Abstract

This study addresses gaps in the literature by examining the relationships between teaching ability, smart education adoption, and K-12 educational outcomes. A questionnaire was administered to 350 Chinese school educators, and M Plus software was utilized for the analysis. The study investigates teaching ability's direct and mediated effects on student learning outcomes, teacher job satisfaction, self-efficacy, and the moderating role of teacher characteristics. The findings indicate that self-reported indicators measure student learning, teacher job satisfaction, and self-efficacy, revealing that effective teaching positively influences these outcomes. The integration of technology through smart education adoption further enhances education. Teacher characteristics are identified as moderators in these relationships, emphasizing the dependence of technology adoption and teaching ability on individual teachers. Implications for educators, administrators, and policymakers include the need for professional development in technology and teaching, investment in infrastructure for smart education, and personalized support for educators' diversity. This research challenges homogeneous teaching effectiveness theories and contributes to educator-specific frameworks, offering practical and theoretical insights for targeted interventions and future research in K-12 education.

Keywords

References

• Acar, F. (2023). Underlying reasons behind the achievement of successful university students: A phenomenological inquiry. Journal of Pedagogical Sociology and Psychology, 5(4), 68-81. https://doi.org/10.33902/jpsp.202313417
• Ajani, O. A. (2024). Exploring digital transformation and future trends in higher education development across African nations. Journal of Pedagogical Sociology and Psychology, 6(3), 34-48. https://doi.org/10.33902/jpsp.202427374
• Akendita, P. A., Arthur, Y. D., & Asare, B. (2024). Moderating effect of teacher efficacy on the relationship between students’ perception of mathematics and students’ mathematics achievement. International Journal of Didactical Studies. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.33902/ijods.202528932
• Akosah, E. F., Arthur, Y. D., & Obeng, B. A. (2024). Unveiling the nexus: Teachers’ self - efficacy on realistic mathematics education via structural equation modeling approach. International Journal of Didactical Studies. Advance online publication.
• Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88(3), 588-606. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.88.3.588
• Bollen, K. A. (1990). Overall fit in covariance structure models: Two types of sample size effects. Psychological Bulletin, 107(2), 256–259. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.256
• Chou, C. C., Block, L., & Jesness, R. (2012). A case study of mobile learning pilot project in K-12 schools. Journal of Educational Technology Development and Exchange, 5(2), 11–26. https://doi.org/10.18785/jetde.0502.02
• Coccoli, M., Guercio, A., Maresca, P., & Stanganelli, L. (2014). Smarter universities: A vision for the fast changing digital era. Journal of Visual Languages and Computing, 25(6), 1003–1011. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvlc.2014.09.007
• Fan, X., Thompson, B., & Wang, L. (1999). Document details - Effects of sample size, estimation methods, and model specification on structural equation modeling fit indexes. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 56-83. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540119
• Graham, C. R., Borup, J., Pulham, E., & Larsen, R. (2019). K–12 blended teaching readiness: Model and instrument development. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 51(3), 239–258. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2019.1586601
• Gresse von Wangenheim, C., Hauck, J. C. R., Pacheco, F. S., & Bertonceli Bueno, M. F. (2021). Visual tools for teaching machine learning in K-12: A ten-year systematic mapping. Education and Information Technologies, 26(5), 5415–5437. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10570-8
• Ha, C., & Lee, S.-Y. (2019). Elementary teachers’ beliefs and perspectives related to smart learning in South Korea. Smart Learning Environments, 6(1), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-019-0082-5
• Holstein, K., McLaren, B. M., & Aleven, V. (2017). Intelligent tutors as teachers’ aides: Exploring teacher needs for real-time analytics in blended classrooms. In A. Wise, P. H. Winne, & G. Lynch (Eds.), Proceedings of the Seventh International Learning Analytics & Knowledge Conference (pp. 257–266). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3027385.3027451
• Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1-55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
• Johnson, C. C., Walton, J. B., Strickler, L., & Elliott, J. B. (2023). Online teaching in K-12 education in the United States: A systematic review. Review of Educational Research, 93(3), 353–411. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543221105550
• Khlaif, Z. N., & Farid, S. (2018). Transforming learning for the smart learning paradigm: Lessons learned from the Palestinian initiative. Smart Learning Environments, 5(1), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-018-0059-9
• Khlaisang, J., Songkram, N., Huang, F., & Teo, T. (2023). Teachers’ perception of the use of mobile technologies with smart applications to enhance students’ thinking skills: A study among primary school teachers in Thailand. Interactive Learning Environments, 31(8), 5037–5058. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2021.1993933
• Khoza, H. C., & Makgata, T. I. (2024). Interaction of initiating prompts and the patterns of student engagement in higher education biology classrooms. Journal of Pedagogical Sociology and Psychology, 6(2), 64-77. https://doi.org/10.33902/jpsp.202426566
• Kim, H. J., & Jang, H. Y. (2020). Sustainable technology integration in underserved area schools: The impact of perceived student change on teacher continuance intention. Sustainability, 12(12), 4802. https://doi.org/10.3390/SU12124802
• MacCallum, R. C., & Hong, S. (1997). Power analysis in covariance structure modeling using GFI and AGFI. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 32(2), 193-210. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr3202_5
• Marsh, H. W., Balla, J. R., & McDonald, R. P. (1988). Goodness-of-fit indexes in confirmatory factor analysis: The effect of sample size. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 391-410. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.391
• Meccawy, M. (2023). Teachers’ prospective attitudes towards the adoption of extended reality technologies in the classroom: Interests and concerns. Smart Learning Environments, 10(1), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-023-00256-8
• Meiklejohn, J., Phillips, C., Freedman, M. L., Griffin, M. L., Biegel, G., Roach, A., Frank, J., Burke, C., Pinger, L., Soloway, G., Isberg, R., Sibinga, E., Grossman, L., & Saltzman, A. (2012). Integrating mindfulness training into K-12 education: Fostering the resilience of teachers and students. Mindfulness, 3(4), 291–307. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-012-0094-5
• Morgado, J. C., Lencastre, J. A., Freires, T., & Bento, M. (2021). Smart education as empowerment: Outlining veteran teachers’ training to promote digital migration. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 26(4), 897–916. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-021-09494-6
• Murphy, R. (2019). Artificial intelligence applications to support K–12 teachers and teaching: A review of promising applications, challenges, and risks. Rand Corporation. https://doi.org/10.7249/pe315
• Papanastasiou, G., Drigas, A., Skianis, C., Lytras, M., & Papanastasiou, E. (2019). Virtual and augmented reality effects on K-12, higher and tertiary education students’ twenty-first century skills. Virtual Reality, 23(4), 425–436. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10055-018-0363-2
• Saxton, E., Burns, R., Holveck, S., Kelley, S., Prince, D., Rigelman, N., & Skinner, E. A. (2014). A common measurement system for K-12 STEM education: Adopting an educational evaluation methodology that elevates theoretical foundations and systems thinking. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 40, 18–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2013.11.005
• Schumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (2004). A beginner's guide to structural equation modeling. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Su, J., Zhong, Y., & Ng, D. T. K. (2022). A meta-review of literature on educational approaches for teaching AI at the K-12 levels in the Asia-Pacific region. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 3, 100065. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2022.100065
• Tang, H., Lin, Y. J., & Qian, Y. (2021). Improving K-12 teachers’ acceptance of open educational resources by open educational practices: A mixed methods inquiry. Educational Technology Research and Development, 69(6), 3209–3232. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-021-10046-z
• Tedre, M., Toivonen, T., Kahila, J., Vartiainen, H., Valtonen, T., Jormanainen, I., & Pears, A. (2021). Teaching machine learning in K-12 computing education: Potential and pitfalls (arXiv:2106.11034). arXiv. http://arxiv.org/abs/2106.11034
• Tyler-Wood, T. L., Cockerham, D., & Johnson, K. R. (2018). Implementing new technologies in a middle school curriculum: A rural perspective. Smart Learning Environments, 5(1), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-018-0073-y
• Woodruff, K., Hutson, J., & Arnone, K. (2023). Perceptions and barriers to adopting artificial intelligence in K-12 education: A survey of educators in fifty states. In S. Mistretta (Ed.), Reimagining education - the role of e-learning, creativity, and technology in the post-pandemic era (pp.1002741). IntechOpen. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.1002741
• Yan, L., Whitelock-Wainwright, A., Guan, Q., Wen, G., Gašević, D., & Chen, G. (2021). Students’ experience of online learning during the COVID-19 pandemic: A province-wide survey study. British Journal of Educational Technology, 52(5), 2038–2057. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13102
• Yang, J., Wang, Q., Wang, J., Huang, M., & Ma, Y. (2021). A study of K-12 teachers’ TPACK on the technology acceptance of E-schoolbag. Interactive Learning Environments, 29(7), 1062–1075. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2019.1627560
• Yau, K. W., Chai, C. S., Chiu, T. K. F., Meng, H., King, I., & Yam, Y. (2023). A phenomenographic approach on teacher conceptions of teaching artificial intelligence (AI) in K-12 schools. Education and Information Technologies, 28(1), 1041–1064. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11161-x
• Zafari, M., Bazargani, J. S., Sadeghi-Niaraki, A., & Choi, S. M. (2022). Artificial intelligence applications in K-12 education: A systematic literature review. IEEE Access, 10, 61905–61921. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3179356
• Zainal, A. Z., & Zainuddin, S. Z. (2020). Technology adoption in Malaysian schools: An analysis of national ICT in education policy initiatives. Digital Education Review, 37, 172–194. https://doi.org/10.1344/DER.2020.37.172-194
• Zhang, X., Tlili, A., Shubeck, K., Hu, X., Huang, R., & Zhu, L. (2021). Teachers’ adoption of an open and interactive e-book for teaching K-12 students’ artificial intelligence: A mixed methods inquiry. Smart Learning Environments, 8(1), 34. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-021-00176-5
• Zhou, Y., Li, X., & Wijaya, T. T. (2022). Determinants of behavioral intention and use of interactive whiteboard by K-12 teachers in remote and rural areas. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.934423

License

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.