Teacher technology-related motivation varies substantially across lessons, with 60-70% of variance attributed to instructional context¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associational r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2021 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person · recheck by 2026: baselines and conditions change

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Approximately 30% of variance in technology-related motivation is explained by stable teacher traits, while 60-70% is determined by specific instructional contexts of different lessons. → Backfisch 2021

Evidence¶

Backfisch 2021¶

Backfisch, I., Lachner, A., Stürmer, K., & Scheiter, K. (2021). Variability of teachers’ technology integration in the classroom: A matter of utility!. Computers & Education, 166, 104159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104159

q2 · i? · associational · r2

Variance component analysis of experience sampling data from 18 in-service teachers over six weeks found that most variance in technology-related motivation was attributable to lesson-specific instructional context rather than stable traits. The article reports that "approximately 30% of the motivation could be explained by stable traits, 60 - 70% were determined by specific instructional contexts".

"Even though, approximately 30% of the motivation could be explained by stable traits, 60 - 70% were determined by specific instructional contexts of the different lessons."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Quality of technology integration varies substantially across lessons, with most variance unexplained by teacher traits or time course — related
• 30%-40% of true variance in each parent-child outcome was trait-like, while 60%-70% fluctuated situationally across time points — related
• Most variance in students' epistemic emotions was situational (within-person) fluctuation, with 18–37% due to between-person variability. — related