Chapter 1 Introduction
4.2 Descriptive statistics
The following section reports on the descriptive, explanatory and predictive analysis of the data.
4.2.1 Description of gender
The descriptive statistics relating to the gender of the secondary school in-service teachers who participated in the survey are presented in Table 4.1.
87
Table 4.1: Descriptive statistics for the gender of in-service teachers
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Male 60 32.3 32.3 32.3
Female 126 67.7 67.7 100.0
Total 186 100.0 100.0
In terms of gender, Table 4.1 shows that there were 186 responses to the survey. Most of the participants were females who represented 67.7% (n=126) of the sample, while the males represented only 32.3% (n=60).
4.2.2 Description of age
Table 4.2 provides an illustration of the age of secondary school in-service teachers.
Table 4.2: Descriptive statistics for the age of secondary school in-service teachers.
Age Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
21-25 41 22.0 22.0 22.0
26-30 68 36.6 36.6 58.6
31-35 59 31.7 31.7 90.3
36-40 12 6.5 6.5 96.8
40-45 4 2.2 2.2 98.9
51-55 1 .5 .5 99.5
56-60 1 .5 .5 100.0
Total 186 100.0 100.0
88
As illustrated in Table 4.2, the majority of the participants (36.6%) fell into the 26–30 year age group. The 31–35 year age group constituted 31.7% of the sample with 22.0% in the 21–25 age group. There were no participants in the age group 46–50. The participants were mostly digital natives, since more than 90% were less than 36 years of age.
4.2.3 Description of educational qualifications
The descriptive statistics for the in-service teachers’ highest qualifications are shown in Table 4.3.
Table 4.3: Descriptive statistics for in-service teacher’s highest qualification
Qualification Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
BSc 147 79.0 79.0 79.0
MSc 38 20.4 20.4 99.5
Other 1 .5 .5 100.0
Total 186 100.0 100.0
As depicted in Table 4.3, the description of the participants’ highest qualification reveals that 79.0% of the participants have a bachelor’s degree (n=147) while 20.4% of the participants have a master’s degree (n=38).
These statistics are indicative of the fact that most of the participants in this sample have bachelor’s degrees.
4.2.4 Description of teaching experience
The descriptive statistics for the participants’ teaching experience are illustrated in Table 4.7: .
89
Table 4.4: Descriptive statistics for teachers’ teaching experience
Teaching experience Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
1-5 103 55.4 55.4 55.4
6-10 62 33.3 33.3 88.7
11-15 14 7.5 7.5 96.2
16-20 3 1.6 1.6 97.8
More than 20 4 2.2 2.2 100.0
Total 186 100.0 100.0
As depicted in Table 4.4, the description of the participants’ teaching experience revealed that 55.4% of the participants have been teaching between one and five years (n=103), while 33.3% of the participants have been teaching between six and 10 years (n=62).
These statistics illustrate that most of the participants have been in the teaching profession for less than six years.
4.2.5 Description of subject area taught
The descriptive statistics for the subject area taught by the participants are shown in Table 4.5.
90
Table 4.5: Descriptive statistics for teachers’ subject area
Subject taught Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
English 17 9.1 9.1 9.1
French 26 14.0 14.0 23.1
Maths 20 10.8 10.8 33.9
Social Studies 5 2.7 2.7 36.6
Physical Education 6 3.2 3.2 39.8
Home Economics 4 2.2 2.2 41.9
Chemistry 5 2.7 2.7 44.6
Physics 5 2.7 2.7 47.3
Biology 5 2.7 2.7 50.0
Computer studies 22 11.8 11.8 61.8
Oriental language 37 19.9 19.9 81.7
Arts and Design 11 5.9 5.9 87.6
Business Studies 9 4.8 4.8 92.5
Travel and tourism 4 2.2 2.2 94.6
Economics 5 2.7 2.7 97.3
Other subject 5 2.7 2.7 100.0
Total 186 100.0 100.0
Nineteen point nine percent oriental language (Hindi, Tamil, Telegu and Marathi) participants (n=37) responded to the survey.
91
4.2.6 Teachers’ use of Web 2.0 tools in their personal lives
Table 4.6: Frequency of participants’ use of Web 2.0 tools in their personal lives
Scores in percentage
N Never At least
once a year
At least once a month
At least once a week
Every day
Web log in personal life 186 12.4 5.4 16.7 31.2 34.4
Wiki in personal life 186 2.7 2.7 15.1 55.4 24.2
Networking in personal life 186 8.6 2.2 7.5 26.9 54.8 Google Apps in personal life 186 2.2 1.1 9.1 39.8 47.8 Multimedia in personal life 186 2.2 1.1 9.1 39.8 47.8 File hosting service in personal
life
186 10.8 2.2 17.7 46.8 22.6
Table 4.6 shows participants’ reported use of Web 2.0 tools in their personal lives. Of the applications considered, social networking sites were the Web 2.0 technology most commonly used by the participants (81.7% of the participants reported daily or weekly use).
More than 60% of participants reported daily or weekly use of the other Web tools.
4.2.7 Teachers’ use of Web 2.0 tools in their professional practice
Table 4.7 summarises the participants’ proficiencies using different Web 2.0 tools in teaching and learning.
92
Table 4.7: Frequency of teachers’ use of Web 2.0 tools in their professional practice
Scores in percentage
N Never At least
once a year
At least once a month
At least once a week
Every day
Web log in professional practice
186 30.6 5.9 21.0 28.5 14.0
Wiki in professional practice 186 15.6 3.8 19.9 41.9 18.8 Networking in professional
practice
186 36.6 3.2 14.5 24.7 21.0
Google Apps in professional practice
186 15.1 8.1 18.3 27.4 31.2
Multimedia in professional practice
186 20.4 6.5 14.5 37.1 21.5
File hosting service in professional practice
186 30.6 4.3 14.0 36.0 15.1
Table 4.7 shows the participants’ reported use of Web 2.0 tools in their professional practice. Of the applications considered, use of Wikis was the Web 2.0 technology most commonly used by the participants (60.7% of the participants reported daily or weekly use).
More than 58.6% of the participants reported daily or weekly use of Google Apps and Multimedia). Almost one-third of the number of the participants did not use other Web 2.0 services for their professional practice (30.6% of the participants reported not using file hosting services and 36.6% not using social networking).
4.2.8 Teachers’ perceptions towards use of Web 2.0 tools in teaching
93
Part D of the survey instrument requested the participants to show their level of agreement or disagreement with five-point Likert Scale statements regarding the use of Web 2.0 tools for teaching and learning.
The descriptive statistics regarding teachers’ perceptions towards use of Web 2.0 tools in teaching are depicted in Table 4.8. For the first four items 78.5% to 85.5% of the participants strongly agreed or agreed with the stated usefulness of Web 2.0 technologies in teaching. For items 5, 6, 7 and 8, responses were somewhat lower, with only 54.3% to 67.2% of the participants indicating strong agreement or agreement. For items 9,10,11,12 and 13 responses were quite high, with 64.5% to 73.1% indicating strong agreement or agreement about their self-efficacy beliefs about use of Web 2.0 tools.
Table 4.8: Teachers’ perceptions towards use of Web 2.0 tools in teaching (percentages)
Teachers' perceptions
N Strongly
Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree
Strongly agree
Web 2.0 tools help me teach my
subject area 186 1.1 3.8 16.7 53.8 24.7
Using Web 2.0 tools in teaching will
enable me to accomplish tasks 186 1.1 4.3 12.9 61.8 19.9
Web 2.0 useful in my teaching 186 0 2.2 12.4 60.2 25.3
Using Web 2.0 tools will enhance my
efficiency as a teacher 186 0 1.6 19.9 52.7 25.8
Web 2.0 tools will reduce my
workload 186 2.2 13.4 30.1 38.7 15.6
Using Web 2.0 tools I can interact
with my students 186 2.2 4.8 25.8 50.5 16.7
Web 2.0 tools will enable me teach
at my pace 186 2.7 10.2 30.1 46.8 10.2
Web 2.0 tools will provide me the flexibility to teach anytime, from any place
186 .5 8.1 24.7 47.8 18.8
I find it easy to get Web 2.0 tools to
do what I want 186 3.2 8.1 24.2 51.6 12.9
94
It is easy for me to become
competent at using Web 2.0 tools 186 2.7 5.9 23.7 53.8 14.0
I find Web 2.0 tools easy to use 186 1.1 7.0 18.8 54.8 18.3
My interaction with Web 2.0 tools is
clear and understandable 186 .5 7.0 22.0 55.4 15.1
I possess the skills necessary to use
Web 2.0 tools 186 1.1 10.8 21.5 52.2 14.5
Web 2.0 tools help me teach my
subject area 186 1.1 3.8 16.7 53.8 24.7
Using Web 2.0 tools in teaching will
enable me to accomplish tasks 186 1.1 4.3 12.9 61.8 19.9
4.3 Influence of teachers’ expertise on intention to use Web 2.0 tools