Challenges of Technology Integration among Primary School Design and Technology (RBT) Teachers in Malaysia: A Qualitative Exploration

This study investigates the challenges met by primary school Design and Technology (RBT) teachers in Malaysia during the early stages of integrating technology into teaching and learning practices. Although digital transformation has become an essential priority within contemporary education, the practical implementation of technology integration in primary classrooms remains uneven. Using an exploratory qualitative approach, semi-structured interviews were conducted with five RBT teachers in the Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur to gain deeper insight into their professional experiences. The findings reveal that technology integration is influenced by multiple interconnected factors, including limited school support systems, insufficient infrastructure and teaching resources, restricted opportunities for practical professional development, and varying levels of teacher motivation and self-confidence. Teacher motivation was found to be closely shaped by the degree of recognition, autonomy, and organisational support provided within the school environment. In particular, non-option teachers frequently depended on self-initiated learning and collegial support to manage instructional expectations. The study demonstrates that the barriers to effective technology integration extend beyond technical limitations alone and are deeply connected to broader organisational and psychological conditions. These findings provide valuable insights into the real challenges experienced by RBT teachers while creating an important foundation for future initiatives to strengthen school support systems, enhance teacher competency, and promote sustainable technology integration practices within Malaysian primary education.

Technology Integration, Design and Technology (RBT), Qualitative Inquiry, School Support Systems, Teacher Motivation

1. Abdullah, A. S., et al. (2020). Teachers’ motivation factors in Malaysian public universities. Pertanika Journal of Social Sciences & Humanities, 28(3), 2231–2248. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Admiraal, W., et al. (2017). Preparing preservice teachers for digital media use. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 26(1), 1–15. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Amadieu, F., Mulet, J., van der Linden, J., Lombard, J., & van de Leemput, C. (2019). Acceptabilité des technologies d’apprentissage mobile : Le cas des tablettes. Éducation Permanente, 219(2), 31–40. https://doi.org/10.3917/edpe.219.0031 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Bandura, A. (2002). Growing primacy of human agency in adaptation and change in the electronic era. European Psychologist, 7(1), 2–16. https://doi.org/10.1027//1016-9040.7.1.2 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Chai, C. S., Koh, J. H. L., & Tsai, C. C. (2013). A review of technological pedagogical content knowledge. Educational Research Review, 9, 99–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2012.11.001 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Chua, J. H., & Jamil, H. (2012). TPACK among Malaysian TVET instructors. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 69, 1534–1542. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.12.096 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Creswell, J. W. (2016). 30 essential skills for the qualitative researcher. SAGE Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). SAGE Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Ertmer, P. A. (1999). Addressing first- and second-order barriers to change: Strategies for technology integration. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(4), 47–61. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T. (2010). Teacher technology change: Knowledge, beliefs, and culture. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(3), 255–284. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2010.10782551 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Fullan, M. (2020). Learning and the pandemic: What’s next? Prospects, 49(1–2), 25–28. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11125-020-09502-0 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Granić, A., & Marangunić, N. (2022). Educational technology adoption: A systematic review. Education and Information Technologies, 27, 1883–1910. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Handayani, S., Hussin, M., & Norman, H. (2023). Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. model in teaching: A review and bibliometric analysis. Pegem Journal of Education and Instruction. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Hudin, S. S. (2023). A systematic review of the challenges in teaching programming for primary school students. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Online Journal for TVET Practitioners, 8(1), 75–88. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Ismail, S. N., Omar, M. N., Don, Y., Purnomo, Y. W., & Kasa, M. D..(2022) teachers’ acceptance of mobile technology use towards innovative teaching in malaysian secondary schools. International Journal of [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Evaluation and Research in Education. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Ivy Ting Wei Wei, & Aidah Abdul Karim. (2024). Development and evaluation of Let’s Explore Micro:bit (LEM) module for design and technology teachers in primary schools. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 14(8), 356–370. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Kamble, A. (2022). Technology acceptance for online teaching-learning. Interactive Learning Environments. https://doi.org/10.1080/09523987.2022.2153989 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Li, M., & Li, B.(2024). unravelling the dynamics of technology integration in mathematics education: a structural equation modelling analysis of tpack components. Education and Information Technologies. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. SAGE Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Mello, S., & Matthee, M. (2019). Implementation of electronic textbooks in secondary schools: What teachers [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. need. In Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Mobile Learning 2019 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Ministry of Education Malaysia. (2017). Curriculum and Assessment Standard Document (DSKP) KSSR (Revised 2017) Design and Technology Year 4. Ministry of Education Malaysia. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Ministry of Education Malaysia. (2017). Curriculum and Assessment Standard Document (DSKP) KSSR (Revised 2017) Design and Technology Year 5. Ministry of Education Malaysia [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Ministry of Education Malaysia. (2017). Curriculum and Assessment Standard Document (DSKP) KSSR (Revised 2017) Design and Technology Year 6. Ministry of Education Malaysia [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Ministry of Education Malaysia. (2023). Digital Education Policy. Ministry of Education Malaysia. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. Ministry of Education. (2022). Laporan sesi libat urus pemurnian kurikulum (MOBIM) KSSR [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. Semakan 2017. Bahagian Pembangunan Kurikulum. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. Nasir, A., Zaini, S. H., & Jamaluddin, A. (2024). Kepentingan sokongan mempengaruhi implimentasi integrasi teknologi digital di sekolah: Tinjauan sistematik literatur. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. Nowell, L. S., Norris, J. M., White, D. E., & Moules, N. J. (2017). Thematic analysis: Striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16(1), 1–13. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

39. Papagiannopoulou, T., et al. (2025). Teachers’ readiness to implement robotics in education. Behaviors, 15(9), 895–910. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

40. Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice (4th ed.). SAGE Publication [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

41. Razak, N. A., Rasli, R. M., Subhan, S., Ahmad, N. A., & Malik, S. (2023). Systematic review on digital transformation among teachers in public schools. International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education, 12(2), 1059–1078. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

42. Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2010). Teacher self-efficacy and motivation for teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(6), 1059–1069 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

43. Tondeur, J., et al. (2018). Enhancing future teachers’ competencies for technology integration in education. Seminar.net, 14(2). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

44. UNESCO. (2022). Technology in education: A case study on Malaysia. UNESCO. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

45. Urhahne, D., Wijnia, L. Theories of Motivation in Education: an Integrative Framework. Educ Psychol Rev 35, 45 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-023-09767-9 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

46. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

47. Venkatesh, V., Thong, J. Y. L., & Xu, X. (2012). Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

48. Extending the UTAUT model. Decision Support Systems, 53(3), 519–532. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

49. Willermark, S. (2018). Technological Pedagogical and Content Knowledge: A Review of Empirical Studies Published From 2011 to 2016. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 56(3), 315-343. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

50. Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research (2nd ed.). Sage Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

51. Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6th ed.). Sage Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

52. Yunus, H. M., Hussein, M. T., & Nasri, N. M. (2022). Technology integration analysis among TVET lecturers in Sarawak. Journal of Technical and Vocational Education Studies, 3(1), 15–26. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

53. Yusof, M. M., Jalil, H. A., & Perumal, T. (2023). Meneroka penggunaan pengaturcaraan berasaskan blok dalam projek robotik sekolah rendah. International Journal of Education and Training, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

54. Zakaria, S. A. S., & Osman, S. Z. M. (2024). Characterising the key elements affecting RBT teachers’ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

55. competence in TVET education in Penang. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Assessment of the Role of Artificial Intelligence in Repositioning TVET for Economic Development in Nigeria
• Teachers’ Use of Assure Model Instructional Design on Learners’ Problem Solving Efficacy in Secondary Schools in Bungoma County, Kenya
• “E-Booksan Ang Kaalaman”: Development, Validation, and Utilization of Electronic Book in Academic Performance of Grade 9 Students in Social Studies
• Analyzing EFL University Students’ Academic Speaking Skills Through Self-Recorded Video Presentation
• Major Findings of The Study on Total Quality Management in Teachers’ Education Institutions (TEIs) In Assam – An Evaluative Study