The Study on Teachers' Motivation Towards Integration of ICT-Based Tools in the Teaching-Learning Process in Key Stage 2

Integration of information and communication technology (ICT) is widely promoted as a route to learner-centered pedagogy, differentiated instruction, and richer formative assessment. However, policy investments in infrastructure and training do not automatically translate into sustained classroom integration. This manuscript reports a sequential exploratory mixed-methods study that examines Key Stage 2 (KS2) teachers’ motivation to integrate ICT-based tools (ICT-BT) within the teaching-learning process in Sri Lanka. The study is theoretically grounded in Self-Determination Theory (SDT) [1], Technology Acceptance Model constructs (TAM)[2], and the unified acceptance-and-use tradition (UTAUT) [3], which together explain how autonomy, competence, relatedness, perceived usefulness (PU), perceived ease of use (PEOU), social influence, and facilitating conditions shape teachers’ willingness and persistence. Phase 1 uses semi-structured interviews to elicit contextualized motivational narratives and to map barriers and enablers in KS2 classrooms; Phase 2 applies a survey to test directional relationships among intrinsic/extrinsic motivation, PU/PEOU, barriers, and reported ICT-BT integration. The participant group includes 44 KS2 teachers from 10 schools in Colombo South Zonal Education. To ensure immediate usability, the manuscript includes print-ready result tables and reporting structures so the author can insert computed statistics from SPSS or equivalent software. The discussion synthesizes theoretical and empirical insights to derive actionable implications for professional development, school leadership, and resource provision to sustain ICT integration at primary level.

teacher motivation, ICT integration, Key Stage 2, Self-Determination Theory

1. R. M. Ryan and E. L. Deci, “Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being,” American Psychologist, vol. 55, no. 1, pp. 68–78, 2000. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. F. D. Davis, “Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology,” MIS Quarterly, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 319–340, 1989, doi: 10.2307/249008. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. V. Venkatesh, M. G. Morris, G. B. Davis, and F. D. Davis, “User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view,” MIS Quarterly, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 425–478, 2003. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. K. F. Hew and T. Brush, “Integrating technology into K-12 teaching and learning: Current knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research,” Educational Technology Research and Development, vol. 55, pp. 223–252, 2007, doi: 10.1007/s11423-006-9022-5. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. OECD, Students, Computers and Learning: Making the Connection. Paris, France: OECD Publishing, 2015. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. F. A. Inan and D. L. Lowther, “Factors affecting technology integration in K-12 classrooms: A path model,” Educational Technology Research and Development, vol. 58, no. 2, pp. 137–154, 2010. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. M. Tschannen-Moran and A. W. Hoy, “Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct,” Teaching and Teacher Education, vol. 17, no. 7, pp. 783–805, 2001. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. R. M. Ryan and E. L. Deci, “Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation from a self-determination theory perspective: Definitions, theory, practices, and future directions,” Contemporary Educational Psychology, vol. 61, 101860, 2020. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. A. Bandura, Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York, NY, USA: Freeman, 1997. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. E. C. Eccles and A. Wigfield, “Motivational beliefs, values, and goals,” Annual Review of Psychology, vol. 53, pp. 109–132, 2002. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. M. Fullan, The New Meaning of Educational Change, 4th ed. New York, NY, USA: Teachers College Press, 2007. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. J. Tondeur, R. Scherer, E. Baran, F. Siddiq, T. Valtonen, and E. Sointu, “Teacher educators as gatekeepers: Preparing the next generation of teachers for technology integration,” British Journal of Educational Technology, vol. 50, no. 3, pp. 1189–1209, 2019. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. R. Scherer, F. Siddiq, and J. Tondeur, “All the same or different? Revisiting the role of ICT attitudes and ICT self-efficacy in teachers’ technology integration,” Computers & Education, vol. 168, 104202, 2021. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. P. A. Ertmer, “Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for technology integration?,” Educational Technology Research and Development, vol. 53, no. 4, pp. 25–39, 2005. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. P. A. Ertmer and A. Ottenbreit-Leftwich, “Teacher technology change: How knowledge, confidence, beliefs, and culture intersect,” Journal of Research on Technology in Education, vol. 42, no. 3, pp. 255–284, 2010. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. E. J. Kim, J. Kim, and (add exact), “Teachers’ technology use and motivation,” 2013. [Replace with thesis-selected source.] [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. D. L. Lowther, J. D. Inan, D. Strahl, and S. Ross, “Does technology integration ‘work’ when key barriers are removed?,” Educational Media International, 2008. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. M. Valcke, J. Tondeur, and (add exact), “ICT integration predictors in primary schools,” 2007. [Replace with thesis-selected source.] [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. F. Wijnen et al., “Primary school teachers’ attitudes toward technology use in education: A systematic review,” Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 2023. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. T. Teo, “Modelling technology acceptance in education: A study of pre-service teachers,” Computers & Education, 2011. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. J. Hattie, Visible Learning: A Synthesis of Over 800 Meta-Analyses Relating to Achievement. London, UK: Routledge, 2009. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. J. Creswell and V. Plano Clark, Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research, 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Sage, 2017. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. V. Braun and V. Clarke, “Using thematic analysis in psychology,” Qualitative Research in Psychology, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 77–101, 2006. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. N. K. Denzin, “The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods,” 1978. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. S. Mishra and M. Koehler, “Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge,” Teachers College Record, 2006. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. UNESCO, “ICT in education policy and planning,” UNESCO, 2019. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. World Bank, “World Development Report: Digital Dividends,” World Bank, 2016. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. (Sri Lanka Ministry of Education), “National policy or circular on ICT in education,” Sri Lanka MOE, [Year]. [Replace with exact local document.] [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. A. Alharbi, “ICT integration and student-centered learning,” 2021. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. A. Yusuf and M. Balogun, “ICT tools for engagement and productivity in classrooms,” 2022. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. L. Márquez-Baldó et al., “Attitude toward ICT integration for teachers: Validation of a scale,” Heliyon, 2025. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. H. Buschmann et al., “Elementary teachers’ lived experiences with classroom technology integration,” Journal of Digital Education and Technology, 2025. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. (Insert study cited: Georgiou et al., enhanced TAM for primary teachers), 2023. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. (Insert study cited: Stumbrienė et al., primary teachers motivation), 2023. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. (Insert study cited: Binti Mohd et al., Malaysia PAK-21 obstacles), 2024. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. (Insert study cited: Chiu et al., longitudinal motivation gaps), 2024. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. G. Salomon, “The computer as a tool and as a social actor,” 1990. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. S. Papert, Mindstorms: Children, Computers, and Powerful Ideas. New York, NY, USA: Basic Books, 1980. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

39. B. Means, “Technology and education change,” 2010. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Administrative Support as a Predictor of Teacher Retention and Organizational Commitment: A Case Study of Junior High Teachers
• No Place for Play-Ful Learning in Higher Education: An Interdisciplinary Critical Evaluation (2015–2025)
• Unmasking Colonial Legacies in Zambian Education: A Philosophical and Historical Critique of the Secondary School Curriculum
• Improving Students' Collaboration and Communication Skills through Project-Based Digital Learning in Plantation and Herbal
• Public Primary School Teacher Preparedness on CBC Adoption in Township Ward, Garissa County, Kenya