ICoME2013

The Analysis on Primary School Teachers' Attitudes towards E-Schoolbag

Feng-Kuang Chiang, Xiong Ying
School of Educational Technology, Faculty of Education. Beijing Normal University, China
fkchiang@bnu.edu.cn
Abstract: This study focuses on elementary school teachers' perceptions of and attitudes towards the use of the E-Schoolbag for
instruction. We analyzed and collected instructional problems based on the results of focus-group interviews with teachers. In
addition, a questionnaire and focus-group interviews were implemented in order to better understand teachers’ attitudes towards
using E-Schoolbag. It has been found that there are some problems with teachers using E-Schoolbag for classroom-instruction, i.e.
problems of instruction and teachers' perception. Problems of instruction refer to such issues as information technology literacy,
academic teaching, classroom management and lesson planning, and instructional design.
The teachers participating in the pilot program includes the adaption of new technology and new teaching mode as well as thesuspicion of the pilot effect. The results of the questionnaire show that the teachers have the highest degree of satisfaction for
E-Schoolbag management at the school and the lowest for resources and functions of E-Schoolbag. Besides, we analyze such factors
as gender, subjects and teaching age and found that the male teachers obtained higher expectations in the education system andmanagement of school, since it is expected that E-Schoolbag should have more functions to meet their needs, while younger teachers
pay more attention to the pilot. Through this study, we hope to provide a reference to the schools or teachers who plan to use
E-Schoolbag for instruction in the future.

Keywords: E-Schoolbag, teachers' attitudes

1. Introduction
Traditional examination-oriented education system leads to heavier students’ schoolbags and higher learningpressure. The school, teachers, parents and students are desirable to reduce the weight of schoolbag during study. In thiscontext, scholars begin to explore how to use e-learning materials and technology media tools to replace traditional
textbooks and schoolbags. We all know that Technology equipment and mobile carrier in classroom instruction andtraining institutions have begun around the world. Previous studies have also pointed out that after being trained would
help produce effect in the environment of instruction, and E-Schoolbag would promote the quality of teaching (Schmid,
2008; Hennessy et al, 2007). With the constant construct of the electronic resources and development of information
technology, based on the use of E-Schoolbag, a series of reform and exploration in teaching in future is launched. The
definition of E-Schoolbag has not yet made an agreement. Scholars think that E-Schoolbag is a kind of interaction andcommunication tools to promote the teaching efficiency. Its core is the design of electronic teaching materials.
E-Schoolbag is not only a kind of teaching tools, but it also should be equal to the teaching subject to build theubiquitous learning platform. At the same time its instruction can adjust structure through automatic tracking andlearning, so as to provide personalized learning for students (Zhu, 2011; Li, 2012; Ling, 2012). E-Schoolbag does not
simply the electronic teaching materials, but an integration of new technology and teaching resource. So teachers shouldhave new educational ideas and the systematic instructional design abilities. The occasions of using E-Schoolbag arediversified in the education environment, including traditional classroom teaching, outdoor learning, and after-school
tutoring, remedial outdoor learning, teaching and distance education, etc., which all can expand the essential barriers of
the teaching and learning (Lai, 2003). In the past, there were studies related to E-Schoolbag, such as electronic systemdesign and construction (Chang & Sheu, 2002), the comparison between the different carriers of

E-Schoolbag

ICoME2013(Alvarez et al, 2011; Chabert, et al, 2006), development and design of E-Schoolbag system (Simon et al, 2004), theexploration of teaching application mode, the instructional design of using E-Schoolbag (Siozos et al, 2009), but rarely
for teachers' Attitude towards the use of the E-Schoolbag for instruction. This study wants to find out teachers' attitudes
towards the use of the E-Schoolbag for instruction through the focus-group interviews so as to facilitate the follow-up
development of E-Schoolbag subject.

2. Research methods
2.1. Research design
34 teachers from the subjects of literature, mathematic, English and science of four primary schools in Longgang
District of Shenzhen participate in the pilot. During the period from April to June in 2012, the teachers had teaching andtechnical training, seminars, Analog on-line and retraining. During September 2012 to January 2013, E-Schoolbag wasapplied into classroom teaching. Before the beginning of the semester, the pilot teachers had two special trainings andfocus-group interviews. The training mainly covered how to use E-Schoolbag, classroom management, ideas andinnovation in teaching. This study implemented the focus-group interviews three times and concentrated on teachers’
attitudes towards the pilot of E-Schoolbag and the problems they confronted in the pilot teaching.
2.2 Qualitative Data collection
This study adopts the focus-group interviews to collect the attitude of teachers who use the E-Schoolbag for
instruction. Researchers designed the outlines of the three focus-group interviews based on the status of different stages
so as to obtain the corresponding information. The whole process of the focus-group interviews use recorded audio andvideo and transcribed and coded the conception of teachers into transcripts. At last, this study made the transcripts into
the concept map and analyzes the factors of it.
2.3 Quantitative Survey tool
The items in the questionnaire were designed to represent the concepts identified in the concept factors of twice
teachers’ group interviews. The questionnaire contained three parts. Part 1 of the survey instrument consisted ofbackground information. Part 2 of the survey instrument consisted of 33 questions which are divided into seven factors
as follows: educational system, management of school, teachers’ professional development, classroom teaching,
students' learning, restriction on use, function and recourse of E-Schoolbag. Each factor was evaluated using a 5-point
Likert-type scale; 5 strongly agree; 4 agree, 3 neutral, 2 disagree, 1 strongly disagree. Part 3 of the survey instrument
consisted of four open-ended questions exploring teachers’ thought about integrating E-schoolbag into instruction.
SPSS 18.0 was used for quantitative data. In addition, Likert-style five-point scale is implemented in final-term tosurvey the overall attitude of teachers. SPSS will be used to analyze the differences.

3. Findings
3.1. Qualitative analysis
Through information of two focuses, researchers summarize the corresponding problems that pilot teachers apply
E-Schoolbag to the classroom teaching, and find the following six dimensions: the current education system, schools,
teachers, students, paterfamilias and electronic resources and functions. Pilot teachers raise two issues for their own
using E-Schoolbag to teach. The first is the problem of teaching. E-Schoolbag requires the pilot teachers with higher
teaching information literacy, information operations capability, teachers using the E-Schoolbag to give lessons,classroom teaching and classroom management. The vast majority of pilot teachers reflect their own information
technology literacy is not enough, and can’t control the class with such new type of high-tech educational products likethe e-book package. In addition, some pilot teachers need to face E-Schoolbag classes and traditional classes at thesame time. They need to prepare two kinds of courses, which will undoubtedly increase the preparation time, adds extra

ICoME2013
workload of teachers. The second is the teacher mentality. There are concerns that the pilot teachers need to adapt to
new technology and new teaching mode. Through the two times of the focus-group interviews, the researchers foundthat the attitude of the teachers towards the application of new technology is divided into three emotional reactions, likepositive, negative, and mixed. In addition, teachers also point out the problems of the new teaching model, including
work and life stress, the increases of students’ achievement in the pilot class, the hinder of traditional teaching inertia
etc. These all make teachers increase the psychological pressure virtually.
3.2. Questionnaire analysis
3.2.1The overall analysis
The researchers design the questionnaire based on the conception map from seven dimensions as below: education
system, school management, teachers’ professional development, classroom teaching, student learning, restrictions onuse, function and recourse of E-Schoolbag. Total are 15 teachers who filled out the questionnaire; there are 6 males and9 females. Results are shown as below.
Table 1. The average of overall
Factors

Education

Management

Teachers

Classroom

Students’

Restriction

Function

systemof school

professional

teaching

learning

on useand recourse

developmentof
E-Schoolbag

MEAN

3.19

3.52

3.47

3.39

3.30

3.29

3.06

SD

0.65

1.27

0.90

0.82

0.82

1.14

1.42

From the table 1, we know the management of school has the highest score (M=3.52). Therefore, the school has agood strategy for the management of E-Schoolbag, leaders’ high approval of pilot class and full communication withparents, and evaluates the pilot class with diversified assessment. The second highest score is the score of teachers
processional development (M=3.47). In general, E-Schoolbag can improve the information literacy of teachers, promote
the integration of information technology and subject teaching, and make the teachers have a positive attitude. The
lowest score is the function of E-Schoolbag (M=3.06). Therefore, we think the functions of E-Schoolbag for instructionneed be completed.
3.2.2 Analysis between genders
Researchers analyze the factors like the gender, subject, and teaching age as follows. From the table 2, the female’s
attitudes all are lower than male teachers. In addition, we take the U-test to analyze different between genders.
According to the table 3, males are higher in classroom teaching and students’ learning, and the difference between
them is significant difference. It seems that females are more critical in the education system and management of school,or they have higher expectations. The male teachers have higher satisfied and positive thinking for above these factors,
especially in classroom teaching and student learning. Male teachers usually can accept new technology tools easierthan female based on our observation.
Table 2. The gender
Teachers

Education

Management

Teachers

Classroom

Students’

Restriction

Function

systemof school

professional

teaching

learning

on useand recourse

developmentof
E-Schoolbag

MEAN

Male

3.39

3.75

3.63

3.89

3.65

3.37

3.11

ICoME2013
Female

3.04

3.36

3.36

3.06

3.06

3.24

3.02

Table 3. The U-test of gender
Factors

Mann-Whitney U Wilcoxon W

Z

Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)

Exact Sig. [2*(1-tailed Sig.)]

Education system

16.5

52.5

-0.979

0.328

.345a

Management of school

15

60-1.432

0.152

.181a

20

65

-0.847

0.397

.456a

Classroom teaching

5

50

-2.6

0.009**.008a

Students’ learning

853-2.2590.024**.026a

Restriction on use

24

69-0.355

0.723

.776a

23

68

-0.473

0.636

.689a

Teachers professional
development

Function and recourseof E-Schoolbag

3.2.3 Analysis between different subjects
Researchers divided all teachers into Liberal arts (Literal, English) teachers and Science teachers (Mathematics,
Science). According to the table 4, we can see that liberal arts have higher attitudes in classroom teaching, students’learning and restriction on use, and function and recourse; however, they don’t have significant difference with Scienceteachers based on the table 5. Science teachers have higher attitudes in education system, management of school, andteachers’ professional development, than in instruction.
Table 4. The Mean between Liberal and Science teachers
Teachers

EducatioManagement

Teachers

Classroom

Students’

Restriction

Functionn systemof school

professional

teaching

learning

on useanddevelopment
Liberal
MEAN

arts
Sciencerecourse

3.13

2.95

3.24

3.63

3.44

3.80

3.20

3.22

3.80

3.64

3.27

3.21

3.04

2.98

Table 5. The U-test of subject
Mann-Whitney U Wilcoxon W

Z

Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Exact Sig. [2*(1-tailed Sig.)]

37-0.0670.946

1.000a30.5-1.178

0.239

.254a

professional
20.5
development

35.5-0.566

0.571

.594a

Classroom teaching

16.5

71.5

-1.044

0.297

.310a

Students’ learning

11.5

47.5

-1.262

0.207

.222a

Restriction on use

15

70-1.229

0.219

.254a

74.5

-0.676

0.499

.513a

Education system

22Management of school 15.5
Teachers

Function and recourse 19.5

3.2.3 Analysis among different teaching age

ICoME2013
Researchers divided all teachers into three groups, including 1-5 years, 6-15 years, and over 16 years teaching age.
According to the table 6, we find that over 16 years teachers have positive attitudes (total mean is 3.53), the 1-5 years
youngest teachers also have higher attitudes (total mean is 3.41), and they would like to accept new technology andinnovative instruction. However, the 6-15 years teachers have lowest attitudes (total mean is 3.09) towards using
E-schoolbag. That’s why 6-15 years teachers usually have themselves instructional design pattern.
In addition, in order to understand whether the teaching ages have significant difference or not, the Kruskal-Wallis
test was used to analyze these factors. According to the table 7, only the” restriction on use” has the significant
difference. 1-5 years younger teachers concerned about the negative effects of E-schoolbag’.
Table 6. The mean among different teaching age
Teaching

Education

Management

Teachers

Classroom

Students’

Restriction

Function

Total

age(year)systemof school

professional

teaching

learning

on useandMeandevelopment
MEAN

recourse

1-5

2.83

3.00

3.38

3.46

3.40

4.35

3.46

3.41

6-15

3.11

3.38

3.29

3.22

3.07

2.77

2.78

3.09

≥16

3.64

4.10

3.75

3.53

3.52

3.08

3.07

3.53

Table 7. The Kruskal-Wallis test of the teaching age
Education

Management

Teachers

Classroom

Students’

Restriction

Function

systemof school

professional

teaching

learning

on useanddevelopment
Chi-Squaredf
Asymp. Sig.

recourse

2.845

2.006

2.279

.785

1.894

6.685

1.122

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

.241

.367

.320

.675

.388

.035**.571

4. Conclusion
Through the focus of pilot teachers, the researchers summarize the issues related to teachers using E-Schoolbag for
instruction. The six aspects include the current education system, schools, teachers, students, paterfamilias, andresources and functions of E-Schoolbag. Therefore, in the process of promoting E-Schoolbag pilot, the six categories
should be noticed and considered by education-related institutes and polices. The results of the questionnaire reveal thatthe management of school is the positive attitudes in all these factors; the function and recourse of E-Schoolbag need to
be improved in the future. Female teachers’ attitudes are lower than male teachers toward using E-schoolbag. The maleteachers are more likely to accept new instructional tools and teaching methods. Science teachers hope that
E-Schoolbag should have more functions to meet their need. Moreover, younger teachers need more care for theirconcern about achievement of students and lack of experience.

References
Alvarez, C., Brown, C., & Nussbaum, M. (2011). Comparative study of netbooks and tablet PCs for fosteringface-to-face collaborative learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(2), 834-844.

ICoME2013
Chang, C. Y., & Sheu, J. P. (2002). Design and implementation of ad hoc classroom and eSchoolbag systems for
ubiquitous learning. IEEE international workshop on wireless and mobile technologies in education proceedings, 8-14.
Chabert, G., Marty, J. C., Caron, B., Carron, T., Vignollet, L., & Ferraris, C. (2006). The Electronic Schoolbag, a
CSCW workspace: presentation and evaluation. AI & Society, 20(3), 403-419.
Hennessy, S., Deaney, R., Ruthven, K., & Winterbottom, M. (2007). Pedagogical strategies for using theinteractive whiteboard to foster learner participation in school science. Learning, Media and Technology, 32, 283-301.
Li, Y. X. (2012).The effect E-Schoolbag project makes to teaching methods. Research and Review on Education, 6.

86-87.
Ling, Q. H. (2012)."Carrying" an E-Schoolbag to school: Looking to the future education and build E-Schoolbag
together. Information Technology Education of China, 3. 5-7.
Lai, Y. J. (2003). The System View Study on The User Need of Electronic Schoolbags: The Case of Taipei
Municipal Ta-Tung Senior High School. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Taipei University of Education, Taipei,
Taiwan.
Schmid, E. C. (2008). Potential pedagogical benefits and drawbacks of multimedia use in the English language
classroom equipped with interactive whiteboard technology. Journal of Computers and Education, 51, 1553-1568.
Siozos, P., Palaigeorgiou, G., Triantafyllakos, G, & Despotakis, T. (2009). Computer based testing using "digitalink": Participatory design of a Tablet PC based assessment application for secondary education. Computers &Education, 52(4) , 811-819.
Simon, B., Anderson, R., Hoyer, C., & Su, J. (2004). Preliminary Experiences with a Tablet PC Based System toSupport Active Learning in Computer Science Courses. Proceedings of the 9th annual SIGCSE conference on
Innovation and technology in computer science education, 213 - 217.
Zhu Z. (2011).New technical means forces learning styles to change - Professor Zhu Zhiting from East China
Normal University talks about E-Schoolbag. Information technology education in primary and secondary schools, 2,
9-10.