Alignment of conceptual framework constructs with instrument measures
| Conceptual framework construct | Instrument section and method | Description of measurement |
|---|---|---|
| Educator profile | Part 1: Demographics | Direct questions collected data on the primary predictor (training modality by cohort), along with age and years of ECE experience |
| Actual use of technology | Part 2: Technology Use (Conditional Logic) | A multiple-choice, multiple-response question measured the type of technology (e.g. GenAI chatbots, AR/VR, IoT) used. Conditional questions then measured the frequency of use and the specific purpose for which it was used (e.g. lesson planning) |
| Perceptual factors | Part 2: Perceptions and Attitudes | |
| • Perceived usefulness (PU) | • 13-item, 6-point Likert scale | Assessed perceived benefits across various pedagogical domains (e.g. “Enhances student classroom engagement”) |
| • Perceived ease of use (PEOU) | • 11-point scale (from 0 to 10) and multiple-choice | Measured the “perceived ease of integrating” technology. Also captured via the “challenges” question (e.g. “Complexity and difficulty”) |
| • Self-perceived competence | • 11-point scale (from 0 to 10) | Measured participants' “self-assessed proficiency” with emerging technologies |
| Facilitating conditions | Part 2: Support and Challenges | Direct questions asked if participants had received training and felt supported by their institutions. A multiple-choice question identified key challenges (e.g. “Lack of time,” “Lack of resources”) |
| Qualitative insights | Part 3: Open-ended Question | A single open-ended question invited “any other comments or suggestions,” providing rich qualitative data to add context and depth to all constructs in the framework |
| Conceptual framework construct | Instrument section and method | Description of measurement |
|---|---|---|
| Educator profile | Part 1: Demographics | Direct questions collected data on the primary predictor (training modality by cohort), along with age and years of ECE experience |
| Actual use of technology | Part 2: Technology Use (Conditional Logic) | A multiple-choice, multiple-response question measured the type of technology (e.g. GenAI chatbots, AR/VR, IoT) used. Conditional questions then measured the frequency of use and the specific purpose for which it was used (e.g. lesson planning) |
| Perceptual factors | Part 2: Perceptions and Attitudes | |
| • Perceived usefulness (PU) | • 13-item, 6-point Likert scale | Assessed perceived benefits across various pedagogical domains (e.g. “Enhances student classroom engagement”) |
| • Perceived ease of use (PEOU) | • 11-point scale (from 0 to 10) and multiple-choice | Measured the “perceived ease of integrating” technology. Also captured via the “challenges” question (e.g. “Complexity and difficulty”) |
| • Self-perceived competence | • 11-point scale (from 0 to 10) | Measured participants' “self-assessed proficiency” with emerging technologies |
| Facilitating conditions | Part 2: Support and Challenges | Direct questions asked if participants had received training and felt supported by their institutions. A multiple-choice question identified key challenges (e.g. “Lack of time,” “Lack of resources”) |
| Qualitative insights | Part 3: Open-ended Question | A single open-ended question invited “any other comments or suggestions,” providing rich qualitative data to add context and depth to all constructs in the framework |
Sharing content requires targeting cookies to be enabled. Please update your cookie preferences to use this feature.