency in teaching and learning with technology: An overview of relevant research literature. Teaching and Teacher Education. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.11.005 Voithofer, R., & Nelson, M. J. (2021). Teacher Educator Technology Integration Preparation Practices Around TPACK in the United States. Journal of Teacher Education. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487120949842 Van den Berg, B. A. M., Bakker, A. B., & Ten Cate, T. J. (2013). Key factors in work engagement and job motivation of teaching faculty at a university medical centre. Perspectives on medical education, 2 (5), 264–275. Wang, Y., Rodrigues, V. S., & Evans, L. (2015). The use of ICT in road freight transport for CO2 reduction–an exploratory study of UK’s grocery retail industry. The International Journal of Logistics Management. Wu, Y. T., & Wang, A. Y. (2015). Technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge in teaching English as a foreign language: Representation of primary teachers of English in Taiwan. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 24(3), 525–533. Yerdelen-Damar, S., Boz, Y., & Aydın-Günbatar, S. (2017). Mediated effects of technology competencies and experiences on relations among attitudes towards technology use, technology ownership, and self efficacy about technological pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 26(4), 394–405 Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Supplementary Files Appendix.docx Cite Share Download PDF Status: Under Review Version 1 posted Editorial decision: Revision requested 05 Feb, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 05 Feb, 2025 Reviews received at journal 04 Feb, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 04 Feb, 2025 Reviews received at journal 04 Feb, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 04 Feb, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 04 Feb, 2025 Reviewers invited by journal 03 Feb, 2025 Editor assigned by journal 30 Jan, 2025 Submission checks completed at journal 29 Jan, 2025 First submitted to journal 05 Jan, 2025 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-5766778","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":409108602,"identity":"0f0ccb2c-02d2-461b-a907-9e3ff44ad03d","order_by":0,"name":"Eddy Haryanto","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Universitas Jambi","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Eddy","middleName":"","lastName":"Haryanto","suffix":""},{"id":409108603,"identity":"09e5535f-2059-42df-9c93-f2122aae2a57","order_by":1,"name":"Robi Hendra","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Universitas Jambi","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Robi","middleName":"","lastName":"Hendra","suffix":""},{"id":409108604,"identity":"da1a82a8-c9fc-4137-9963-263a85549650","order_by":2,"name":"Dian Arisandy Eka Putra Sembiring","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Universitas Jambi","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Dian","middleName":"Arisandy Eka Putra","lastName":"Sembiring","suffix":""},{"id":409108605,"identity":"e7dc18fd-922e-48b8-a663-8642b55640f5","order_by":3,"name":"Muhammad Yusuf","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Universitas Jambi","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Muhammad","middleName":"","lastName":"Yusuf","suffix":""},{"id":409108606,"identity":"1bf6e8d2-35df-4d44-9612-238bd544ba0c","order_by":4,"name":"Ali Sadikin","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Universitas Jambi","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Ali","middleName":"","lastName":"Sadikin","suffix":""},{"id":409108607,"identity":"e4741157-20d4-4a34-b69d-d92463cd5b75","order_by":5,"name":"Rangga Firdaus","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Universitas Lampung","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Rangga","middleName":"","lastName":"Firdaus","suffix":""},{"id":409108608,"identity":"a9cdc690-69e5-425b-9606-a305d3988794","order_by":6,"name":"I Wayan Widana","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Universitas PGRI Mahadewa","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"I","middleName":"Wayan","lastName":"Widana","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-01-05 08:23:06","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-5766778/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-5766778/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":75151485,"identity":"ebfaae0d-cea8-4767-bc2e-51c32502739d","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-01-31 09:05:14","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":173121,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePartial Influence Measurement Model Output Display\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5766778/v1/d01216b64bbee67c49925da7.png"},{"id":75152175,"identity":"47cacd2d-ff8b-4164-8114-0867b03067ee","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-01-31 09:21:18","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1609828,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5766778/v1/013e96d7-ca44-478c-82f7-7bd4b140cc01.pdf"},{"id":75151480,"identity":"cd1c0dc9-6fa7-4b33-b3e9-29341985af94","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-01-31 09:05:13","extension":"docx","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":18634,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Appendix.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5766778/v1/1a972e3ca206475e879f3033.docx"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Factors Influencing the Integration of Technology of High School English Teachers in Indonesia: Analysis Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) and Partial Least Square (PLS)","fulltext":[{"header":"Background","content":"\u003cp\u003ePolicy on technology integration in the education context has shown a positive impact on teaching and learning in classrooms (Niederhauser et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR78\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). Kim, Kim, Lee, Spector \u0026amp; DeMeester, (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e) argues technology integration is one of the fundamental requirements in the twenty-first century as learning media to achieve effective learning and productivity in the digital society. Accordingly, it is important to take into account that technology integration support classroom activities and teachers’ skill in technology used for their teaching practices. However, it is necessary to know teachers’ technology integration skills as their capital to teach the students (Hansen \u0026amp; Rosenlund, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Therefore, the teacher has an important role in transferring knowledge and as a model in preparing future generations in the digital age.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn many years, previous research has demonstrated the integration of technology in teaching and learning that assumes on several factors such as schools, education systems and policy, and teachers (Kopcha, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR58\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e; Ertmer \u0026amp; Ottenbreit-Leftwich, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e; Liu, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR69\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e; Shin, Han, \u0026amp; Kim, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR88\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e; Farjon, Smits, \u0026amp; Voogt, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Backfisch, Lachner, Stürmer, \u0026amp; Scheiter, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Many factors are influencing the technology integration in the classrooms process of teaching and learning (Aslam, Saleem, Khan, \u0026amp; Kim, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Furthermore, Voithofer \u0026amp; Nelson (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR106\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e) argue factors influencing technology integration are complex in which the differences in the practices and conditions influence each other corresponding to the utilization of the integration process. Meanwhile, Jääskelä, Häkkinen, \u0026amp; Rasku-Puttonen, (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e), claim in analyzing the use of education technology that is necessary to understand the environment, knowledge, beliefs, and practices affect each other.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAccording to the study of Ifinedo, Rikala, \u0026amp; Hämäläinen (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e), teachers integrating technology into classroom practices influenced by some aspects such as knowledge of using technology, knowledge of teachers, and perception of knowledge to integrate technology, however, pedagogical practices of ICT and perceptions of technology effect on students might not influence it. Furthermore, pedagogical teachers and technologically competent are more encouraged teachers to integrate technology into teaching and learning in the classroom (Uerz, Volman, \u0026amp; Kral, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR105\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Al-Habsi, Al-Busaidi, \u0026amp; Al-Issa, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Thus, mastering subjects, pedagogy, and being technologically competent as one of the requirements for teachers (Lestariningsih, Hope, Madya, \u0026amp; Nurkamto, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR67\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Kundu \u0026amp; Bej, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR59\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn this research, we adopted the TPACK framework based on Koehler and Mishra (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR74\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e); Ifinedo et al., (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e), for successful technology integration in teaching and learning. Kopcha (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR58\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e) argues that content, pedagogy, and technology lead to effective teaching. Hence, the TPACK framework based on Koehler and Mishra consists of seven categories of knowledge: technology knowledge (TK), pedagogical knowledge (PK), content knowledge (CK), pedagogical content knowledge (PCK), technological pedagogical knowledge (TPK).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eNevertheless, several studies have been investigated that the TPACK framework distorted technology integration surrounding factors prevent various factors barriers, training, support, and access to resources (Mergel, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR71\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e; Eichelberger \u0026amp; Leong, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Tokareva, Smirnova, \u0026amp; Orchakova, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR97\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Tatnall, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR96\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). This research aims to investigate the factors that affect the integration of technology in the public senior high school context in one province of Indonesia. Particularly, this study is to find out teachers’ characteristics, knowledge of technology perceptions, knowledge for integrating technology perceptions, pedagogical practices of ICT, and its impact on students, knowledge of teaching (excluding technology), integration of technology. This study uses PLS-SEM techniques to develop models that represent the relationship between the factors that support the integration of teacher integration technology.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec2\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e1.1 Theoretical Framework and Literature Review\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eResearchers have been focused on the interconnectedness of factors influencing technology integration used in classroom activities and beyond for more than 3 decades (Chanlin, Hong, Horng, Chang, \u0026amp; Chu, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e; Liu, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR69\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e; Liu, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR70\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e). According to Sadaf, Newby, \u0026amp; Ertmer (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR87\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e), teachers in the digital age should prepare themselves with technology skills to perform better in teaching and learning. Furthermore, the skill of teachers in using technology might be influenced by teaching experience, subject taught, teacher’s age, and class size (Jimoyiannis \u0026amp; Komis, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR48\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e;Sadaf et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR87\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e; Smadi \u0026amp; Raman, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR91\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Furthermore, technology integration in teaching and learning might also be influenced by teachers’ knowledge, perceptions, access to teaching, and culture (Ertmer, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e; Ertmer \u0026amp; Ottenbreit-Leftwich, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e; Ertmer \u0026amp; Ertmer, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e) Hence, this study is focusing on the characteristics variable that influences teachers’ consideration in integrating technology in teaching and learning such as teacher characteristics, technical knowledge perceptions, technology pedagogical beliefs, and practice. Therefore, the TPACK framework was adopted to analyze the research findings.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eEffective teaching and learning in the classroom much depend on teacher competence in subjects’ mastery, pedagogy, and technology skills (Nousiainen, Kangas, Rikala, \u0026amp; Vesisenaho, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR80\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Kong, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR57\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e).These aspects of competence are based on the TPACK framework of Ling Koh, Chai, \u0026amp; Tay (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e) that is called pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) (Ching, Yang, Baek, \u0026amp; Baldwin, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). However, Niess (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR79\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e) developed a more complex model of PCK by adding technological integration. The framework developed by Koehler \u0026amp; Mishra become seven aspects of knowledge: technology knowledge (TK), pedagogical knowledge (PK), content knowledge (CK), pedagogical content knowledge (PCK), technological pedagogical knowledge (TPK), technology content knowledge (TCK), and technology pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK). Age is one of potential aspects influence the integration of technology in teaching and learning. Ifinedo et al., (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e), age has influenced to the use of technology in education, especially new teachers bear to apply the technology in teaching and learning. This study in similar vein with Oh \u0026amp; Reeves, (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR83\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e) that teachers tend to use technology in teaching their subjects. In addition, in some cases of study has shown relationship between teachers’ age and the knowledge varies (Ertmer \u0026amp; Ottenbreit-Leftwich, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e1.2 Teaching Knowledge Effects The Integration Of Technology\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eResearchers have found out that there has been positive correlation between TPACK construction and teachers’ TPACK perceptions (Bower, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). This is in line with study of Nazari, Nafissi, Estaji, Marandi, \u0026amp; Wang (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR77\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e) that it found highly significant correlated between PCK and PK, between TCK and TPK. Furthermore, Khine, Ali, \u0026amp; Afari (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e) and Nazari et al., (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR77\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e) claim that CK, in turn, has positive affects TCK and PCK. Further claims that PCK has influence on teachers technology intergration. According to Uerz et al., (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR105\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e), integrating technology in teaching has significant contribution to pedagogical competence as well as technological competence. In similar vein, Bower (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e) argue integration practices of ICT influenced knowledge teacher technology integration, which means knowledge perceptions may lead to feeling of self-efficacy.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e1.3 ICT and Teachers Pedagogical Practice\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eTeachers’ pedagogical practices included teaching strategies and techniques, creating good atmosphere of learning, and providing two ways interaction between teachers and students lead to effective results of students learning and teachers’ knowledge (Hanuscin \u0026amp; Akerson, 2011). Teachers’ pedagogical practices would be more creative and innovative when ICT utilize in their classroom activities. ICT would offer many ways to improve teachers’ innovation in teaching and learning process as well as expand the teaching strategies and methods in different ways (Voithofer \u0026amp; Nelson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR106\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e;Bower, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Ifinedo et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOn the other hand, the ability of teachers in integrating the ICT into teaching and learning is important because it reflects the effectiveness of learning (Donnelly, McGarr, \u0026amp; O’Reilly, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e; Comi, Argentin, Gui, Origo, \u0026amp; Pagani, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). Therefore, according to Brinkley-Etzkorn (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e) teachers should consider overall learning situation, not only how to use technology but also more on how teachers use pedagogical practices, methods of assessment, objectives of curriculum, and social context. Technology may provide students’ better understanding toward learning materials of subjects, but teachers’ pedagogical knowledge has valuable perspective to achieve students’ outcomes, if teachers have better pedagogical knowledge, it would create better outcomes to students (Tai, Pan, \u0026amp; Lee, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR104\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). Furthermore, Nelson, Voithofer, \u0026amp; Cheng (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR81\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e) claim that teacher’s motivation and attitude toward ICT in their teaching is influenced by their pedagogy. Wang, Rodrigues \u0026amp; Evans, (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR108\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e) argue that the use of ICT in teaching lead to better pedagogical skills and change teachers’ knowledge.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec5\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e1.4 Teachers' Perceptions of the Benefits of Technology\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eTeachers’ perception is one of key elements to know their attitudes, beliefs and values about something; therefore, teachers’ action and practices in the classroom significantly influenced by their attitudes and beliefs (Koh, Chai, \u0026amp; Tsai, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR55\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e; Nazari et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR77\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Ifinedo et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). In conjunction with the perceptions of the benefits of technology, several previous studies have shown teachers with negative attitudes and beliefs toward technology tend to avoid to use it (Albirini, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e; Nim Park, \u0026amp; Son, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR82\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e). On the other hand, teachers have positive attitude toward technology would improve their level of ICT integration (Albion, Tondeur, Baruch \u0026amp; Peeraer, 2015; Dong, Chai \u0026amp; Zhai, 2020). Therefore, teachers play an important role in selecting their methods of teaching in which influence their choice in using technology.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTeachers’ experience also will influence their attitudes and beliefs towards technology. The more teachers use technology in their teaching and learning, the higher their level in technology integration. According to Ifinedo et.al (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e), teachers with have good experience in utilizing the ICT assumes more confident technology users. Conversely, teacher aspects, such as subject taught and teaching experience, also greatly effect teacher perception (Lawrence \u0026amp; Tar, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR61\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec6\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e1.5 Institutional Support for Innovation and Use of ICT (\u003c/b\u003eTeo, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR99\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e; Teo \u0026amp; Zhou, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR100\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eOne factor that needs to consider when teachers use technology in teaching in the classroom is the school environment. The school environment might support teachers’ perception of innovative teaching for using technology in the classroom. Innovative teaching depends upon the support facilities or institutional support in school. Koh, Chai \u0026amp; Tay (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e) argue innovation perceptions among organizations members facilitate the use of new ideas and development. In addition, support innovation defines as a level of practical support, approval, and hope for introducing a better way of doing things in a work organization Avidov-Ungar, O., \u0026amp; Forkosh-Baruch, A. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). When using technology school support is important. Li, Garza, Keicher \u0026amp; Popov (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR65\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e) claim that teachers’ perception of school support would encourage them in teaching particularly project-based learning. Theoretically, school support would influence teacher's practice such as ideological setting, emotional and behavioral characteristics (Dong, Xu, Chai \u0026amp; Zhai, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec7\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e1.6 Motivational Studies Have Become A Central Issue in Teacher Performance\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eMotivation is one of the positive predictors for teacher performance in the classroom. Highly motivated teachers in teaching and learning lead to success in transferring their knowledge to students. Theoretically, motivation models regarding education have become an enormous issue in teachers' performance. Speaking to the most relevant theory on teachers' motivation is self-determination theory (Schiefele,2017). This theory includes some aspects such as introspection, integrated and identified regulation, intrinsic motivation, and external motivation. Furthermore, motivation leads to a better teacher’s performance in the classroom because it meets the need personal for competence and autonomy in expressing themselves (Bai, Hew, Sailer \u0026amp; Jia,2021). autonomous motivation is one of the variables that contribute to a positive predictor in future innovation. In several studies have shown intrinsic motivation of teachers to support their professional development (Klaeijsen, Vermeulen \u0026amp; Martens, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Moreira-Fontán, E., García-Señorán, Conde-Rodríguez \u0026amp; González (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR75\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e1.7 Work Involvement Refers to the Relationship of Employees\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAccording to Li, Wang, \u0026amp; Zhou, (2017), work engagement is a personal resource that has a positive self-evaluation to control and influence their environment successfully. In this case, teachers as workers in the education sector and deal with students and people must have good personal resources for them to achieve their success in engaging themselves in teaching. As a result, work involvement is characterized as a work-related condition that has dedication, absorption, and passion (Carmona-Halty, Schaufeli \u0026amp; Salanova,2019). Furthermore, dedication is defined as a strong feeling in one’s work which includes inspiration, challenges, pride, and a feeling of enthusiasm. Absorption is known as concentrating on one’s work with happiness and fully with their work. Passion is someone’s willingness to invest and persistence with high energy and mental resilience (Li, F., Wang, G., Li, Y., \u0026amp; Zhou, R., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR64\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). Further studies have shown work involvement is highly correlated with teaching mastery practices, positive relationships with students, and self-assessment of responsibilities as well as satisfaction with career choices (Blackman, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec9\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.2 Research Model and Hypothesis\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study aims to see and assess what are the factors that influence the integration of technology for English language teachers in high schools in Jambi City. In this study the authors adopted several research models (Ifinedo et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e) and the original of this study the researchers added the variables institutional support for innovation and ICT use, motivation and work engagement as for the hypothesis :\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003ctable float=\"No\" id=\"Taba\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eH1: Technological knowledge (PTK) perception obtain compelling and affirmative influence on knowledge for integrating technology (PKforIT)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eH:2 Knowledge for integrating technology (PKforIT) perception obtains compelling and affirmative influence on ICT pedagogical practices (ICTpedPra)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eH: 3 ICT pedagogical practices (ICTpedPra) obtain compelling and affirmative influence on teachers' knowledge (excluding technology) (TKexTEC)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eH:4 Technological knowledge (PTK) perception obtain compelling and affirmative influence on technology integration (TecInt)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eH:5 Knowledge for integrating technology (PKforIT) perception obtain compelling and affirmative influence on technology integration (TecInt)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eH:6 ICT pedagogical practices (ICTpedPra) obtain compelling and affirmative influence on technology integration (TecInt)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eH:7 Teachers' knowledge (excluding technology) (TKexTEC) obtains compelling and affirmative influence on technology integration (TecInt)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eH:8 Institutional support for innovation and ICT use (INstitSupport) obtain compelling and affirmative influence on technology integration (TecInt)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eH:9 Technology integration (TecInt) obtain compelling and affirmative influence on motivation (MotVat)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eH: 10 Motivation (MotVat) obtain compelling and affirmative influence on work involvement (WorkInvol)_\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Methods","content":"\u003cp\u003eSurvey research used in this study by distributing questionnaires to the participants to describe the characteristics of the participants, opinions, behaviors, and the attitudes. Survey studies better illustrate trends in the data than offer a rigorous explanation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.1 Data Collection Instruments\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe questionnaire instrument designed in this study was designed in two parts. The first part of the questionnaire, the researcher asked participants to be able to fill in demographic information and then contained a statement consisting of 28 of the 5 constructs that the authors adopted from Ifined, Rikala, \u0026amp; H\u0026auml;m\u0026auml;l\u0026auml;inen (2019) consisting of Perceived technology Knowledge (CAR) (5 items), Perception of knowledge to integrate technology (PKforIT) (6 items), ICT pedagogical practice (ICTpedPra) (7 items), Teacher knowledge (excluding technology) (TKexTEC) (5 items) and Technology integration ( TecInt) (3 items), for Institutional support/Facilitating conditions of adoption from research, Teo (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR99\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e), Teo \u0026amp; Zhou (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR100\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e) contained (4 items) statements and for Motivation (WTMST) Fernet, Sen\u0026eacute;cal, Guay, Marsh \u0026amp; Dowson (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e) there are (4 items) and for work engagement (UWES-9) Schaufeli, Bakker \u0026amp; Salanova (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR93\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e) each item is measured by the Likert scale always, frequent, sometimes, rarely and never. And the questionnaire was completely accepted by the participants and after that the questionnaire was tested on 100 teachers outside the sample and the results showed acceptable results with Cronbach's alpha were (WorkEgag) 0.881, (ICTpedPra) 0.939, (InstitSupport) 0.903, (MotVat) 0.857, (PKforIT) 892, (PTK) 0.920, (TKexTEC) 0.912, (TecInt) 0.900.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.2 Data Collection and Samples\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe questionnaires distributed and collected through google forms. Data collection conducted with 294 respondents. The data analysis went through Cronbach Alpha to see its reality, the mean and standard deviation to understand their descriptive statistics, Pearson's moment-product coefficient for the relationship between variables, T-test and ANOVA for moderation variable differences, and the least partial modeling of box structural equations (PLS-SEM) for the factors that influence the best. in determining sampling, we use the G Power Application to analyze the strength of the sample.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo assess the capacity in the analysis of this study, G Power was used to determine the least possible sample size required, and testing implied a total sampling of 294, reaching a strength of 0.95. The SEM-PLS used to analyze the data and be based on Smart PLS version 3.2.7 subsequent certain stride. The first stride is to test the model of measurement that tests the validity and reliability of the construct. Both Steps assess structural models that test the direct relationship between exogenous and endogenous variables (J. Hair, Hollingsworth, Randolph, \u0026amp; Chong, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe research was ethically approved by the Ethics Committee of Universitas Jambi. Prior to participation, all participants were duly informed of their rights and responsibilities and provided explicit written consent. The study was conducted in agreement with the guidelines governing research involving human participants, as outlined by the Ethics Committee of Universitas Jambi. A sentence confirming that informed consents (Consent to Participate and Consent to Publish) were obtained from all participants.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Results of Research and Discussion","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.1 Description of Research Data\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDemographic Profiles of Participants\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"5\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eVariable\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eContent\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFrequencies (n-294)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePercentage\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMean\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAge\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e25\u0026ndash;35\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e97\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e33,0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1,863946\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e36\u0026ndash;45\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e140\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e47,6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e46\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e57\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e19,4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGender\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMale\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e113\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e38,4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1,615646\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWomen\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e181\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e61,6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTeaching experience\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;10 Years\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e134\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e45,6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2,005102\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e11 to 20 Years\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e75\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e25,5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e20 Years\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e84\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e28,6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eClass Size\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;30\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e115\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e39,1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1,608844\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e30\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e179\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e60,9\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTechnology used\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePhone\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e9\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3,1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2,751701\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLaptop\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e55\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e18,7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCombination\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e230\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e78,2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e statistical descriptive results from the demographics above can be shown that teachers are divided into ages, namely: 25\u0026ndash;35 (97/33.0%), 36\u0026ndash;45 years (140/47.6%), \u0026gt; 40 years (57/19.4%) then male gender ( 113/38.4%) and women ( 181/61.6%) furthermore for teaching experience that is \u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;10 years ( 134/45%), 11 to 20 years ( 75/25.5%) and \u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;20 Thun ( 84/28.6%) furthermore for class size taught\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;30 ( 115,39,1%) and \u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;30 (179/60,9) and the technology used that uses the phone as much as (9/3.1%) laptop (55/18.7%) and combination (230/78.2%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAnova to See the Differences in Characteristic Research Subjects\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"7\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e№\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCharacteristics\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eVariable\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eContent\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMean\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eF count\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSig/P value\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"5\" rowspan=\"6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\" morerows=\"5\" rowspan=\"6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAge\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePerceived Technological Knowledge (PTK)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e25\u0026ndash;35\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4,247423\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2,182\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,115\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e36\u0026ndash;45\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4,227143\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e46\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4,368421\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMaster's Knowledge excluding technology (TKexTEC)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e25\u0026ndash;35\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4,237113\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e9,720\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e36\u0026ndash;45\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4,227381\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e46\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3,938596\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"3\" rowspan=\"4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\" morerows=\"3\" rowspan=\"4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGender\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePerceived Technological Knowledge (PTK)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMale\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4,276106\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,210\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,647\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWomen\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4,251934\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMaster's Knowledge excluding technology (TKexTEC)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMale\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4,190265\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,209\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,648\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWomen\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4,164825\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"5\" rowspan=\"6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\" morerows=\"5\" rowspan=\"6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTeaching experience\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePerceived Technological Knowledge (PTK)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;10 Years\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4,264179\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1,014\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,387\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e11 to 20 Years\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4,200000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e20 Years\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4,314286\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMaster's Knowledge excluding technology (TKexTEC)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;10 Years\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4,279851\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5,734\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,001\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e11 to 20 Years\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4,160000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e20 Years\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4,023810\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"3\" rowspan=\"4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\" morerows=\"3\" rowspan=\"4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eClass Size\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePerceived Technological Knowledge (PTK)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;30\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4,273043\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,136\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,712\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e30\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4,253631\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMaster's Knowledge excluding technology (TKexTEC)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;30\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4,226087\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2,340\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,127\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e30\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4,141527\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"5\" rowspan=\"6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\" morerows=\"5\" rowspan=\"6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTechnology used\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePerceived Technological Knowledge (PTK)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePhone\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4,000000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2,175\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,115\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLaptop\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4,323636\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCombination\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4,256522\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMaster's Knowledge excluding technology (TKexTEC)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePhone\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4,000000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e17,757\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLaptop\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3,869697\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCombination\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4,254348\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAnova table above explains the differences in perceived technological knowledge or PTK and teacher knowledge does not include technology in this case can be informed that:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDifferences in perceived technological knowledge or PTK seen from the age where there is no difference in knowledge or PTK seen from the age factor with a volume of 0.15. Then the teacher's knowledge does not include technology there is a difference in teacher knowledge excluding technology when viewed from the age at which the evaluation is 0.000.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn terms of gender there is no difference in technological knowledge between male and female there is no difference in teacher knowledge excluding technology both for men and but when looking at the value of Mean where men if two knowledge, then there is no difference in technological knowledge that is felt when viewed from teaching experience both teaching under 10 years and over 20 years there is no difference in technological knowledge felt but there is a difference in the knowledge of teachers in this case does not include technology between learning or teaching experience under 10 years and over 20 years there is a difference with the value of gis. amounted to 0.001.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eClass size there is no difference when viewed from the class size between the perceived technological knowledge and the knowledge of the teacher does not include technology there is no difference when viewed from the class size with both class sizes below 30 and above 33 there are differences in knowledge both in both variables, then there is no difference in technological knowledge that is felt when viewed from the technology used and there is a difference in knowledge of teachers excluding technology when viewed from the technology used with P value of 0.000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec15\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.2 Data Analysis\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003ePLS-SEM was selected for this study due to its strong predictive capabilities. It was also used to nalyze data and test hypotheses with the help of Smart PLS software (J. Hair et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). This method is particularly effective for developing models that explain the relationships between variables, especially in complex system where multiple factors influence the integration of technology (Mital, Moore, \u0026amp; Llewellyn, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR73\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo ensure the instrument\u0026rsquo;s validity, the study employed both convergent and discriminant validity tests (Hair Jr., Matthews, Matthews, \u0026amp; Sarstedt, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). These tests were conducted using Smart PLS 3.0 and SPSS for additional calculations. The research process began woth basic data entry in a CSV format followed by advances data analysis steps as outlined below.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTabel 2 Description Statistics Questionnaire, loading factor, VIF, AVE and Cronbach's (Joe F. Hair, Howard, \u0026amp; Nitzl, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"No\" id=\"Tabb\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"8\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c8\" colnum=\"8\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eConstruct\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eItem Code\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMean\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLoading\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eVIF\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAVE\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eR Square\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCronbach's\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"4\" rowspan=\"5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePerceived technological Knowledge (PTK)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePTK1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4,228669\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,886\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3,441\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\" morerows=\"4\" rowspan=\"5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,881\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\" morerows=\"4\" rowspan=\"5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c8\" morerows=\"4\" rowspan=\"5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,629\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePTK2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4,252560\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,899\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2,352\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePTK3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4,119454\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,829\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2,851\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePTK4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4,426621\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,871\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2,743\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePTK5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4,273038\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,868\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3,441\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"5\" rowspan=\"6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePerceived knowledge for integrating technology (PKforIT)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePKforIT1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4,167235\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,823\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2,378\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\" morerows=\"5\" rowspan=\"6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,892\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\" morerows=\"5\" rowspan=\"6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,664\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c8\" morerows=\"5\" rowspan=\"6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,653\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePKforIT2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3,897611\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,627\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1,809\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePKforIT3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4,160410\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,828\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2,972\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePKforIT4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4,361775\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,874\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2,888\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePKforIT5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4,262799\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,851\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3,689\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePKforIT6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4,197952\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,822\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3,433\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"5\" rowspan=\"6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eICT pedagogical practices (ICTpedPra)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eICTpedPra1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4,187713\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,876\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3,234\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\" morerows=\"5\" rowspan=\"6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,939\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\" morerows=\"5\" rowspan=\"6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,801\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c8\" morerows=\"5\" rowspan=\"6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,767\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eICTpedPra2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4,215017\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,821\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2,627\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eICTpedPra3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4,139932\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,894\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3,962\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eICTpedPra4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4,259386\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,895\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3,460\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eICTpedPra5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4,378840\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,871\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4,108\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eICTpedPra6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4,395904\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,894\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4,661\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"5\" rowspan=\"6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTeachers' knowledge (excluding technology) (TKexTEC)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTKexTEC1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4,351536\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,868\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2,496\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\" morerows=\"5\" rowspan=\"6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,912\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\" morerows=\"5\" rowspan=\"6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,823\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c8\" morerows=\"5\" rowspan=\"6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,792\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTKexTEC2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4,286689\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,886\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2,812\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTKexTEC3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4,262799\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,896\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3,344\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTKexTEC4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4,317406\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,910\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3,561\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTKexTEC5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4,361775\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,868\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2,496\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTKexTEC6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4,051195\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,886\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2,812\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTechnology integration\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTecInt1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4,252560\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,895\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2,744\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,900\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,766\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c8\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,834\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTecInt2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4,160410\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,953\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4,504\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTecInt3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4,232082\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,891\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2,839\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"3\" rowspan=\"4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInstitutional support/ Facilitating conditions, (InstitSupport)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eINstitSupport1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4,167235\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,823\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1,880\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\" morerows=\"3\" rowspan=\"4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,903\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\" morerows=\"3\" rowspan=\"4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c8\" morerows=\"3\" rowspan=\"4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,775\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eINstitSupport2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4,225256\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,877\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3,030\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eINstitSupport3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4,368601\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,884\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3,064\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eINstitSupport4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4,235495\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,933\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4,303\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"3\" rowspan=\"4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMotivation (WTMST) (MotVat)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMotVat1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4,228669\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,811\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2,362\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\" morerows=\"3\" rowspan=\"4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,857\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\" morerows=\"3\" rowspan=\"4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,475\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c8\" morerows=\"3\" rowspan=\"4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,699\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMotVat2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4,252560\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,839\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2,553\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMotVat3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4,119454\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,845\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2,345\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMotVat4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4,426621\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,848\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2,340\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"8\" rowspan=\"9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWork Engagement (UWES-9) (WorkEgag)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWorkEgag1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4,273038\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,730\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1,836\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\" morerows=\"8\" rowspan=\"9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,881\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\" morerows=\"8\" rowspan=\"9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,541\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c8\" morerows=\"8\" rowspan=\"9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,629\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWorkEgag2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4,167235\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,790\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2,118\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWorkEgag3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3,897611\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,826\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2,392\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWorkEgag4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4,160410\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,821\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2,816\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWorkEgag5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4,361775\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,842\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2,822\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWorkEgag7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4,262799\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,744\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1,785\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWorkEgag8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4,197952\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,730\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1,836\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWorkEgag9\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4,187713\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,886\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3,441\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWorkEgag10\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4,215017\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,899\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2,352\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFrom the table above can be informed that judging from the mean score that at the highest mean level (4,2) namely in the variable PTK, CTpedPra, TKexTE, TecInt, institutional support (category excellent) and at the second level namely in PKforIT, MotVa, with a score (mean 4,1) and the lowest on work gag, with a mean score (4,0)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec16\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.3 Evaluation of the Outer Model Measurement Model\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe reliability objectives of the indicator is to test whether the indicator to measure the latent variables is predictable or not, that is, classifying the outer loading of every indicator results.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe load value over 0.7 illustrates that the construction can explain more than 50% of the variance of its indicator (Hair Jr. et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). In this study, all exposure values ​​above 0.7 and only one below 0.7 and all above 0.7 can be displayed.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe convergence validity regulated depend on the assumption that a form of criterion would be very highly corresponded (Joe F. Hair, Ringle, \u0026amp; Sarstedt, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e). The reflective indicator established with convergent validity, classified with the mean variance extracted (AVE). The AVE must be 0.5 or more.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eReliability test in smart PLS can use two methods, namely, \u003cem\u003eCronbach's Alpha\u003c/em\u003e and Composite \u003cem\u003ereliability.\u003c/em\u003e According to Hair.et, al. (2017) Composite reliability and Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s \u003cem\u003ealpha\u003c/em\u003e values are examined accompanied by the average extracted variance (AVE) to check the reliability of the valuation model. Composite reliability varies from 0.974 to 0.982. Additionally, average values vary from 635 to 707. All values in this study can be seen in the table, both Cronbach's alpha, composite reliability, and AVE can be accepted meaning that the above data can be concluded valid and reliable. Individual reflective measures are deemed valid and reliable if their correlation with the intended concept exceeds 0.70. In preliminary studies, a loading value ranging from 0.50 to 0.60 is considered adequate (Hair et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe purpose of discriminant validity is to assess if a reflective indicator accurately represents its construct. This is founded on the premise that each indicator must have a robust association with its construct, whereas distinct constructs should not display strong correlations (Hair Jr. et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn Smart PLS 3.2.7, discriminant validity is assessed by cross-loadings, the Fornell-Larcker Criterion, and the Heterotrait-Monotrait Ratio (HTMT) (Henseler et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). Validity assessment can be performed by multiple methodologies, including the Keizer-Meiser-Ohlin (KMO) procedure (Joseph F. Hair et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). The conventional Smart PLS 3 methodology advocates three techniques for assessing validity: (1) the \u003cem\u003eFornell-Larcker Criterion\u003c/em\u003e (Henseler, Ringle, \u0026amp; Sarstedt, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e), (2) \u003cem\u003ethe cross-loading method\u003c/em\u003e (Joe F. Hair et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e) and (3) \u003cem\u003eheterotrait-monotrait ratio procedure\u003c/em\u003e analysis (Hair. et al, 2015).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eStatistical tests performed with the Smart PLS software indicated that the cross-loading values for all constructs in this study above 0.7, so validating that all research items fulfilled the validity criteria. The outcomes of the discriminant validity assessment, performed utilizing the Fornell-Larcker Criterion through the Smart PLS application are displayed in the subsequent table.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab3\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 3\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eFornell-Larcker\u003c/em\u003e Criterion\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"9\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c8\" colnum=\"8\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c9\" colnum=\"9\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(Work\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eEgag)_\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(ICT\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003epedPra)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(Instit\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSupport)_\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(MotVat)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(PKforIT)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(PTK)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(Tkex\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTEC)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(TecInt)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWork engagement (WorkEgag)_\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,793\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eICT pedagogical practices (ICTpedPra)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,599\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,876\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInstitutional support for innovation and ICT use (INstitSupport)_\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,534\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,755\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,880\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMotivation (MotVat)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,736\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,745\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,779\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,836\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePerceived knowledge for integrating technology (PKforIT)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,610\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.815\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,749\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,726\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,808\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePerceived technological knowledge (PTK)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,571\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,823\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,752\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,718\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,815\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,871\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTeachers' knowledge (excluding technology) (TKexTEC)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,596\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,907\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,792\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,760\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.818\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,817\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,890\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTechnology integration (TecInt)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,545\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,806\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,740\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,689\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,787\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,699\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,865\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,913\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDiscriminant validity is evaluated by the Fornell-Larcker criterion and cross-loading analysis. The diagonal entries in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab5\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e denote the square root of the Average Variance Extracted (AVE), reflecting the AVE value for each construct. The diagonal values must exceed the correlations between the construct and other constructs inside the model. This guarantees that the construct is differentiated from others. Good discriminant validity is indicated when the square root of the Average Variance Extracted (AVE) for each construct surpasses the correlation values with other constructs (Joe F. Hair et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e). This study presents the findings of discriminant validity testing utilizing the Heterotrait-Monotrait Ratio (HTMT) approach in the following table.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab4\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 4\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHeterotrait-Monotrait Ratio (HTMT)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"8\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c8\" colnum=\"8\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWork\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eEgag\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eICT\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003epedPra\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInstit\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSupport\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMotVat\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePKforIT\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePTK\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTkex\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTEC\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWork engagement (WorkEgag)_\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eICT pedagogical practices (ICTpedPra)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,659\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInstitutional support for innovation and ICT use (INstitSupport)_\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,596\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,814\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMotivation (MotVat)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,835\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,835\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,897\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePerceived knowledge for integrating technology (PKforIT)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,679\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,863\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,817\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,817\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePerceived technological knowledge (PTK)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,632\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,883\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,822\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,812\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,891\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTeachers' knowledge (excluding technology) (TKexTEC)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,664\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,877\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,869\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,862\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,832\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,888\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTechnology integration (TecInt)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,612\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,872\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,814\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,787\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,860\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,764\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,853\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eA few scholars claim that cross-loading and the Fornell-Larcker criterion are less sensitive when evaluating the validity of discriminants. HTMT is a confirmed substitute approach for evaluating the validity of discriminants. In this approach, use a multi-method multi-trait model as the ground of the assessment. The HTMT amount prerequisite below 0.9 to establish the validity of the discriminant in the dual reflexive design (Henseler et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). The result of the data in the table above obtained all values less than 0.9 so it can be concluded that the research instrument used is valid.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec17\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.4 Evaluation of Structural Models or \u003cem\u003eInner Models\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe collinearity of the structural model was assessed utilizing the \u003cem\u003eVariance Inflation Factor\u003c/em\u003e (VIF). Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e displays the VIF values, which assess multicollinearity among predictor variables. A VIF score beyond 5.0 signifies multicollinearity concerns (Hair et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). In this investigation, all VIF values were below 5.0, indicating the absence of multicollinearity issues.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe research evaluated the model's predictive performance by the coefficient of determination (R\u0026sup2;). Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab5\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e demonstrates that the R\u0026sup2; values signify a robust predictive model for constructs such as IctPedpra, Tkcetec, Pkforlt, and Tecint, but moderate predictive power was noted for EorkEgag and Motvat.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCross-validation redundancy (Q\u0026sup2;) was employed to assess the model's predictive usefulness. A Q\u0026sup2; score beyond 0 signifies that the model possesses predictive significance, whereas a value of 0 or lower shows a lack of predictive relevance (Sarstedt et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR92\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). The Q\u0026sup2; findings for this investigation are displayed in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab5\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab5\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 5\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eQ\u003c/b\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cb\u003e2\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e \u003cb\u003eSquare\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRMSE\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMae\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eQ\u0026sup2;_predict\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePerceived knowledge for integrating technology (PKforIT)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.509\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.362\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.636\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eICT pedagogical practices (ICTpedPra)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.445\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.322\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.650\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTechnology integration (TecInt)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.440\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.326\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.491\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTeachers' knowledge (excluding technology) (TKexTEC)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.410\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.295\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.639\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMotivation (MotVat)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.286\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.212\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.542\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWork engagement (WorkEgag)_\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.279\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.200\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.196\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBased on Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e about the output display of the partial influence measurement model of each research variable which includes leadership function, Leadership Nature to Learning Quality both partially and simultaneously. Further information on measurement results from: (1) Mean, (2) STDEV, (3) T-Values, and (4) P-Values can be seen in the following Table \u003cspan refid=\"Tab6\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab6\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 6\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSummary of Results of Hypothesis Testing\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHypotheses\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePath Coefficient\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eP Values\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eH1 : Perceived technological knowledge(PTK) -\u0026gt; Perceived knowledge for integrating technology (PKforIT)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,815\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSupported\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eH:2 Perceived knowledge for integrating technology (PKforIT) -\u0026gt; ICT pedagogical practices (ICTpedPra)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,895\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSupported\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eH: 3 ICT pedagogical practices (ICTpedPra) -\u0026gt; Teachers' knowledge (excluding technology) (TKexTEC)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,907\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSupported\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eH:4 Perceived technological knowledge (PTK) -\u0026gt; Technology integration (TecInt)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,139\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSupported\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eH:5 Perceived knowledge for integrating technology (PKforIT) -\u0026gt; Technology integration (TecInt)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,174\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSupported\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eH:6 ICT pedagogical practices (ICTpedPra) -\u0026gt; Technology integration (TecInt)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,041\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,551\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNot Supported\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eH:7 Teachers' knowledge (excluding technology) (TKexTEC) -\u0026gt; Technology integration (TecInt)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,673\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSupported\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eH:8 Institutional support for innovation and ICT use (INstitSupport)_ -\u0026gt; Technology integration (TecInt)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,151\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSupported\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eH:9 Technology integration (TecInt) -\u0026gt; Motivation (MotVat)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,689\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSupported\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eH: 10 Motivation (MotVat) -\u0026gt; Work engagement (WorkEgag)_\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,736\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSupported\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec18\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.5 Discussion\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe purpose of this study was to determine the factors that influence the integration of technology in English teachers in the city of Jambi by collecting a sample of 290 teachers and this study revealed the influence of each variable including the Perceived technology knowledge (PTK) variable. integration. (PKforIT) ), Knowledge perception to integrate technology (PKforIT), ICT pedagogical practice (ICTpedPra), ICT pedagogical practice (ICTpedPra), Teacher knowledge (excluding technology) (TKexTEC), Technology knowledge perception (PTK), Technology integration (TecInt ), Perception of knowledge to integrate technology (PKforIT), Technology integration (TecInt), ICT pedagogical practice (ICTpedPra), Technology integration (TecInt) Teacher knowledge (excluding technology) (TKexTEC), Technology integration (TecInt), Institutional support for innovative ICT and use (INStitSupport) Technology integration (TecInt), Technology Integration (TecInt) Motivation (MotVat) and Motivation (MotVat) and Work Involvement (WorkEgag) of the 10 hypotheses proposed, there is one hypothesis that has no effect and in the next section, the author writes about all hypotheses related to the research question.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eH1 Perceived technology knowledge (PTK) based on research data confirmation has a positive effect on Perceived knowledge for integrating technology (PKforIT), this is also in line with previous research, namely research (Koh et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR55\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e; Ifinedo, Rikala, \u0026amp; Hm\u0026auml;l\u0026auml;inen, 2020b). H2 Perceived knowledge to integration technology (PKforIT) affects ICT pedagogical practice (ICTpedPra), in this case it is also in line with research (Koh et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR55\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e), that ICT competence affects the use of ICT in the classroom. class (Khine et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eH3. ICT pedagogical practice (ICTpedPra) affects teacher knowledge (excluding technology) (TKexTEC), in this case, it can be explained based on research data that technological practice certainly has an influence on the perception of teaching English knowledge and the application of their technology knowledge, this is also confirmed by other researchers that using and introducing ICT tools in teaching affect teachers in considering and giving their pedagogical beliefs (Tondeur, van Braak, Ertmer, \u0026amp; Ottenbreit-Leftwich, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR102\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e) and ultimately gives them the desire to use technology and increase their knowledge about teaching. using technology (Ifinedo et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003ea)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eH4. Perceived technology knowledge (CAR) affects Technology integration (TecInt),\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eH5. Perceived knowledge to integrate technology (PKforIT) affects technology integration (TecInt), some studies agree with this result such as research (Bower, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e) and (Li et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR64\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eH6. ICT Pedagogy Practice (ICTpedPra) Does Not Affect Technology Integration (TecInt) Based on the data that in this research ICT Pedagogy does not affect technology integration, it can be seen that there must be a modernization variable, namely the student perception variable ((Ifinedo et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003ea)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eH7. Knowledge of teacher (excluding technology) (TKexTEC) affects technology integration (TecInt), in this case technology integration is influenced by perceived teaching knowledge that does not include technology, similar to the TPACK Framework research, (Tseng et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR101\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e) ( Ifinedo et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003ea),\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eH8 Institutional support for innovation and use of ICT (INStitSupport) influences technology integration (TecInt). This is in line with research that institutional support affects technology integration (Wachira \u0026amp; Keengwe, 2011). In a similar vein, Buabeng-Andoh (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e) argued that professional development and facilities support lead to improve integration of technology and encourage teachers using technology in the teaching and learning process in school. Furthermore, the study of Lawrence \u0026amp; Tar (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR61\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e) revealed that attitude and beliefs on technology and support from government in schools is the success factors for integrating technology in the process of learning.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eH9. Technology integration (TecInt) affects motivation (MotVat), in this study sees that technology integration affect motivation (Cullen \u0026amp; Greene, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e). According to Ilter (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e), motivation gives significant influence on learning English particularly in conversation situation for both teacher and student. Similarly, Siddiqui, Thomas, \u0026amp; Soomoro (2020) claim that technology integration offers enthusiasm and positive motivation in the learning process.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eH10. Motivation (MotVat) affects work engagement (WorkEgag), this hypothesis accepted and supported by the findings of Leal-Soto, Carmona-Halty, D\u0026aacute;vila-Ram\u0026iacute;rez, \u0026amp; Valdivia (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR62\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e) and Pourtousi \u0026amp; Ghanizadeh (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR84\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). With regards to this study, motivation has an influence toward work engagement. The more effort of motivated teachers do in teaching learning the better and professional teachers in carrying out the duties, and influenced their students and organizations (Ghanizadeh \u0026amp; Ghonsooly, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e). Several studies, such as Pourtousi (2018) argued that motivation of teacher has positive correlation with teacher engagement in learning activities particularly in teaching English.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec19\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.6 Conclusion\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe practicality of the TPACK framework is on the issue of technology integration for teachers and in this study the authors examine the factors that influence technology integration for English teachers in Jambi City and see the implications for motivation and also work on engagement. How does it affect teacher motivation and work engagement. We also include various previous studies that are relevant to this study. In addition, this research also contributes to the development of literature, presenting the factors that contribute to the integration of technology for English teachers in Jambi City. Technology integration requires and requires knowledge and consists of good factors. Certain things to consider. (Sipil\u0026auml;, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR90\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e) in this case there are no factors that are considered separate considering that each factor chooses an influence on other factors in this study also provides support for previous research, namely research (Ifinedo et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e) we add a factor Institutional support for innovation and the use of ICT, motivation and work engagement in this case it can also be seen that this research presents how the fact that access to ICT integration is not a barrier due to support from institutions and also the fact that the equipment they have is adequate to use, plus access to information in the city of Jambi which is quite good, adding to the understanding that there are no obstacles in integrating technology. One of the main findings of our research is that technology is the lowest variable in predicting technology, therefore good training and policies in providing support to teachers to increase their knowledge in using technology should be the concern of all parties in Jambi city. Studies from several studies show that training and professional development of teachers can certainly provide understanding and knowledge in improving their abilities and skills in the use of technology. (Sipil\u0026auml;, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR90\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e) In this study, technology is of course very important for the learning process in the classroom, therefore the researcher provides a model of factors that influence technology integration and sees how the contribution of teacher motivation and involvement in learning English. teacher competition in Jambi City.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOne of the main findings from our research, which raises concern, is that which is indicated by the lowest contribution, which is indicated by the perceived technological knowledge of the ability to integrate technology which is still relatively low and also support from institutions for technology integration which must be considered and improved. Therefore, the implication for managers of educational institutions is the need for practical training, with examples showing how good technology integration should be informed to teachers and how facilities must also be considered and supported by the government so that technology integration can be maximized and further harmonize ICT pedagogical practices. them and the perceived benefits that students derive through their integration of technology. School administrators can encourage TEs to use their ICT tools for teaching. The study by Heitink et al. (2016) emphasize the benefits of supporting the teacher technology integration process using such \u0026ldquo;native\u0026rdquo; scenarios. Furthermore, training that is not only for teachers but also the introduction of technology must also be carried out in order to provide an initial understanding for students on the use of technology and institutions must also provide a productive and interactive environment so that teachers can reflect and also tell how their experiences and practices in integrating technology so that teachers can also provide input on factors that inhibit and also support technology integration, furthermore in this study another finding that pedagogical practices have no effect on technology integration This finding also shows that teacher teaching practices certainly do not guarantee technology integration, this of course must also be addressed. Look at students' perceptions of the use of technology in learning, for that the implications of this research for teachers in integrating technology, of course, must first understand the perceptions of students towards teachers. The use of technology means that the successful application of technology must also see students' understanding of technology.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAnother thing that must be considered for further research is that the work experience of teachers is also in the spotlight where there are differences in teacher knowledge excluding technology seen from the age where teacher knowledge above 46 begins to decline of course this must be a concern and when viewed from the gender factor it is not there are differences in both teacher knowledge without technology and teacher technology knowledge seen from gender, both men and women have the same understanding, and when viewed from teaching experience there are differences in knowledge without technology, meaning that the longer teaching time does not necessarily guarantee better understanding in this case understanding teachers under 10 years old are better than those 11 or over 20 years old and of course this needs to be a concern for school leadership, then in the use of technology there is no difference in technological knowledge for teachers who use laptop phones or desktop computers. In combination, however, there are differences in the knowledge of teachers without technology, seen from users of both phone laptops and combinations where the combination is better, knowledge does not include technology. From the findings of the ANOVa table, it is informed that teaching experience is important in integrating technology, especially to shape future professionals who demand competence in the work environment.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn practice, integration of educational technology is difficult considering that there are so many factors that have not been investigated in this study, such as location demographics, parental perceptions, student perceptions and also the presence of equipment. Although it has been studied for 30 years (Finedo et al 2020) there is still no explanation of the theory, model and framework that can clearly explain the successful integration of technology and how it can be achieved. In this study, of course, highlights efforts that how technology integration is understood from various factors and how this technology integration is able to motivate teachers so that there is active teacher involvement in learning. Factors that influence the emphasis in this study include the teacher's level of understanding of knowledge, perception, characteristics and institutional support and finally can provide an understanding of the set of factors that contribute to technology integration in the classroom and of course technology integration will succeed if all parties, both parents, schools, students and teachers must be involved, the benefits of this research certainly provide a broad perspective and we realize that technology integration must be a joint effort and a critical and comprehensive consideration that many challenges and developments are ongoing and must be identified in both existing and future research.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003ch2\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eEH, RH and DAEPS wrote the main manuscript text, MY, AS, RF and IWW prepared the data analysis, figures and tables. All authors reviewed the manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eData Availability\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are available in the figshare repository, https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.28220000.v1\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAl-Habsi, T., Al-Busaidi, S., \u0026amp; Al-Issa, A. (2021). Integrating technology in English language teaching through a community of practice in the Sultanate of Oman: implications for policy implementation. Educational Research for Policy and Practice. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s10671-021-09291-z\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s10671-021-09291-z\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAdmiraal, W., Louws, M., Lockhorst, D., Paas, T., Buynsters, M., Cviko, A., \u0026hellip; Kester, L. (2017). Teachers in school-based technology innovations: A typology of their beliefs on teaching and technology. Computers \u0026amp; Education, 114, 57\u0026ndash;68.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAlbion, P. R., Tondeur, J., Forkosh-Baruch, A., \u0026amp; Peeraer, J. (2015). Teachers\u0026rsquo; professional development for ICT integration: Towards a reciprocal relationship between research and practice. Education and Information Technologies, 20(4), 655\u0026ndash;673.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAlbirini, A. (2006). Teachers\u0026rsquo; attitudes toward information and communication technologies: The case of Syrian EFL teachers. Computers \u0026amp; Education, 47(4), 373\u0026ndash;398.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAvidov-Ungar, O., \u0026amp; Forkosh-Baruch, A. (2018). Professional identity of teacher educators in the digital era in light of demands of pedagogical innovation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 73, 183\u0026ndash;191.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAslam, J., Saleem, A., Khan, N. T., \u0026amp; Kim, Y. B. (2021). Factors influencing blockchain adoption in supply chain management practices: A study based on the oil industry. Journal of Innovation and Knowledge. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2021.01.002\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.jik.2021.01.002\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBackfisch, I., Lachner, A., St\u0026uuml;rmer, K., \u0026amp; Scheiter, K. (2021). Variability of teachers\u0026rsquo; technology integration in the classroom: A matter of utility! Computers and Education. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104159\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104159\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBower, M. (2017). The Technology Pedagogy and Content Knowledge (TPACK) Framework and Its Implications. In Design of Technology-Enhanced Learning (pp. 17\u0026ndash;33). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1108/978-1-78714-182-720171004\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1108/978-1-78714-182-720171004\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBai, S., Hew, K. F., Sailer, M., \u0026amp; Jia, C. (2021). From top to bottom: How positions on different types of leaderboard may affect fully online student learning performance, intrinsic motivation, and course engagement. Computers \u0026amp; Education, 173, 104297.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBlackman, T. E. (2018). An examination of individual teacher engagement and school climate characteristics that influence highly effective veteran teachers to remain teaching in low-performing schools.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBrinkley-Etzkorn, K. E. (2018). Learning to teach online: Measuring the influence of faculty development training on teaching effectiveness through a TPACK lens. The Internet and Higher Education, 38, 28\u0026ndash;35.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBuabeng-Andoh, C. (2012). Factors influencing teachers\u0026acirc; adoption and integration of information and communication technology into teaching: A review of the literature. International Journal of Education and Development using ICT, \u003cem\u003e8\u003c/em\u003e(1).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eChanlin, L. J., Hong, J. C., Horng, J. S., Chang, S. H., \u0026amp; Chu, H. C. (2006). Factors influencing technology integration in teaching: A Taiwanese perspective. Innovations in Education and Teaching International. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/14703290500467467\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/14703290500467467\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCarmona-Halty, M. A., Schaufeli, W. B., \u0026amp; Salanova, M. (2019). The utrecht work engagement scale for students (UWES\u0026ndash;9S): factorial validity, reliability, and measurement invariance in a chilean sample of undergraduate university students. Frontiers in psychology, 10, 1017.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCheng, S. L., \u0026amp; Xie, K. (2018). The relations among teacher value beliefs, personal characteristics, and TPACK in intervention and non-intervention settings. Teaching and Teacher Education, 74, 98\u0026ndash;113.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eComi, S. L., Argentin, G., Gui, M., Origo, F., \u0026amp; Pagani, L. (2017). Is it the way they use it? Teachers, ICT and student achievement. Economics of Education Review, 56, 24\u0026ndash;39.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCullen, T. A., \u0026amp; Greene, B. A. (2011). Preservice teachers' beliefs, attitudes, and motivation about technology integration. Journal of Educational Computing Research, \u003cem\u003e45\u003c/em\u003e(1), 29\u0026ndash;47.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCreswell, J. W. (2014). Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches. Sage.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eChing, Y. H., Yang, D., Baek, Y. K., \u0026amp; Baldwin, S. (2016). Enhancing graduate students\u0026rsquo; reflection in e-portfolios using the TPACK framework. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 32(5). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.2830\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.14742/ajet.2830\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDong, Y., Xu, C., Chai, C. S., \u0026amp; Zhai, X. (2020). Exploring the structural relationship among teachers\u0026rsquo; technostress, technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK), computer self-efficacy and school support. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 29(2), 147\u0026ndash;157.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDong, Y., Xu, C., Chai, C. S., \u0026amp; Zhai, X. (2020). Exploring the structural relationship among teachers\u0026rsquo; technostress, technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK), computer self-efficacy and school support. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 29(2), 147\u0026ndash;157.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDong, Y., Xu, C., Chai, C. S., \u0026amp; Zhai, X. (2020). Exploring the structural relationship among teachers\u0026rsquo; technostress, technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK), computer self-efficacy and school support. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 29(2), 147\u0026ndash;157.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDonnelly, D., McGarr, O., \u0026amp; O\u0026rsquo;Reilly, J. (2011). A framework for teachers\u0026rsquo; integration of ICT into their classroom practice. Computers \u0026amp; education, 57(2), 1469\u0026ndash;1483.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEichelberger, A., \u0026amp; Leong, P. (2019). Using TPACK as a framework to study the influence of college faculty\u0026rsquo;s beliefs on online teaching. Educational Media International. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/09523987.2019.1614246\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/09523987.2019.1614246\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEfthymiou, D., \u0026amp; Antoniou, C. (2012). Use of social media for transport data collection. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 48, 775\u0026ndash;785.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFernet, C., Sen\u0026eacute;cal, C., Guay, F., Marsh, H., \u0026amp; Dowson, M. (2008). The work tasks motivation scale for teachers (WTMST). Journal of Career assessment, 16(2), 256\u0026ndash;279.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eErtmer, P. A. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for technology integration? Educational Technology Research and Development, Vol. 53. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504683\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/BF02504683\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eErtmer, P. A., \u0026amp; Ertmer, P. A. (2016). Teacher Pedagogical Beliefs: The Final Frontier in Our Quest for Technology Integration ? Teacher Pedagogical Beliefs : The Final Frontier in Our Quest for Technology Integration ? Educational Technology Research \u0026amp; Development, 53(4).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eErtmer, P. A., \u0026amp; Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. (2013). Removing obstacles to the pedagogical changes required by Jonassen\u0026rsquo;s vision of authentic technology-enabled learning. Computers and Education. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.10.008\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.compedu.2012.10.008\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eErtmer, P. A., \u0026amp; Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T. (2010). Teacher technology change: How knowledge, confidence, beliefs, and culture intersect. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(3). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2010.10782551\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/15391523.2010.10782551\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFarjon, D., Smits, A., \u0026amp; Voogt, J. (2019). Technology integration of pre-service teachers explained by attitudes and beliefs, competency, access, and experience. Computers and Education. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.11.010\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.compedu.2018.11.010\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGawrisch, D. P., Richards, K. A. R., \u0026amp; Killian, C. M. (2020). Integrating technology in physical education teacher education: A socialization perspective. Quest, 72(3), 260\u0026ndash;277.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGhanizadeh, A., \u0026amp; Ghonsooly, B. (2014). A tripartite model of EFL teacher attributions, burnout, and self-regulation: toward the prospects of effective teaching. Educational Research for Policy and Practice, \u003cem\u003e13\u003c/em\u003e(2), 145\u0026ndash;166.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHanuscin, D. L., Lee, M. H., \u0026amp; Akerson, V. L. (2011). Elementary teachers' pedagogical content knowledge for teaching the nature of science. Science education, 95(1), 145\u0026ndash;167.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHenseler, J., Ringle, C. M., \u0026amp; Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the academy of marketing science, 43(1), 115\u0026ndash;135.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHirsch, P., Michaels, S., \u0026amp; Friedman, R. (1987). \" Dirty hands\" versus\" clean models\": Is sociology in danger of being seduced by economics?. Theory and society, 317\u0026ndash;336.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHair, J., Hollingsworth, C. L., Randolph, A. B., \u0026amp; Chong, A. Y. L. (2017). An updated and expanded assessment of PLS-SEM in information systems research. Industrial Management and Data Systems. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-04-2016-0130\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1108/IMDS-04-2016-0130\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHair, Joe F., Howard, M. C., \u0026amp; Nitzl, C. (2020). Assessing measurement model quality in PLS-SEM using confirmatory composite analysis. Journal of Business Research. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.11.069\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.11.069\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHair, Joe F., Ringle, C. M., \u0026amp; Sarstedt, M. (2011). PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.2753/MTP1069-6679190202\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.2753/MTP1069-6679190202\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHair, Joe F., Sarstedt, M., Hopkins, L., \u0026amp; Kuppelwieser, V. G. (2014). Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM): An emerging tool in business research. European Business Review. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-10-2013-0128\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1108/EBR-10-2013-0128\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHair, Joseph F., Astrachan, C. B., Moisescu, O. I., Radomir, L., Sarstedt, M., Vaithilingam, S., \u0026amp; Ringle, C. M. (2020). Executing and interpreting applications of PLS-SEM: Updates for family business researchers. Journal of Family Business Strategy. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfbs.2020.100392\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.jfbs.2020.100392\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHair Jr., J. F., Matthews, L. M., Matthews, R. L., \u0026amp; Sarstedt, M. (2017). PLS-SEM or CB-SEM: updated guidelines on which method to use. International Journal of Multivariate Data Analysis, 1(2), 107. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1504/ijmda.2017.10008574\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1504/ijmda.2017.10008574\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHansen, J. J., \u0026amp; Rosenlund, L. T. (2020). Teaching in a networked world \u0026ndash; skills, knowledge and beliefs. In Designing for Learning in a Networked World. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.4324/9781351232357-5\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.4324/9781351232357-5\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eIfinedo, E., Rikala, J., \u0026amp; H\u0026auml;m\u0026auml;l\u0026auml;inen, T. (2020). Factors affecting Nigerian teacher educators\u0026rsquo; technology integration: Considering characteristics,\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eIlter, B. G. (2009). Effect of technology on motivation in EFL classrooms. Turkish online journal of distance education, \u003cem\u003e10\u003c/em\u003e(4), 136\u0026ndash;158.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eknowledge constructs, ICT practices and beliefs. Computers and Education, 146. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103760\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103760\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJ\u0026auml;\u0026auml;skel\u0026auml;, P., H\u0026auml;kkinen, P., \u0026amp; Rasku-Puttonen, H. (2017). Teacher Beliefs Regarding Learning, Pedagogy, and the Use of Technology in Higher Education. Journal of Research on Technology in Education. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2017.1343691\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/15391523.2017.1343691\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJimoyiannis, A., \u0026amp; Komis, V. (2007). Teacher Development: An international journal of teachers \u0026rsquo; professional Examining teachers \u0026rsquo; beliefs about ICT in education : implications of a teacher preparation programme. Teacher Development: An International Journal of Teachers\u0026rsquo; Professional Development, 11(2).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKhine, M. S., Ali, N., \u0026amp; Afari, E. (2017). Exploring relationships among TPACK constructs and ICT achievement among trainee teachers. Education and Information Technologies, 22(4), 1605\u0026ndash;1621. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-016-9507-8\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s10639-016-9507-8\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKim, C., Kim, M. K., Lee, C., Spector, J. M., \u0026amp; DeMeester, K. (2013). Teacher beliefs and technology integration. Teaching and teacher education, \u003cem\u003e29\u003c/em\u003e, 76\u0026ndash;85\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKlaeijsen, A., Vermeulen, M., \u0026amp; Martens, R. (2018). Teachers\u0026rsquo; innovative behaviour: The importance of basic psychological need satisfaction, intrinsic motivation, and occupational self-efficacy. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 62(5), 769\u0026ndash;782.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKoh, J. H. L., Chai, C. S., \u0026amp; Tay, L. Y. (2014). TPACK-in-Action: Unpacking the contextual influences of teachers' construction of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK). Computers \u0026amp; Education, 78, 20\u0026ndash;29.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKukulska-Hulme, A., Lee, H., \u0026amp; Norris, L. (2017). Mobile learning revolution: Implications for language pedagogy. The handbook of technology and second language teaching and learning, 217\u0026ndash;233.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKwon, K., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T., Sari, A. R., Khlaif, Z., Zhu, M., Nadir, H., \u0026amp; Gok, F. (2019). Teachers\u0026rsquo; self-efficacy matters: Exploring the integration of mobile computing device in middle schools. TechTrends, 63(6), 682\u0026ndash;692.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKoh, J. H. L., Chai, C. S., \u0026amp; Tsai, C. C. (2013). Examining practicing teachers\u0026rsquo; perceptions of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) pathways: A structural equation modeling approach. Instructional Science, 41(4), 793\u0026ndash;809. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-012-9249-y\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s11251-012-9249-y\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKoh, J. H. L., Chai, C. S., \u0026amp; Tay, L. Y. (2014). TPACK-in-Action: Unpacking the contextual influences of teachers' construction of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK). Computers \u0026amp; Education, \u003cem\u003e78\u003c/em\u003e, 20\u0026ndash;29.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKong, S. C. (2014). Developing information literacy and critical thinking skills through domain knowledge learning in digital classrooms: An experience of practicing flipped classroom strategy. Computers and Education, 78. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.05.009\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.compedu.2014.05.009\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKopcha, T. J. (2012). Teachers\u0026rsquo; perceptions of the barriers to technology integration and practices with technology under situated professional development. Computers and Education. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.05.014\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.compedu.2012.05.014\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKundu, A., \u0026amp; Bej, T. (2021). Ingestion and integration of ICTs for pedagogy in Indian private high schools. E-Learning and Digital Media. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/2042753020957493\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/2042753020957493\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKhine, M. S., Ali, N., \u0026amp; Afari, E. (2017). Exploring relationships among TPACK constructs and ICT achievement among trainee teachers. Education and Information Technologies, 22(4), 1605\u0026ndash;1621.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLawrence, J. E., \u0026amp; Tar, U. A. (2018). Factors that influence teachers\u0026rsquo; adoption and integration of ICT in teaching/learning process. Educational Media International, 55(1), 79\u0026ndash;105.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLeal-Soto, F., Carmona-Halty, M., D\u0026aacute;vila-Ram\u0026iacute;rez, J., \u0026amp; Valdivia, Y. (2018). Work engagement, teaching practices with motivational effects, and learning-oriented classroom motivational climate. Interamerican Journal of Psychology. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.30849/rip/ijp.v52i2.106\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.30849/rip/ijp.v52i2.106\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLawrence, J. E., \u0026amp; Tar, U. A. (2018). Factors that influence teachers\u0026rsquo; adoption and integration of ICT in teaching/learning process. Educational Media International, \u003cem\u003e55\u003c/em\u003e(1), 79\u0026ndash;105.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLi, F., Wang, G., Li, Y., \u0026amp; Zhou, R. (2017). Job demands and driving anger: The roles of emotional exhaustion and work engagement. Accident Analysis \u0026amp; Prevention, 98, 198\u0026ndash;205.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLi, Y., Garza, V., Keicher, A., \u0026amp; 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\u0026ndash;518.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLiao, D. (2021, January). Blended Teaching Mode of Tourism English Based on TPACK. In International Conference on Decision Science \u0026amp; Management (pp. 95\u0026ndash;104). Springer, Singapore\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLestariningsih, F. E., Hope, J., Madya, S., \u0026amp; Nurkamto, J. (2018). IST (In-Service Training) Model to Improve English Teachers\u0026rsquo; Pedagogical and Professional Competencies in the Computer Science Department of Universities in Indonesia. Indonesian Journal of EFL and Linguistics. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.21462/ijefl.v3i2.72\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.21462/ijefl.v3i2.72\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLing Koh, J. H., Chai, C. S., \u0026amp; Tay, L. Y. (2014). TPACK-in-Action: Unpacking the contextual influences of teachers\u0026rsquo; construction of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK). Computers and Education, 78. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.04.022\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.compedu.2014.04.022\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLiu, S. H. (2011). Factors related to pedagogical beliefs of teachers and technology integration. Computers and Education. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.12.001\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.compedu.2010.12.001\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLiu, S. H. (2012). A multivariate model of factors influencing technology use by preservice teachers during practice teaching. Educational Technology and Society.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMergel, I. (2012). OpenCollaboration in Public Sector: The case of social codign on Github. Government Information Quarterly.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMiller, A. D., Ramirez, E. M., \u0026amp; Murdock, T. B. (2017). The influence of teachers\u0026rsquo; self-efficacy on perceptions: Perceived teacher competence and respect and student effort and achievement. Teaching and Teacher Education, 64, 260\u0026ndash;269.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMital, P., Moore, R., \u0026amp; Llewellyn, D. (2014). Analyzing K-12 education as a complex system. Procedia Computer Science, 28, 370\u0026ndash;379.]\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMishra, P., \u0026amp; Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers college record, \u003cem\u003e108\u003c/em\u003e(6), 1017\u0026ndash;1054.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMoreira-Font\u0026aacute;n, E., Garc\u0026iacute;a-Se\u0026ntilde;or\u0026aacute;n, M., Conde-Rodr\u0026iacute;guez, \u0026Aacute;., \u0026amp; Gonz\u0026aacute;lez, A. (2019). Teachers' ICT-related self-efficacy, job resources, and positive emotions: Their structural relations with autonomous motivation and work engagement. Computers \u0026amp; Education, 134, 63\u0026ndash;77.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMoreira-Font\u0026aacute;n, E., Garc\u0026iacute;a-Se\u0026ntilde;or\u0026aacute;n, M., Conde-Rodr\u0026iacute;guez, \u0026Aacute;., \u0026amp; Gonz\u0026aacute;lez, A. (2019). Teachers\u0026rsquo; ICT-related self-efficacy, job resources, and positive emotions: Their structural relations with autonomous motivation and work engagement. Computers and Education, 134, 63\u0026ndash;77. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.02.007\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.compedu.2019.02.007\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNazari, N., Nafissi, Z., Estaji, M., Marandi, S. S., \u0026amp; Wang, S. (2019). Evaluating novice and experienced EFL teachers\u0026rsquo; perceived TPACK for their professional development. Cogent Education. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2019.1632010\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/2331186X.2019.1632010\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNiederhauser, D. S., Howard, S. K., Voogt, J., Agyei, D. D., Laferriere, T., Tondeur, J., \u0026amp; Cox, M. J. (2018). Sustainability and Scalability in Educational Technology Initiatives: Research-Informed Practice. Technology, Knowledge and Learning. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-018-9382-z\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s10758-018-9382-z\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNiess, M. L. (2011). Investigating TPACK: Knowledge growth in teaching with technology. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 44(3). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.2190/EC.44.3.c\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.2190/EC.44.3.c\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNousiainen, T., Kangas, M., Rikala, J., \u0026amp; Vesisenaho, M. (2018). Teacher competencies in game-based pedagogy. Teaching and Teacher Education, 74. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2018.04.012\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.tate.2018.04.012\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNelson, M. J., Voithofer, R., \u0026amp; Cheng, S. L. (2019). Mediating factors that influence the technology integration practices of teacher educators. Computers \u0026amp; Education, 128, 330\u0026ndash;344.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNim Park, C., \u0026amp; Son, J. B. (2009). Implementing computer-assisted language learning in the EFL classroom: Teachers\u0026rsquo; perceptions and perspectives. International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning, 5(2), 80\u0026ndash;101.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eOh, E., \u0026amp; Reeves, T. C. (2014). Generational differences and the integration of technology in learning, instruction, and performance. In Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology: Fourth Edition. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3185-5_66\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/978-1-4614-3185-5_66\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePourtousi, Z., \u0026amp; Ghanizadeh, A. (2020). Teachers\u0026rsquo; Motivation and Its Association with Job Commitment and Work Engagement. Psychological Studies. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s12646-020-00571-x\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s12646-020-00571-x\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePark, S., \u0026amp; Chen, Y. C. (2012). Mapping out the integration of the components of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK): Examples from high school biology classrooms. Journal of research in science teaching, 49(7), 922\u0026ndash;941.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePowell, C. G., \u0026amp; Bodur, Y. (2019). Teachers\u0026rsquo; perceptions of an online professional development experience: Implications for a design and implementation framework. Teaching and Teacher Education, 77, 19\u0026ndash;30.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSadaf, A., Newby, T. J., \u0026amp; Ertmer, P. A. (2012). Exploring pre-service teachers\u0026rsquo; beliefs about using Web 2.0 technologies in K-12 classroom. Computers and Education, 59(3). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.04.001\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.compedu.2012.04.001\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eShin, W. S., Han, I., \u0026amp; Kim, I. (2014). Teachers\u0026rsquo; technology use and the change of their pedagogical beliefs in Korean educational context. International Education Studies. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v7n8p11\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.5539/ies.v7n8p11\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eShmueli, G., Sarstedt, M., Hair, J. F., Cheah, J. H., Ting, H., Vaithilingam, S., \u0026amp; Ringle, C. M. (2019). Predictive model assessment in PLS-SEM: guidelines for using PLSpredict. European Journal of Marketing. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-02-2019-0189\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1108/EJM-02-2019-0189\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSipil\u0026auml;, K. (2014). Educational use of information and communications technology: Teachers\u0026rsquo; perspective. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 23(2), 225\u0026ndash;241. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2013.813407\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/1475939X.2013.813407\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSmadi, M. A. L. M., \u0026amp; Raman, A. (2020). Time Factor Influencing Technology Integration in Social Studies Teaching in Jordanian School. European Journal of Interactive Multimedia and Education, 1(1). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.30935/ejimed/8351\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.30935/ejimed/8351\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., \u0026amp; Hair, J. F. (2017). Partial least squares structural equation modeling. Handbook of market research, 26(1), 1\u0026ndash;40.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSchaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., \u0026amp; Salanova, M. (2006). The measurement of work engagement with a short questionnaire: A cross-national study. Educational and psychological measurement, 66(4), 701\u0026ndash;716.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSchiefele, U. (2017). Classroom management and mastery-oriented instruction as mediators of the effects of teacher motivation on student motivation. Teaching and teacher education, 64, 115\u0026ndash;126.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSiddiqui, S., Thomas, M., \u0026amp; Soomro, N. N. (2020). Technology integration in education: Source of intrinsic motivation, self-efficacy and performance. Journal of E-Learning and Knowledge Society, \u003cem\u003e16\u003c/em\u003e(1), 11\u0026ndash;22.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTatnall, A. (2020). Technological Innovation in ICT for Education. In Encyclopedia of Education and Information Technologies. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-10576-1_51\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/978-3-030-10576-1_51\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTokareva, E. A., Smirnova, Y. V., \u0026amp; Orchakova, L. G. (2019). Innovation and communication technologies: Analysis of the effectiveness of their use and implementation in higher education. Education and Information Technologies. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-019-09922-2\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s10639-019-09922-2\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e(TPACK) model to develop an online English writing course for nursing students. Nurse education today, 35(6), 782\u0026ndash;788.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTeo, T. (2011). Factors influencing teachers\u0026rsquo; intention to use technology: Model development and test. Computers \u0026amp; Education, 57(4), 2432\u0026ndash;2440.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTeo, T., \u0026amp; Zhou, M. (2014). Explaining the intention to use technology among university students: a structural equation modeling approach. Journal of Computing in Higher education, 26(2), 124\u0026ndash;142.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTseng, J. J., Cheng, Y. S., \u0026amp; Yeh, H. N. (2019). How pre-service English teachers enact TPACK in the context of web-conferencing teaching: A design thinking approach. Computers \u0026amp; Education, 128, 171\u0026ndash;182.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTondeur, J., van Braak, J., Ertmer, P. A., \u0026amp; Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. (2017). Understanding the relationship between teachers\u0026rsquo; pedagogical beliefs and technology use in education: a systematic review of qualitative evidence. Educational Technology Research and Development, 65(3), 555\u0026ndash;575. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-016-9481-2\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s11423-016-9481-2\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTseng, J. J., Cheng, Y. S., \u0026amp; Yeh, H. N. (2019). How pre-service English teachers enact TPACK in the context of web-conferencing teaching: A design thinking approach. Computers and Education, 128, 171\u0026ndash;182. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.09.022\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.compedu.2018.09.022\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTai, H. C., Pan, M. Y., \u0026amp; Lee, B. O. (2015). Applying Technological Pedagogical and Content Knowledge\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eUerz, D., Volman, M., \u0026amp; Kral, M. (2018). Teacher educators\u0026rsquo; competences in fostering student teachers\u0026rsquo; proficiency in teaching and learning with technology: An overview of relevant research literature. Teaching and Teacher Education. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.11.005\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.tate.2017.11.005\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eVoithofer, R., \u0026amp; Nelson, M. J. (2021). Teacher Educator Technology Integration Preparation Practices Around TPACK in the United States. Journal of Teacher Education. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/0022487120949842\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/0022487120949842\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eVan den Berg, B. A. M., Bakker, A. B., \u0026amp; Ten Cate, T. J. (2013). Key factors in work engagement and job motivation of teaching faculty at a university medical centre. Perspectives on medical education, \u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e(5), 264\u0026ndash;275.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWang, Y., Rodrigues, V. S., \u0026amp; Evans, L. (2015). The use of ICT in road freight transport for CO2 reduction\u0026ndash;an exploratory study of UK\u0026rsquo;s grocery retail industry. The International Journal of Logistics Management.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWu, Y. T., \u0026amp; Wang, A. Y. (2015). Technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge in teaching English as a foreign language: Representation of primary teachers of English in Taiwan. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 24(3), 525\u0026ndash;533.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eYerdelen-Damar, S., Boz, Y., \u0026amp; Aydın-G\u0026uuml;nbatar, S. (2017). Mediated effects of technology competencies and experiences on relations among attitudes towards technology use, technology ownership, and self efficacy about technological pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 26(4), 394\u0026ndash;405\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":true,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"discover-education","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"diedu","sideBox":"Learn more about [Discover Education](https://www.springer.com/journal/44217)","snPcode":"44217","submissionUrl":"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/44217/3","title":"Discover Education","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Discover Series","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"integration technology, institution support, work engagement, partial least square – sequential equation modeling (PLS-SEM)","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-5766778/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-5766778/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eThis study aims to present teachers\u0026rsquo; understanding of TPACK (technology, pedagogy, and content knowledge) and how TPACK is manifested in use, and the research examines the concept of teachers\u0026rsquo; technology integration (Tecint). In particular, the primary purpose of this study is to find out the factors that influence English teachers in technology integration in Jambi city, Indonesia. This study is a cross-sectional survey in which the data were collected at one point in time from a sample of 294 English teachers. This study reveals that perceived technology knowledge had a significant and positive effect. Perceived knowledge to integrate technology (PKforIT), perceived knowledge to integrate technology (PKforIT) significantly and positively influenced ICT pedagogical practice (ICTpedPra), ICT pedagogical practice (ICTpedPra) had a significant and positive effect on Teacher Knowledge (excluding technology) (TKexTEC), knowledge of technology perceptions (CAR), knowledge to integrate technology perceptions (PKforIT) had significant and positive influence on technology integration (TecInt) as well as significant and positive significant and positive effect on technology integration (TecInt), ICT pedagogical practices (ICTpedPra) significant and positive effect Technology integration (TecInt), teacher knowledge (excluding technology) (TKexTEC) had a positive and significant effect technology integration (TecInt), institutional support for ICT innovation and use (INStitSupport), technology integration (TecInt) significant effect and positive on motivation (MotVat) and motivation (MotVat) had a significant and positive effect on Work Engagement (WorkEgag) significantly and positively had a positive and significant impact on technology integration (TecInt). This finding shows that to integrate teachers must pay attention to teachers' understanding of technology, knowledge, and support from subsequent institutions. Job engagement is influenced by the work motivation of the English teacher.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Factors Influencing the Integration of Technology of High School English Teachers in Indonesia: Analysis Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) and Partial Least Square (PLS)","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-01-31 09:05:09","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-5766778/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"decision","content":"Revision requested","date":"2025-02-05T14:37:42+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"205298116921537580957770332697631132846","date":"2025-02-05T14:11:36+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-02-04T23:03:14+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"43488084157302266333674225118977261361","date":"2025-02-04T22:46:51+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-02-04T13:28:51+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"132925992270319238252650749613113178658","date":"2025-02-04T07:24:26+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"182055788243047404693605335344556458215","date":"2025-02-04T06:12:46+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2025-02-04T04:53:48+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2025-01-30T12:56:32+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2025-01-29T11:43:26+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"Discover Education","date":"2025-01-05T08:11:21+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"discover-education","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"diedu","sideBox":"Learn more about [Discover Education](https://www.springer.com/journal/44217)","snPcode":"44217","submissionUrl":"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/44217/3","title":"Discover Education","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Discover Series","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"bfdb8ac0-332e-4bec-8c9e-81afbce803bf","owner":[],"postedDate":"January 31st, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"under-review","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-03-17T19:38:07+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-01-31 09:05:09","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-5766778","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-5766778","identity":"rs-5766778","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}