close

Вход

Забыли?

вход по аккаунту

?

j.compedu.2017.10.007

код для вставкиСкачать
Accepted Manuscript
Technology valued? Observation and review activities to enhance future teachers’
utility value toward technology integration
Ugur Kale
PII:
S0360-1315(17)30233-6
DOI:
10.1016/j.compedu.2017.10.007
Reference:
CAE 3255
To appear in:
Computers & Education
Received Date: 27 February 2017
Revised Date:
9 October 2017
Accepted Date: 22 October 2017
Please cite this article as: Kale U., Technology valued? Observation and review activities to enhance
future teachers’ utility value toward technology integration, Computers & Education (2017), doi: 10.1016/
j.compedu.2017.10.007.
This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to
our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo
copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please
note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all
legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Technology Valued? Observation and Review Activities
to Enhance Future Teachers’ Utility Value toward
RI
PT
Technology Integration
Ugur Kale (Corresponding author)
SC
Learning Sciences and Human Development Department, West Virginia University,
504-F Allen Hall, PO Box 6122, Morgantown, WV 26505, USA
ugur.kale@mail.wvu.edu
M
AN
U
Abstract: This study examined the influence of observation of technology demonstrations and
review of relevant text resources on the utility values of mobile and social networking tools that
preservice teachers recognize in their reflections. Eighty-two preservice teachers from a mid-Atlantic
university participated in the study. The findings revealed that the kinds of utility values identified
varied depending on the sequence of observation and review activities, participants’ expectancy for
successful teaching (low and high), and their grade level focus (elementary and secondary).
TE
D
Discussion offered insights into how the activity sequence, expectancy for successful teaching with
technology, and grade level might influence future teachers’ likelihood to value technologies.
AC
C
EP
Keywords: utility value, preservice teachers, technology demonstration, observation, review activity
Funding: This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public,
commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
1
Technology Valued? Observation and Review Activities to Enhance Future Teachers’
Utility Value toward Technology Integration
Abstract
AC
C
EP
TE
D
M
AN
U
SC
RI
PT
This study examined the influence of observation of technology
demonstrations and review of relevant text resources on the utility values
of mobile and social networking tools that preservice teachers recognize in
their reflections. Eighty-two preservice teachers from a mid-Atlantic
university participated in the study. The findings revealed that the kinds of
utility values identified varied depending on the sequence of observation
and review activities, participants’ expectancy for successful teaching
(low and high), and their grade level focus (elementary and secondary).
Discussion offered insights into how the activity sequence, expectancy for
successful teaching with technology, and grade level might influence
future teachers’ likelihood to value technologies.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
2
Technology Valued? Observation and Review Activities to Enhance Future Teachers’
Utility Value toward Technology Integration
1. Introduction
RI
PT
Integrating technologies into lessons requires not only the skills to use them but also
beliefs about how they can benefit teaching and learning (Ertmer, Ottenbreit-Leftwich, Sadik, E.
Sendurur, & P. Sendurur, 2012). However, due to their limited teaching experience (Le Maistre
SC
& Paré, 2010) and knowledge of both content and pedagogy (Albion, 2008; Author 2013; Kumar
& Vigil, 2011), preservice teachers may not easily realize the potential educational values of
M
AN
U
technologies in education, and thus may become reluctant to incorporate them in their teaching
efforts.
Existing research indicated that preservice teachers’ perception on the usefulness of
technologies predicts their intention to incorporate them in their future teaching (e.g., Chiou
TE
D
2012; Horzum & Gungoren, 2012; Author et al., 2015; Koutromanos, Styliaras, &
Christodoulou, 2015; Sadaf, Newby, & Ertmer, 2016). However, the descriptive and explanatory
nature of the research design employed in these studies could not examine how specific
EP
strategies may develop preservice teachers’ perceptions on the values of technologies.
The current study focuses on two specific strategies—(a) observing technology
AC
C
integration demonstrations and (2) reviewing relevant resources. Observation activities to
examine and reflect on learning situations has been instrumental in teacher education, and can
provide opportunities to help develop skills and positive attitudes toward various teaching
strategies. Reviewing resources (e.g., pre-class reading) –a core strategy in recently popularized
flipped learning approach, can enhance what preservice teachers may notice in and interpret from
their observations. Despite their such potentials, how these strategies could be leveraged to help
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
3
preservice teachers identify the relevance and benefits of technologies has yet to be examined.
By drawing from cognitive flexibility and expectancy value theories, this study specifically
examines the impact of observing technology demonstrations and reviewing relevant resources
RI
PT
on the utility value of technologies that preservice teachers recognize as they reflect on their
learning activities.
2. Theoretical Orientation
SC
2.1. Utility value
The values and the importance that we place on a task are considered to influence our
M
AN
U
intentions to carry it out. According to the expectancy-value theory, our interest in putting an
effort into an activity depends mainly on two factors – the value we place on the activity and our
expectations of ourselves to be able to complete it successfully (Brophy, 1999, 2010; Wigfield,
Eccles, Roeser, & Schiefele, 2008; Wigfield & Eccles, 2000). In other words, if we do not see
TE
D
the activity to be an important task and if we believe that we lack the necessary skills then we
will not be interested in completing the activity.
Interest, which can range from a short-term interest to a fully developed one, is strongly
EP
tied to re-engagement decisions and performance outcomes (Hidi & Renninger, 2006). A crucial
component of interest development is finding personal meaning and relevance with a task (Hidi
AC
C
& Renninger, 2006; Hulleman, Durik, Schweigert, & Harackiewicz, 2008; Hulleman &
Harackiewicz, 2009). Defined as the degree to which a task is considered “useful or relevant for
other tasks or aspects of an individual’s life” (Hulleman, Godes, Hendricks, & Harackiewicz,
2010, p. 881), utility value can impact how the task is perceived meaningful (Mitchell, 1993;
Palmer, 2009) by providing the connection between the content and it application (Phillips,
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
4
2007). Utility value, thus, is considered to be specifically associated with performance gains and
greater interest in educational context (Hulleman & Harackiewicz, 2009).
2.2. Utility value in teacher education
RI
PT
Various studies focusing on preservice teachers’ attitudes toward and perceptions of
technologies can shed light on the role of utility values in teacher education. Such studies
indicated the significant effect of attitudes toward technologies on preservice teachers’ intention
SC
to use them (e.g., Anderson & Maninger, 2007; Palak & Walls, 2009; Yusop, 2015). For
instance, perceived usefulness – perception of using a tool or method enhancing future
M
AN
U
performance (Davis, 1989), was observed to affect future teachers’ plans to incorporate
technologies in teaching (Chiou, 2012; Horzum & Gungoren, 2012; Author et al., 2015;
Koutromanos et al., 2015; Sadaf et al., 2016). Also, motivating and engaging students, and
visualizing content to improve their learning were identified part of preservice teachers’ value
TE
D
beliefs of technologies (Ottenbreit-Leftwich, Glazewski, Newby, & Ertmer, 2010; Sadaf et al.,
2016; Wilson, Goodman, Bradbury, & Gross, 2013). Nonetheless, these studies either focused on
testing models through generic survey items or employed descriptive research designs where no
EP
variables were manipulated, and thus could not identify or examine specific strategies regarding
how to help future teachers recognize educational value of technologies.
AC
C
2.3. Strategies to enhance utility value
An intervention commonly employed to enhance utility value of a task involves asking
the individuals to reflect on the relevance or usefulness of that task for future context and
applications (Hulleman et al., 2010; Hulleman & Harackiewicz, 2009). In a recent study
focusing on such an intervention (Author et al., 2016), the author observed that reflecting on the
relevance of technology, in fact, helped preservice teachers generate a higher number of utility
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
5
values in their technology-enhanced teaching efforts. On the other hand, preservice teachers’
tendency to solely highlight the motivational benefits of technologies underscored the need for
exploring further approaches. The current study focuses on two specific strategies—(a)
RI
PT
observing technology integration demonstrations and (2) reviewing relevant resources.
Observing classrooms has been instrumental as a means to allow preservice teachers to
critically examine and reflect on learning situations, though the limited technology access and
SC
lack of meaningful technology use at placement schools can be problematic (Grove, Strudler, &
Odell, 2004; Hixon & So, 2009; Meagher, Ozgun-Koca, & Edwards, 2011; Ward & Overall,
M
AN
U
2011; Wright & Wilson, 2006). Online video cases of exemplary classrooms that present
selected teaching moments (Author, 2008) or face-to-face video club opportunities where videos
of classrooms are viewed and discussed in groups (Sherin & van Es, 2009) may help overcome
these issues while the development and dissemination of such videos may not be feasible for
TE
D
teacher educators. In-class sessions, on the other hand, where selected expert teachers
demonstrate technology integration followed by preservice teachers’ reflections on their
educational values may be an alternative. Such an approach aligns well with the strategies
EP
including technology demonstration, modeling, and reflection activities that teacher education
scholars have advocated in terms of developing skills and attitudes toward technologies (e.g.,
AC
C
Hur, Cullen, & Brush, 2010; Koh & Divaharan, 2011).
Reviewing pre-class readings and materials, a core strategy in recently popularized
flipped learning approach, has been observed to benefit student academic learning in higher
education settings (e.g., González-Gómez, Jeong, Airado Rodríguez, & Cañada-Cañada, 2016;
Sappington, Kinsey, & Munsayac, 2002). Reviewing relevant resources such as affordances of
technologies, likewise, may be useful for preservice teachers. By enhancing what they interpret
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
6
from and what they notice (e.g., utility value) during in-class observations of technology
demonstrations, reviewing such resources in advance may further preservice teachers’ utility
values toward teaching with technologies. A post-review activity after observations may be
RI
PT
beneficial as well. Observing an expert teacher’s technology demonstration before reviewing a
relevant resource may provide an application knowledge, helping comprehend the resource,
which may rather be abstract. Thus, despite such potentials of review and observation activities,
SC
how they are sequenced may help preservice teachers recognize utility value of technologies
needs to be examined.
M
AN
U
2.4. Cognitive flexibility
An area of literature that may inform the sequence of observation and review activities is
based on cognitive flexibility theory (CFT). According to CFT, learners likely develop flexible
thinking and full understanding of a complex (e.g., ill-defined) content if they can re-examine it
TE
D
through different “lenses” (Graddy, 2001; Spiro, Collins, Thota, & Feltovich, 2003), including
various resources offering multiple representations of the content (Spiro, 2001). In the context of
teacher education, observation and review activities can serve as such different “lenses” by
EP
providing multiple angles on a given technology integration case (e.g., demonstrated in class or
discussed in resources).
AC
C
CFT further highlights that when presented the content or the case from a new angle,
learners do not simply recall what they gain from the previously given resource or activity but
rather engage in modifying their current understanding—“the flexible reassembly of preexisting
knowledge” (Spiro, Feltovich, Jacobson, & Caul,1992, p.59). The order in which the multiple
representations of a content are presented and the new “angles” they bring to the table may play
a role in the “reassembly” process. It may be asserted that a new angle or insight may be more
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
7
likely to engage learners in modifying their previous knowledge when it is presented in a more
recent content or activity than when presented earlier. Because the new insight in the more recent
activity would be more “fresh” in the mental process, it may prompt an easy comparison with
RI
PT
and point to what is “missing” in the earlier activity. On the contrary, a new insight rather
present in an earlier activity may not be as easily elicited after a more recent activity. In such a
case, the mind would be more likely to be occupied with what it were currently processing—the
SC
more recent activity, and thus the new insight may not be as easily recalled.
Regarding observation and reviewing activities for preservice teachers, these assertions
M
AN
U
may imply that whichever activity brings or emphasizes a new insight more often should be
completed last because doing so may make the different aspects of that utility value more
explicit to preservice teachers. As such, the first research hypothesis is:
H1. A particular utility value of a technology exemplified more often in an activity will
TE
D
be significantly more likely to be recognized when that activity is completed later in the
sequence than when completed earlier.
2.5. Expectancy for successful TPACK
EP
Our expectancy to complete a task successfully is another factor influencing our
perception to value and start carrying out that task (Brophy, 1999, 2010; Wigfield et al., 2008;
AC
C
Wigfield & Eccles, 2000), reflecting a conventional wisdom that “people like what they are good
at and do better at what they like” (Hulleman, Kosovich, Barron, & Daniel, 2016, p.32).
Research indicates that the relevance interventions to increase utility value, interest, and
performance is especially effective for those with low expectancy for success or low performing
students (Hulleman & Harackiewicz, 2009, Hulleman et al., 2010; Hulleman et al., 2016)
because reflecting on the relevance of an activity may help people “come to value the activity in
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
8
their own terms” (Durik et al., 2015, p.105) in a “less threatening way” (Hulleman et al., 2010,
p.881). For instance, in a study (Hulleman & Harackiewicz, 2009) focusing on a high school
science class, low expectancy students gained higher interest and grades than high expectancy
RI
PT
students when they wrote an essay on how science could be useful. Similar results were also
observed in other studies conducted at higher education settings where low performing students,
compared to high performing ones, assigned to the relevance condition, valued the course
SC
materials more, became more interested in them, and had higher course performances (Hulleman
et al., 2010; Hullemen et al., 2016).
M
AN
U
Regarding teacher education, these findings imply that reflecting on the relevance of
educational technologies would be more beneficial for preservice teachers with low expectancy
for teaching with technologies than those with high expectancy. Successful teaching with
technologies, on the other hand, require a good understanding of the relationship between
TE
D
technology, content, and pedagogy (Mishra & Koehler, 2006), which is referred to as
Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK). With a developed TPACK, teachers
can effectively teach the content and help student conceptual difficulties by meaningfully
hypothesis is:
EP
incorporating technologies (Harris, Mishra, & Koehler, 2009). Thus, the second research
AC
C
H2. There will be significantly more preservice teachers with low expectancy for
successful TPACK than those with high expectancy who will recognize a particular
utility value of a technology.
2.6. Elementary versus secondary
The differences between secondary and elementary preservice teachers’ approaches is
another key factor to consider when it comes to examining the utility value they place on
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
9
teaching with technologies. Research revealed that elementary preservice teachers rely on
learner-centered strategies more often than secondary preservice teachers (Onwuegbuzie et al.
2003; Ron, McIntyre, & Norris, 1981; vonEschenbach & Ley, 1984). Further, teachers who are
RI
PT
student-centered were observed to integrate technologies in teaching more meaningful (Teo,
Chai, Hung, & Lee, 2008) and more often (Ertmer 2005; Hermans, Tondeur, van Braak , Valcke,
2008) than those who are teacher-centered. Being learner-centered also significantly predicted
SC
preservice teachers’ intention to use emerging technologies for teaching (Hur, Shen, Kale, &
Cullen, 2015). As such, elementary preservice teachers, who tend to be more learner-centered
M
AN
U
and open to using technologies, may be more likely than secondary preservice teachers to be
receptive to the educational potentials of technologies. The third research hypothesis of the
current research is thus:
H3. There will be significantly more elementary preservice teachers than secondary
3. Methodology
TE
D
preservice teachers who will recognize a particular utility value of a technology.
3.1. Participants and context
EP
A total of 82 third-year teacher education students from a mid-Atlantic university
participated in the study. Majority of the participants were female (n = 68). Fifty-four
AC
C
participants were specializing in elementary education and 28 were in secondary education. They
were enrolled in three different sections of an instructional technology course in spring semester.
Part of the course activities, they were introduced to two main sets of emerging educational
technologies – mobile tools and apps (e.g., iPads) and social networking tools (e.g., Edmodo)
that were demonstrated by the selected two K-12 teachers, whose successful technology
integration efforts had been known in the county and to the teacher education program. For each
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
10
set of technologies demonstrated by these teachers (mobile tools and social networking),
participants were engaged in the following activities:
TE
D
M
AN
U
SC
RI
PT
Table 1
Classroom Activities
Participants were given a list of resources including readings such as case studies
and conceptual articles highlighting the potential and actual use of technologies, and
Review:
links to technologies. They were asked to refer to the readings and write a paragraph
about the potentials /issues of using the technologies in education.
Participants observed a teacher demonstrate the technology. They were prompted to
take notes as they observed. The demonstration took place 45 minutes, during which
Observe: the teacher introduced the technology, provided examples from classroom settings,
and engaged participants in short hands-on activities. Participants were also
encouraged to ask the teacher questions in 15 minutes after the demonstration.
Participants were given a week to reflect on the demonstrated technology by
describing and reflecting on a learning activity that would incorporate the same
technology. Particularly, in a word template, they were prompted to describe their
learning activities and to reflect on how the use of technology may influence or be
influenced by pedagogy and content. The main purpose of the reflection, which was
Design &
documented in our previous studies (Author 2013; Author et al. 2013; Author et al.
Reflect:
2014), was to prompt the preservice teachers to justify the technology use more
critically in relation to learning objectives and teaching strategies. Participants
posted their learning activity descriptions and reflections on the learning
management system where they regularly submitted their assignments.
3.2. Research design and procedure
EP
A quasi-experimental design involving three between-subject and one within-subject
factors guided the research methodology. The between-subject factors included the sequencing
AC
C
conditions (observe_only, review_first_observe_second, and observe_first_review_second), the
expectancy for successful TPACK (low and high), and the grade level (elementary and
secondary). The within-subject factor was the kinds of utility values identified in the design and
reflection activities that took place twice in the semester – one for mobile and another for social
networking tools.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
11
Out of 82 students, 59 completed the first design and reflection activity (mobile tools)
and 74 completed the second design and reflection activity (social networking). For the first set
of technologies (mobile tools), the three intact sections were randomly assigned to one of the
RI
PT
three conditions –observe_only, review_observe, and observe_review. In each condition group,
the participants engaged in the activities described earlier but in different orders. In the
observe_only condition, they only observed the technology demonstration in class before
SC
completing the design and reflection activity. No review activity was assigned to this group.
Those in the review_observe condition reviewed the given resources before they observed the
M
AN
U
technology demonstration. After the observation, they completed the design and reflection
activity. The participants in observe_review group, on the other hand, observed the technology
demonstration first. Prior to the design and reflection activity, they were asked to review the
given resources (See Table 2).
observe_only:
TE
D
Table 2
Order of Classroom Activities by Conditions
Conditions Activities
……….. Observe
Observe
EP
review_observe: Review
AC
C
observe_review: Observe
Review
Design & Reflect
Design & Reflect
Design & reflect
For the second set of technology demonstration (social networking), the conditions were
alternated to allow each course section to a different treatment condition than their previously
assigned one (See Table 3).
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
12
Section 1 review_observe
observe_only
Section 2 observe_review
review_observe
Section 3 observe_only
observe_review
RI
PT
Table 3
Classroom Sections Assigned to Conditions for Each Set of Technology
Second set: Social Networking
Classroom First set: Mobile Tools
SC
Before the end of the semester, participants completed an online survey, as part of the
course evaluations, focusing on their expectancy to successfully teach with technologies in future
M
AN
U
(see next section for details). Fifty out of 82 students completed the survey.
3.3. Measures
3.3.1. Utility value
To examine the utility values that participants recognized in their design and reflection
activities, the author employed a content analysis approach (Bauer, 2000) and used the coding
TE
D
scheme developed in his previous work (Author et al., 2016) as an initial framework (See
Appendix A for the utility values identified with the initial framework). He analyzed the content
EP
where participants reflected on the interaction among technology, pedagogy, and content.
Through a constant-comparative method (Lincoln & Guba, 1985) employing thematic unit of
AC
C
analyses, the data were classified into all of the categories of the initial framework. Table 4
displays the categories and the examples from the data:
Table 4
Categories, Descriptions, and Examples of Utility Values in Reflections
Utility Value Description
Visualizing
Highlights the visual aspect of
the technology regarding how
it may help student
understanding through
diagrams, graphics, enlarged
content, or vivid images.
Examples
-Using this technology would enhance the
way you looked at the content because as
the students are looking at a map, it is
better blown up and represented on a
screen than on paper.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
13
-Using this technology would enhance
learning by giving students a familiar
environment in which to contribute their
interpretations and observations
- The way Schoology is set up may be user
friendly since most students are tech savvy.
-They can also post on the class page and
reply to other students’ posts, turning the
lesson into an open discussion
Emphasizes how the
technology might facilitate the
instruction through modeling,
exemplifying, or
demonstrating the information
that student could follow
easily.
AC
C
Instructing
EP
TE
D
M
AN
U
Collaboration Underlines how using the
technology may promote
discussion, group/team work,
or support their interaction.
Motivation
Mentions the motivational
benefits of technology use
such as increasing students’
attention and making the
lesson more enjoyable
ClassroomTalks about more effective,
management easier, or different classroom
management strategies being
employed due to the use of
technology in the lessons.
- This activity connects all three learning
strategies. They are getting visual through
seeing the screen and words, auditory from
hearing the word, and kinesthetic through
clicking the screen with their finger for the
correct answers.
RI
PT
Ease-of-use
Emphasizes the technology
affordances regarding
providing versatile
opportunities such as different
modalities or strategies to
address needs of various
learners
Focuses on the ease-of use of
the technology including
accessibility, efficiency, and
familiarity.
SC
Versatility
Assessment
Involvement
Highlights the benefits of
using technology in terms of
how it can allow to assess
student learning
Realizes how using the
technologies can involve
students in the learning
- They will be to review the content in a
more fun way, like a game.
-The game on the iPad will keep them fully
engaged and their attention will be on their
progress.
The iPad can be really helpful in
classroom management because it allows
the bulk of students to keep working on
enhancing their vocabulary while the
teacher can work one on one with a student
who is struggling with a concept needed to
build their vocabulary
-Using the ipad also allows me to
effectively demonstrate the activity to the
students and it allows them to apply it
immediately
Students will be able to find additional help
if needed. I will be able to post tutorials so
that if they are struggling, they will be able
to understand from their home
Edmodo allows the teacher to monitor all
aspects of an activity, as the students work
will be displayed in an organized and
familiar format.
This [technology] will support and
encourage children to be active learners.
This program will allow those who are not
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
14
RI
PT
-In this activity, the app allows the student
to see automatically how many money
amounts they counted correctly
- The technology can be used here because
it can help students to work on vocabulary
on their own.
- Students can also explore extreme
weather, rainbows, clouds, and more
weather-related topics on the app
- Students can also search for various
histories and tourists attractions located in
the various regions of West Virginia
M
AN
U
Info-seeking
as outspoken in class a chance to express
their thoughts and ideas. Active learning
takes place because children are doing the
work on their own and have to manage
their own time to get their work done.
SC
Self-paced
learning
process by providing more
hands-on activities, giving
students with more control
over their learning, or
providing opportunities to
speak up.
Stresses individualized
learning opportunities
provided by the use of
technology in self practice or
independent assessment
activities.
Focuses on the ability to seek
and access resources and
information through
technologies for learning or
teaching purposes.
Based on randomly selected and coded 15 utility values (approximately 10% of all utility
values identified in the design and reflection activities, N=144) the inter-coder reliability was
TE
D
acceptable (Cohen’s Kappa (N=15) = 0.76, p< 0.001).
3.3.2. Expectancy for TPACK
To measure participants’ expectancy to successfully integrate technologies in their future
EP
teaching, 10 likert-scale items were generated (1=Strongly Disagree to 5=Strongly Agree) based
AC
C
on (a) an instrument developed for assessing preservice teachers’ TPACK (Schmidt et al., 2009),
and (b) the knowledge components in preservice teachers’ technology-enhanced learning
activities (Author, 2013) (See Appendix B for the TPACK knowledge components). The internal
consistency of the scale was high (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.95). Table 5 outlines the survey items
and the key knowledge components of TPACK that they are associated with.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
15
Table 5
Survey Items for Key TPACK Knowledge Components
Technological
Contextual
Technological
Pedagogical
Content
RI
PT
Technological
Pedagogical
SC
Technological
Content
I can select effective teaching strategies for teaching in my content
specialization (math, science, literacy, or the like)
I am aware of conceptions and pre-conceptions that students of different
ages and backgrounds may bring with them when I’m teaching a
particular content area.
I know about technologies that I can use to enhance the way students
understand and practice the particular content that I’m specialized in
I can use technologies to enhance the way the content is represented
I can choose technologies that enhance my teaching approaches for a
lesson
I can choose technologies that support my teaching approach for a lesson
I am aware of physical settings and arrangements that I need to consider
when using technologies for a lesson
I am aware of classroom management strategies that I need to consider
when choosing technologies for a lesson
I can teach lessons that appropriately combine my content area,
technologies and teaching approaches
I can select technologies to use in my classroom that enhance what I
teach, how I teach and what students learn.
M
AN
U
Pedagogical
Content
3.4.1. Hypothesis 1
TE
D
3.4. Analysis
H1 posited that a utility value emphasized more often in an activity would be more likely
EP
to be recognized if that activity were to be completed later in the sequence. To be able to test H1,
the author first examined the content of the activities (observed demonstrations and the reviewed
AC
C
resources) to establish which one emphasized a utility value (if any) more often. By using the
categories from the analysis of the design and reflections described earlier, he categorized the
utility values present in the content of each activity (observed demonstration and reviewed
resources). Table 6 shows the examples from the content of the resources and the transcript of
the recorded demonstrations.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
16
Table 6
Examples of Utility Values from Resources Reviwed and Demonstration Observed
The touch screen was great for
students who have difficulties using
a mouse or have difficulties with
maintaining concentration.
Ease-of-use
Students were reported to require
very little assistance to learn to use
the iPad and none were reticent to
use them
EP
Overall, the student has more
satisfaction with the teaching and
learning management by SNSs more
than by traditional and LMS
School administrators should point
out the improvements in teacher
management of classroom time and
space afforded by iPads, as well as
the incredible flexibility it provides
to vary learning activities at a
moment’s notice.
During a structured work time, Jan
provides the fourth graders with
instructions [on Edmodo] for
specific activities to be completed
with a partner
AC
C
Classroommanagement
TE
D
Collaboration Schoology provides an enterprise
level learning management system
and configurable social network
designed to help teachers and
students create, share, and
manage academic material.
Motivation
Instructing
RI
PT
Versatility
Demonstration
You can drop dimes here (an iPad app)
and it will show both front and the back
so I thought that was really cool that
students would be able to see both the
front and back and separate out the
pennies so it is really good for the eye to
find it.
It’s a tool to use for communication. So,
when you click on the word, it is going
to bring it up to the top and it’s going to
say the word out loud, which is really
nice because [the student] is going to be
able to hear it and if it’s not the word he
thought it was, it is going to say it.
This is a website called Schoology. It’s
a really interesting website, not different
than Edmodo. Now when we first log in,
you have this recent activity board thing
that looks like Facebook.
EdModo is a perfectly good site and my
Spanish teacher [colleagues] like it
because of the open dialogue that occurs
[in it]. If that is what your classroom is
structured around, that is, open dialogue
and kids collaborating online and things
like that, Edmodo is a great choice.
(Referring to a video clip), we definitely
saw [here] that he (the student) was
more engaged and had more fun with
[iPad]”
Students with autism really have a hard
time looking at you in the face so you
do not want to make so much eye
contact. Maybe he felt more comfortable
with using iPad as opposed to one-onone with the teacher.
SC
Resources
[through the app] all students in the
small group are then able to make
mental translations of shapes to
create pictures.
M
AN
U
Utility Value
Visualizing
[When this is clicked], it’s saying the
word to them [students]. I programmed
it like I say the words, then they would
unscramble the word. It’s kind of a
practice thing.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
17
[Teacher:] What’s the advantage of
that? [preservice teacher:] Well, they
can learn at their own pace. They would
kind of do what they can do on their
own. [Teacher:] And take responsibility
for their own learning, right?
Non observed
Students created a record of the
information shared by the presenter,
brought up questions to ask at the
end of the presentation, and located
web links to further information
related to the presentation
TE
D
Info-seeking
RI
PT
Self-paced
learning
If I click here, can I see each individual
student’s response? Yes! So, as a
teacher, would I know which student
missed each question? Yes! Is that
helpful information? Yes! Then you can
design targeted instructions for those
students, ok?
I think that this is really really awesome
in that he is now using this program and
now he’s able to communicate.
SC
Involvement
Both she and the students want their
work to be topnotch quality because
others will see it. According to Jan,
“Students monitor each other, not so
much in a tattletale way, but in
recognition that this work is part of
our learning. It’s not a game.”
[in ] this kind of SNSs provides
users some space to create their own
identities on the site and able to
distribute their own stories online
mobile devices provide ‘significant
opportunities for genuinely
supporting differentiated,
autonomous, and individualised
learning’.
M
AN
U
Assessment
The author and an assistant professor in the field of instructional design and technology
coded randomly selected 31 utility values from the content of the resources and the technology
EP
demonstrations, which constituted approximately 16% of all the utility values identified
(N=190). The inter-coder reliability was moderately acceptable (Cohen’s kappa (N = 31) = 0.67,
AC
C
p < 0.001). The coders discussed their codings until they reached 100% reliability and the author
completed the coding of the remaining utility values.
Second, a series of Chi square tests were conducted to identify the utility values that were
emphasized more often by any of the activities. The results were used to state specific
predictions about the sequencing conditions leading to a more frequent recognition of these
utility values. Finally, another series of Chi-square tests were conducted to test these predictions
by examining the frequency of the utility values across sequencing conditions.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
18
3.4.2. Hypothesis 2
According to H2, more preservice teachers with low expectancy for successful TPACK
than those with high expectancy would recognize a particular utility value. To test H2, the author
RI
PT
first tabulated the scores from the ten survey items into a scale ranging from 38 to 50. The mean
score 44.92 (SD=4.58) indicated that the participants expected themselves to be fairly successful
in teaching with technologies. Second, the frequency distribution was examined, which also
SC
resulted in a bimodal histogram shape, indicating the existence of two possible differentiating
groups. Through the median score (M=45) as the split point, the participants were categorized
M
AN
U
into two groups. Those whose scores were lower than the median were coded as low expectancy
group and those whose scores were equal to or greater than the median were classified as the
high expectancy group. Although the median split procedure may cause a loss of variability in
data (Rucker, McShane, & Preacher, 2015), it was still appropriate for the purpose of the main
TE
D
analysis, which rather focused on the frequency of utility values requiring Chi square tests to
identify differences among groupings. Third, an independent t test was conducted to check the
assumed differences between the groups. The participants with low expectancy were observed to
EP
have a significantly lower level of TPACK (M=40.50, SD=1.59) than those with high expectancy
(M=49.00, SD=1.67), t(48)=-18.388, p<0.001. Last, a series of Chi square tests compared the
AC
C
numbers of participants in both groups recognizing each utility value.
3.4.3. Hypothesis 3
H3 predicted more elementary preservice teachers than secondary preservice teachers to
recognize a particular utility value. To test, H3, another series of Chi-square tests were used to
examine if the frequency of each observed utility value (in the reflections) varied depending on
participants’ foci of grade level (secondary education or elementary education).
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
19
4. Results
The findings were organized into three sections, each of which focused on one of the
hypotheses regarding both mobile tools and social networking tools.
RI
PT
4.1. Hypothesis 1: Sequencing condition
4.1.1. Mobile tools
For the first design and reflection activity, a total of 105 units of utility values were
SC
identified in the reviewed resources (N=94) and the observed demonstrations (N=36) on mobile
tools. Of all these units, one fifth were categorized as Motivation (N = 22, 21%), followed by
M
AN
U
Involvement (N=17, 16%), Self-paced Learning (N=16, 15%), and Versatility (N=12, 11%).
Each of the remaining kinds of utility values was observed in less than 10% of the all units.
Significant differences between the resources and the demonstrations were observed in
two kinds of utility values – Collaboration and Instructing. First, there was a significantly higher
TE
D
percentage of Collaboration utility values in the content of the resources (11.6%) than in the
content of the observed demonstrations (0.0%) of mobile tools (χ2 (1, N = 105) = 4.896, p =
0.01). Thus, in accordance with H1, the collaboration aspect would be more likely to be
EP
recognized if reviewing resources were completed as the second activity in the sequence. The
results, however, showed that percentage of participants in oberserve_review condition (14.3%)
AC
C
recognizing Collaboration utility value was not significantly higher than those in the
review_observe (0%) and the observe_only conditions (0%), providing no support for H1 (χ2 (2,
N = 59) = 5.719, p = 0.057).
Second, there was a significantly higher percentage of Instructing utility values in the
demonstrations (11.1%) than in the resources (0.0%) (χ2 (1, N = 105) = 23.98, p = 0.01). As
such, according to H1, the instructing utility value would be more more likely to be recognized if
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
20
the observation of the demonstration were completed as the second activity in the sequence. The
findings, on the other hand, indicated the opposite to a degree. There was a significantly lower
percentage of participants in the review_observe (0%) and observe_review conditions (12.5%)
RI
PT
than that in the observe_only condition (87.5%) recognizing Instructing utility value (χ2 (2, N =
59) = 12.054, p = 0.002). In other words, participants were less likely to recognize Instructing
utility value even when they completed the observation of demonstration as the second activity
SC
than when they only observed the demonstration. As such, this finding rejected H1, but only
pertaining to Instructing utility value.
M
AN
U
Further, a significant difference, which was not posited in H1, was observed. There was a
significantly higher percentage of participants in the review_observe condition (54.5%) than in
the observe_only condition (18.2%), who recognized Visualizing as a utility value (χ2 (2, N =
59) = 9.882, p = 0.007).
TE
D
4.1.2. Social networking tools
For the second design and reflection activity, a total of 85 units of utility values were
identified in the reviewed resources (N=59) and in the observed demonstrations (N=26) on social
EP
networking tools. More than a quarter of them were categorized as Collaboration (N = 27, 32%),
followed by Ease-of-Use (N=13, 15%), Motivation (N=10, 12%), and Assessment (N=9, 11%).
AC
C
Each of the remaining kinds of utility values consisted less than 10% of the all identified units.
Significant differences between the resources and the demonstrations were again
observed (χ2 (1, N = 85) = 27.86, p = 0.002). More specifically, there were significantly higher
percentages of Visualizing (15.4%), Classroom Management (7.7%), and Self-paced Learning
(7.7%) utility values in the content of the technology demonstration than in that of the resources
about social networking tools (0% each). As such, based on H1, these utility values would be
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
21
more likely to be recognized if the observed demonstrations were completed as the second
activity. However, no significant difference was observed between the percentages of
participants in the review_observe condition and those of the other conditions (observe_review,
RI
PT
or observe_only) who recognize these utility values in their reflections (p>0.05). Thus, H1 was
not supported.
Further, the resources exemplified a significantly higher percentage (17%) of Motivation
SC
utility values than the demonstration (0%) of the social networking tools. As for H1, this implied
that the Motivation utility value would be more more likely to be recognized if reviewing the
M
AN
U
resources were completed as the second activity. The analysis of the design and reflection
activities, however, revealed no significant differences between the percentage of participants
recognizing Motivation utility value in the observe_review condition (42.4%) and those in the
other conditions (47.6% review_observe, and 40% observe_only), providing no support for H1.
TE
D
On the other hand, a significant difference was observed, which was not predicted by H1.
The Chi Square test indicated that there was a significantly lower percentage of participants in
the observe_review condition (3%) than both in the review_observe (61%) and in the
23.316, p < 0.001).
EP
observe_only (25%) conditions who considered EaseofUse as a utility value (χ2 (2, N = 74) =
AC
C
See Table 7 below for the summarized findings regarding H1.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
22
Table 7
Summarized Findings for Hhypothesis 1:Sequencing Condition
Social Networking Tools
• However, % of participants in conditions
recognizing it:
o observe_review = review_observe
o observe_review = observe_only
Not Supported
• % of Visualizing, Class-mng, and Self-paced
learn UVs in activities:
o Observed Demos > Reviewed Resources
RI
PT
Not Supported
• % of Collaboration UV in activities:
o Reviewed Resources > Observed Demos
• However, % of participants in conditions
recognizing them:
o review_observe = observe_review
o review_observe = observe_only
SC
Mobile Tools
Not Supported
• % of Motivation UV in activities:
o Reviewed Resources > Observed Demos
• However, % of participants in conditions
recognizing it:
o review_observe < observe_only
• However , % of participants in conditions
recognizing it:
o observe_review = review_observe
o observe_review = observe_only
M
AN
U
Rejected
• % of Instructing UV in activities:
o Observed Demos > Reviewed Resources
TE
D
Not Predicted
• % of Visualizing UV in activities:
o Observed Demos = Reviewed Resources
EP
• However, % of participants in conditions
recognizing it:
o review_observe < observe_only
Not Predicted
• % of EaseofUse UV in activities:
o Observed Demos = Reviewed Resources
• However, % of participants in conditions
recognizing it:
o observe_review < review_observe
o observe_review < observe_only
AC
C
4.2. Hypothesis 2: Expectancy for TPACK
4.2.1. Mobile tools
No significant difference between the number of participants with low and that of those
with high expectancy for successful TPACK was observed for any of the utility value they
recognized in their reflections regarding mobile tools (p>0.05). Thus, H2, which predicted that
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
23
significantly more participants with low expectancy for TPACK than those with high expectancy
would have recognized a given utility value, was not supported.
4.2.2. Social networking tools
RI
PT
Regarding social networking tools, however, there was a significantly higher percentage
of participants with high expectancy for TPACK (41.7%) than that of those with low expectancy
for TPACK (8.7%) who recognized Classroom management utility value in their reflections. (χ2
SC
(1, N = 47) = 6.715, p = 0.01). This finding rejected H2, only in terms of Classroom management
utility value. According to H2, significantly more participants with low expectancy for TPACK
M
AN
U
than those with high expectancy would have recognized a given utility value.
Table 8 summarized the findings regarding H2 for both activities.
Table 8
Summarized Findings for Hhypothesis 2: Expectancy for TPACK
Mobile Tools
Social Networking Tools
Rejected
• % of participants recognizing Class-mng UV:
o low expectancy < high expectancy
TE
D
Not Supported
• % of participants recognizing any UV:
o low expectancy = high expectancy
AC
C
4.3.1. Mobile tools
EP
4.3. Hypothesis 3: Grade level
The Chi-square tests showed that there was a significantly higher percentage of
participants majoring in secondary education (61.1%) than in elementary education (38.5%),
who emphasized Involvement utility value of mobile technologies (χ2 (1, N = 59) = 4.896, p =
0.027). This result rejected H3, only in terms of Involvement utility value. According to H3,
more elementary teachers than secondary preservice teachers would have recognized a given
utility value.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
24
4.3.2. Social networking tools
Regarding social networking tools, H3 was not supported since there was no particular
secondary) (p>0.05).
RI
PT
utility value that was recognized more often by any of the grade level groups (elementary and
See Table 9 below for the summarized findings regarding H3.
Table 9
Summarized Findings for Hhypothesis 3: Grade Level
Social Networking Tools
Not supported
• % of elementary and secondary
participants recognizing any UV:
o elementary = secondary
M
AN
U
Rejected
• % of elementary and secondary
participants recognizing Involvement UV:
o elementary < secondary
SC
Mobile Tools
5. Discussion
TE
D
This study explored the influence of observing technology demonstrations and reviewing
relevant resources on future teachers’ ability to recognize the educational value of technologies.
Findings warranted the further discussion sequencing, expectancy for TPACK, and grade level.
EP
5.1. Sequencing condition
Although the findings did not directly align with the expectations posited by H1, the
AC
C
significant differences overserved among the condition groups revealed the effects of sequencing
on preservice teachers’ likelihood to recognize certain utility values as discussed below.
5.1.1. Collaboration versus instructing
In two instances, the completion of both the review and observation activities, compared
to observation only activity, was observed to lower the likelihood of Instructing utility value
recognized, rejecting and providing no support for H1 respectively. First, fewer participants
tended to recognize Instructing utility value when they observed the demonstration first and
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
25
reviewed the resources second on mobile tools than when they only observed the demonstration.
This may be due to the opposing nature of the utility values emphasized in each activity. As the
analysis indicated, the content of demonstration on mobile tools had a higher number of
RI
PT
Instructing utility value than the content of the resources. Participants who were in the
observe_only condition, thus may have solely adopted the view of technology promoting the
Instructing utility value. As the analysis also indicated, the content of resources exemplified the
SC
collaborative aspects of the technology more often than the content of the demonstration. Thus,
by being exposed to more student-centered benefits of technology through the resources as a
M
AN
U
second activity, the participants may have valued Instructing utility, which reflects a teachercentered approach, to a lesser degree. As a new insight highlighted in second activity (review),
collaboration may have been accommodated in the previously gained knowledge by replacing
teacher-centered beliefs to a certain degree, thus minimizing the participants’ likelihood to
TE
D
recognize Instructing utility value.
Second, Instructing utility value was also less evident in participants’ reflections when
reviewing the resources was completed as the first activity. In this case, Instructing utility value
EP
emphasized in the second activity (observation) had to be accommodated in the preexisting
knowledge gained from the first activity (resources). Yet, the preexisting knowledge gained from
AC
C
the first activity (resources) likely reflected Collaboration utility value since it was more
emphasized in the content of the resources. Because collaboration can be considered on the
opposite end of a teaching spectrum where Instructing utility value may rather reflect the
teacher-centered end, the participants may have prompted to leaned toward one of them, causing
their schema to either keep it or replace it with Instructing utility. Given the increased emphases
of learner-centered pedagogies in educational initiatives, and consequently in teacher education
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
26
courses, it might be more likely for the participants to go with the former – keeping the
collaborative aspects of technologies in mind, thus not necessarily considering Instructing as
utility value as much when presented.
RI
PT
These findings point out that preservice teachers may not easily see the collaborative
learning opportunities that mobile tools can provide unless such affordances are highlighted to
them. Thus, emphasizing the collaborative affordances of mobile technologies in an activity
SC
should be considered essential to helping preservice teachers recognize their benefits beyond the
teacher-centered ones, which may be more apparent in a prior or a future activity.
M
AN
U
5.1.2. Visual nature
Completing the review activity first and the observation second, compared to observation
only, was observed to increase the likelihood to recognize mobile tools’ Visualizing utility value.
This finding was not initially predicted by H1 given the analysis of the activities on mobile tools
TE
D
indicating that the demonstration and resources did not emphasize Visualizing utility value more
often than each other. The visual nature of the mobile tools – iPad applications presented in the
demonstration, however, may provide an explanation. The teacher during the demonstration
EP
presented a video clip from her classroom about her interaction with a student with autism in two
cases – one before and one after the student was introduced to various apps on an iPad. Many
AC
C
segments of the clip clearly showed the specific apps where the student could use visuals for
communication purposes or play games for reward and behavioral management. The video was
also followed by the teacher demonstrating the same apps and a few preservice teachers being
asked to present through the projector some of the features to their peers. Such an exposure to the
display of the apps may have highlighted the participants the visual affordances of the mobile
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
27
tools even though the teacher might have not verbally referred to such visual aspects, which,
consequently could not be identified in the content analysis.
Because of not being emphasized in the prior activity (demonstration), Visual utility
RI
PT
value may have been recognized as the new insight, when highlighted in the more recent activity
(observation). This finding suggests completing an activity later in the sequence would be more
beneficial if it emphasizes new insight about visual affordances not highlighted or lacking in the
SC
other activity.
5.1.3. Ease of use
M
AN
U
It was less likely for the participants to recognize the EaseofUse utility value of social
networking tools when they completed the review of resources as the second activity. The
content of the activities again may account for this finding. As observed, the demonstration
exemplified more Classroom management and Self-paced learning utility values than the content
TE
D
of the resources on social networking tools. As such, through the observation of demonstrations,
participants may have likely recognized how technologies might (a) entail effective strategies to
manage classroom (Classroom management) and (b) promote individualized and independent
EP
learning opportunities (Self-paced Learning), and consequently considered their potential use
more feasible (EaseofUse).
AC
C
Reviewing the resources as a second activity after the observation, however, may have
lowered their such perceptions. Fewer participants mentioned technologies’ ease of use when
they reviewed the resources after the observation. Because the resources about the social
networking tools did not exemplify Classroom management or Self-paced learning utility values,
any previously-gained positive perception on technologies’ easy of use might have not been
easily elicited. Thus, these findings echoed a congruent suggestion, which is to avoid completing
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
28
an activity later in the sequence if it lacks the insight about these utility values present in the
other activity.
5.2. Expectancy for TPACK
RI
PT
As the analysis indicated, there were significantly more preservice teachers with high
expectancy than those with low expectancy who recognized Classroom management utility value
of social networking tools. This finding is opposite of what the literature pointed out – relevance
SC
interventions being more beneficial for those with low expectancy for performance (Durik et al.,
2015, p.105; Hulleman & Harackiewicz, 2009; Hulleman et al., 2010; Hullemen et al., 2016).
M
AN
U
The nature of the utility value may account for this incongruent observation. In the
content analysis, Classroom management utility value was identified when the participants
emphasized the increased effectiveness and ease of strategies for classroom management due to
use of technology in their lessons. Although reflecting on the relevance of technology might be a
TE
D
“less threatening way” (Hulleman et al., 2010, p.881) to help preservice teachers see its various
values, they may still have had difficulties recognizing how easy to manage the classroom
activities especially since they expected themselves to be less successful at teaching with
EP
technology. Those with high expectancy, on the other hand, might be more likely to identify
affordances of technology in classroom management because they would not be as much
AC
C
concerned with their skills to integrate technology in teaching.
This effect however was not found for the design and reflections for the mobile tools.
There were around the same number of preservice teachers with low and high expectancy who
emphasized Classroom management utility value in their reflections. A further analysis
comparing the content of the two technology activities may provide an explanation. There was a
significantly higher percentage of Self-paced Learning (15.2%) utility values in the content of
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
29
mobile tool activities (both resources and demonstration) than in the content of social networking
tool activities (2.4%), χ2 (10, N = 190) = 37.404, p < 0.001. In other words, compared to the
social networking activities, the mobile tool activities provided the participants with a much
RI
PT
richer content emphasizing the individualized learning opportunities provided by the use of
technology. Consequently, recognizing the possibility of individualized learning opportunities,
which would require less teacher control over the learning process, might have prompted all
SC
participants with even low expectancy for TPACK to perceive the classroom management more
feasible.
M
AN
U
5.3. Grade level
As the findings revealed, the secondary preservice teachers were more likely than
elementary preservice teachers to emphasize Involvement utility value of mobile tools in their
reflections, which was contrary to H2. While further research can help examine this observation,
TE
D
teacher education programs’ varying emphases for each major may give an insight here. As
highlighted in the literature review, secondary preservice teachers are less likely than elementary
preservice teachers to be learner-centered. This may be due to the programs’ tendency to
EP
emphasize individualized instructional methods and provide more extensive field placement
experience for elementary majors than for secondary majors (Author et al., 2012), who spend
AC
C
more time in content specific whole classroom settings (Parkinson, 2008). Likewise, the
participants majoring in secondary education in this study, may be more conditioned to teachercentered approaches. As such, seeing the demonstration where a video clip and the follow-up
discussions emphasized how the iPad applications involved an individual student in the learning
process may have provided a more “novel” insight to them than to elementary preservice
teachers, who similar to those in existing studies, might be already aware of learner-centered
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
30
practices. As a result, the secondary preservice teachers may have been more likely than the
elementary preservice teachers to engage in the reassembly of their preexisting knowledge where
the idea of technologies promoting student involvement had to fit in.
RI
PT
The same effect however was not observed for the design and reflections on social
networking tools since none of the groups recognized any utility value more often than the each
other. This may be due to the nature of social networking tools that both elementary and
SC
secondary teachers were already familiar with. During the demonstration, various functions and
appearance of Schoology and Edmodo—two main tools emphasized, were often likened to those
M
AN
U
of common tools such as Facebook. Also, as observed in a previous study (Author et al., 2014),
secondary preservice teachers could easily consider using Web 2.0 applications including social
networking tools for teaching. As such, demonstrating the same kind of tools in this study may
have not necessarily elicited a change in secondary preservice teachers’ current understanding
6. Conclusion
TE
D
differently than it did to elementary preservice teachers’ reassembly of preexisting knowledge.
This study provided a first glimpse of how the observation of technology demonstrations
EP
and the review of relevant resources may help future teachers recognize the educational value of
technologies. The findings revealed differences among the sequencing condition groups,
AC
C
expectancy level for TPACK, and grade levels. By employing a content analysis technique based
on a constant-comparative method with a reasonable level of reliability measured, this study also
helped confirm the the categories of an existing framework, which can be used in identifying
utility value that pre and inservice teachers recognize in their technology integration efforts.
Below, the major findings were briefly reiterated and the conclusions drawn from each were
presented, which were followed by the limitations and the relevant future work.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
31
6.1. Sequencing condition
Depending on the activity content, their sequence influenced participants’ likelihood to
recognize certain utility values in their reflections. For instance, more participants were able to
RI
PT
recognize Visual utility value if it was highlighted in the later activity, and less participants
identified EaseofUse utility value if it was not emphasized in the later activity. Thus, the
observation and review activities for technology integration purposes should be arranged such
SC
that those providing newer insights on such utility values should be completed later as opposed
to earlier in the sequence. Also, regardless of the activity sequence, the presence of collaborative
M
AN
U
affordances in the resources lowered participants’ likelihood to recognize Instructing utility
value emphasized in the demonstration. As such, emphasizing student-centered benefits of
technologies to preservice teachers will be essential to helping them go beyond recognizing the
teacher-centered ones that may be more apparent.
TE
D
6.2. Expectancy for TPACK
Regarding the expectancy for TPACK, there were more participants with high
expectancy than those with low-expectancy who referred to Classroom management utility value
EP
in their reflections. This finding suggested that relevance interventions could be more beneficial
to those with high expectancies than those with low expectancies. Preservice teachers who
AC
C
expected themselves to be less successful with technology tended to perceive the potential
difficulties with classroom management activities. Thus, providing more practice opportunities
will be necessary to helping them recognize this utility value of technologies to a greater degree.
6.3. Grade level
The participants majoring in secondary education were more likely than those in
elementary education to recognize how mobile tools may involve students in the learning
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
32
process. This was due, in part, the learner-centered approach and Involvement utility value
presented in the activities being considered more unique by the secondary preservice teachers.
This observation implies that a utility value that is perceived more “novel” will be more likely to
RI
PT
be recognized by the future teachers. As such, in teacher education programs, taking into account
elementary and secondary preservice teachers’ potentially differing teaching approaches and
perceptions of technologies will be imperative to providing specific activities that provide
SC
“novel” insights to each group and help them identify various utility values of technologies.
6.4. Limitations and future work
M
AN
U
As with any study, the current study has limitations, which should be taken into account
for future studies. First, not all participants completed all the activities, resulting in missing data
for analysis. Although the non-parametric nature of the main analysis (Chi square) can be
appropriate for small sample size, future studies with a more complete data sets and larger
TE
D
sample sizes would be useful to add the discussions and suggestions made in this paper. Second,
participants’ expectancy for TPACK was measured part of the course evaluations at the end of
the semester, while it was possible for them to have different levels of expectancies during the
EP
semesters. Thus, examining expectancy for TPACK at different intervals in a given semester will
provide future research efforts with a better measurement of this construct. Third, the findings
AC
C
were specific to the preservice teachers who were at their early stages in the teacher education
program where they had relatively limited experiences with and knowledge of teaching. As
preservice teachers spend more time in field placement and take more courses at later stages of
their program, they develop more skills in teaching and using technologies, further shaping their
perceptions on the utility values of technologies specific to the content areas. Thus, examining
the same measures at multiple stages of the program of studies will generate findings that allow
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
33
for identifying the changes in preservice teachers’ expectancy for TPACK and the different kinds
of utility values they start to recognize throughout the program.
With these shortcomings and the implications for future studies in mind, the study offers
RI
PT
insights about the effects of the observation of demonstrations and the review of resources on
preservice teachers’ ability to recognize technologies’ educational benefits. These included
suggestions regarding the activity content and sequence, and the role that the expectancy for
AC
C
EP
TE
D
M
AN
U
SC
TPACK and grade level played in future teachers’ likelihood to value technologies.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
34
References
AC
C
EP
TE
D
M
AN
U
SC
RI
PT
Albion, P. R. (2008). Web 2.0 in teacher education: Two imperatives for action. Computers in
the Schools, 25, 181–198.
Anderson, S. E., & Maninger, R. M. (2007). Preservice teachers' abilities, beliefs, and intentions
regarding technology Integration. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 37(2),
151-172.
Author, 2008 [details removed for peer review]
Author, 2013 [details removed for peer review]
Author et al. 2013 [details removed for peer review]
Author et al. 2012 [details removed for peer review]
Author et al. 2014 [details removed for peer review]
Author et al. 2015 [details removed for peer review]
Author et al. 2016 [details removed for peer review]
Bauer, M. (2000). Classical content analysis: A review. In M. Bauer & G. Gaskell (Eds.),
Qualitative researching with text, image and sound (pp. 131-151). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Brophy, J. (1999). Toward a model of the value aspects of motivation in education: Developing
appreciation for particular learning domains and activities. Educational Psychologist,
34(2), 75–85.
Brophy, J. (2010). Motivating students to learn (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Chiou, Y. (2012). Perceived usefulness, perceive ease of use, computer attitude, and using
experience of Web 2.0 applications as predictors of intent to use Web 2.0 by pre-service
teachers for teaching. Dissertation Abstracts International Section A, 72, 4527. Retrieved
from EBSCOhost.
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of
information technology. Management Information Systems Quarterly,13(3), 319–339.
doi:10.2307/249008
Durik, A. M., Shechter, O. G., Noh, M., Rozek, C. S., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2015). What if I
can’t? Success expectancies moderate the effects of utility value information on
situational interest and performance. Motivation and Emotion, 39(1), 104-118.
doi:10.1007/s11031-014-9419-0
Ertmer, P. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for technology
integration? Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 25-39.
doi:10.1007/BF02n504683
Ertmer, P. A., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T., Sadik, O., Sendurur, E., & Sendurur, P. (2012).
Teacher beliefs and technology integration practices: A critical relationship. Computers
and Education, 59(2), 423–435. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.02.001
González-Gómez, D., Jeong, J., Airado Rodríguez, D., & Cañada-Cañada, F. (2016).
Performance and perception in the flipped learning model: An initial approach to evaluate
the effectiveness of a new teaching methodology in a general science classroom. Journal
of Science Education & Technology, 25(3), 450-459. doi:10.1007/s10956-016-9605-9
Graddy, D. B. (2001). Cognitive flexibility theory as a pedagogy for web-based course design.
Paper presented at Teaching Online in Higher Education Virtual conference, Indiana
University-Purdue University Indiana, Fort Wayne, IN.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
35
AC
C
EP
TE
D
M
AN
U
SC
RI
PT
Grove, K., Strudler, N., & Odell, S. (2004). Mentoring toward technology use: Cooperating
teacher practice in supporting student teachers. Journal of Research on Technology in
Education, 37(1), 85–109
Harris, J., Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2009). Teachers’ technological pedagogical content
knowledge and learning activity types: Curriculum-based technology integration
reframed. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41, 393–416.
Hermans, R., Tondeur, J., van Braak, J., & Valcke, M. (2008). The impact of primary school
teachers’ educational beliefs on the classroom use of computers. Computers &
Education, 51(4), 1499-1509. doi : http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2008.02.001
Hidi, S., & Renninger, K. (2006). The four-phase model of interest development. Educational
Psychologist, 41(2), 111–127.
Hixon, E., & So, H. (2009). Technology's role in field experiences for preservice teacher
training. Educational Technology & Society, 12(4), 294-304.
Horzum, M. B., & Gungoren, O. (2012). A model for beliefs, tool acceptance levels and web
pedagogical content knowledge of science and technology preservice teachers towards
web based instruction. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 13(3), 50-69.
Hulleman, C. S., Durik, A. M., Schweigert, S. B., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2008). Task values,
achievement goals, and interest: An integrative analysis. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 100(2), 398–416. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.100.2.398
Hulleman, C. S., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2009). Promoting interest and performance in high
school science classes. Science, 326(5958), 1410–2. doi:10.1126/science.1177067
Hulleman, C. S., Godes, O., Hendricks, B. L., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2010). Enhancing interest
and performance with a utility value intervention. Journal of Educational Psychology,
102(4), 880–895. doi:10.1037/a0019506
Hulleman, C. S., Kosovich, J. J., Barron, K. E., & Daniel, D. B. (2016). Making connections:
Replicating and extending the utility value intervention in the classroom. Journal of
Educational Psychology. Online First. doi:10.1037/edu0000146
Hur, J. W., Cullen, T., & Brush, T. (2010). Teaching for application: A model for assisting preservice teachers with technology integration. Journal of Technology & Teacher
Education, 18, 161–182.
Hur, J.W., Shen, Y.W., Kale, U., & Cullen, T. (2015). An exploration of pre-service teachers’
intention to use mobile devices for teaching. International Journal of Mobile and
Blended Learning, 7(3), 1-18.
Koh, J. L., & Divaharan, S. (2011). Developing pre-service teachers’ technology integration
expertise through the TPACK-developing instructional model. Journal of Educational
Computing Research, 44, 35–58.
Koutromanos, G., Styliaras, G., & Christodoulou, S. (2015). Student and in-service teachers'
acceptance of spatial hypermedia in their teaching: The case of hypersea. Education and
Information Technologies, 20(3), 559-578.
Kumar, S., & Vigil, K. (2011). The Net generation as preservice teachers: Transferring
familiarity with new technologies to educational environments. Journal of Digital
Learning in Teacher Education, 27, 144–153.
Le Maistre, C., & Paré, A. (2010). Whatever it takes: How beginning teachers learn to survive.
Teaching & Teacher Education, 26, 559–564.
Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
36
AC
C
EP
TE
D
M
AN
U
SC
RI
PT
Meagher, M., Ozgun-Koca, A., & Edwards, M. (2011). Preservice teachers’ experiences with
advanced digital technologies: The interplay between technology in a preservice
classroom and in field placements. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher
Education (CITE Journal), 11, 243–270.
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A new
framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108, 1017–1054.
Mitchell, M. (1993). Situational interest: Its multifaceted structure in the secondary school
mathematics classroom. Journal of Educational Psychology,85, 424–436.
Onwuegbuzie, A., Witcher, A., Filer, J., Collins, K., Moore, J., & Kaufman, A. (2003). Factors
associated with teachers' beliefs about discipline in the context of practice. Research in
the Schools, 10(2), 35-44
Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A., Glazewski, K. D., Newby, T. J., & Ertmer, P. A. (2010). Teacher value
beliefs associated with using technology: addressing professional and student needs.
Computers & Education, 55, 1321–1335.
Palak, D., & Walls, R. T. (2009). Teachers’ beliefs and technology practices: A mixed methods
approach. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 47 (4), 417-441.
Palmer, D. H. (2009). Student interest generated during an inquiry skills lesson. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 46, 147–165.
Parkison, P. T. (2008). Field placement treatments: A comparative study. The Teacher Educator,
43(1), 29–45.
Phillips, M. M. (2007). The influence of situational factors on the nurturance of personal interest
and perceived competence. (Order No. AAI3298099, Dissertation Abstracts
International Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences).
Ron, W. C., McIntyre, D. J., & Norris, W. R. (1981). Preservice teachers' reflections on the
instructional process. Peabody Journal of Education, 59(1), 30-36.
Rucker, D. D., McShane, B. B., & Preacher, K. J. (2015). A researcher's guide to regression,
discretization, and median splits of continuous variables. Journal of Consumer
Psychology, 25(4), 666-678. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2015.04.004
Sadaf, A., Newby, T., & Ertmer, P. (2016). An investigation of the factors that influence
preservice teachers' intentions and integration of Web 2.0 tools. Educational Technology
Research & Development, 64(1), 37-64. doi:10.1007/s11423-015-9410-9
Sappington, J., Kinsey, K., & Munsayac, K. (2002). Two studies of reading compliance among
college students. Teaching of Psychology, 29(4), 272-274.
Schmidt, D. A., Baran, E., Thompson, A. D., Mishra, P., Koehler, M. J., & Shin, T. S. (2009).
Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK): The Development and
validation of an assessment instrument for preservice teachers. Journal of Research on
Technology in Education, 42(2), 123-149.
Sherin, M. G., & van Es, E. A. (2009). Effects of video club participation on teachers’
professional vision. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(1), 20–37.
Spiro, R. (2001). Principled pluralism for adaptive flexibility in teaching and learning to read. In
R. F. Flippo (Ed.), Reading researchers in search of common ground (pp. 92–97).
Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Spiro, R. J., Collins, B. P., Thota, J., & Feltovich, P. J. (2003). Cognitive flexibility theory:
Hypermedia for complex learning, adaptive knowledge application, and experience
acceleration. Educational Technology, 43(5), 5–10.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
37
AC
C
EP
TE
D
M
AN
U
SC
RI
PT
Spiro, R. J., Feltovich, P. J., Jacobson, M. J., & Caul on, R. L. (1992). Cognitive flexibility,
constructivism, and hypertext: Random access instruction for advanced knowledge
acquisition in ill-structured domains. In T. M. Duffy & D. H. Jonassen (Eds.),
Constructivism and the technology of instruction: A conversation (pp; 37-•75). Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Teo, T., Chai, C. S., Hung, D., & Lee, C. B. (2008). Beliefs about teaching and uses of
technology among pre‐service teachers. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education,
36(2), 163-174. doi:10.1080/13598660801971641
vonEschenbach, J. F., & Ley, T. C. (1984). Differences between elementary and secondary
teachers' perceptions of instructional practices. The High School Journal, 68(1), 31-36.
Ward, G., & Overall, T. (2011). Technology integration for pre-service teachers: Evaluating the
team-taught cohort model. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 19(1), 23–43.
Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 68–81. doi:10.1006/ceps.1999.1015
Wigfield, A., Eccles, J. S., Roeser, R. W., & Schiefele, U. (2008). Development of achievement
motivation. In W. Damon & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Child and adolescent development: An
advanced course (pp. 406–434). New Jersey: John Wiley and Sons.
Wilson, R., Goodman, J., Bradbury, L., & Gross, L. (2013). Exploring the Use of iPads to
Investigate Forces and Motion in an Elementary Science Methods Course. Contemporary
Issues in Technology and Teacher Education (CITE Journal), 13(2), 105-126.
Wright, V.H., & Wilson, E.K. (2006). From preservice to inservice teaching: A study of
technology integration. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 22(2), 49–55.
Yusop, F. D. (2015). A dataset of factors that influence preservice teachers' intentions to use web
2.0 technologies in future teaching practices. British Journal of Educational Technology,
46(5), 1075-1080.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
38
Appendix A
AC
C
EP
TE
D
M
AN
U
SC
RI
PT
Utility Values in Preservice Teachers’ Reflections Excerpted from Author et al., (2013)
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
39
Appendix B
AC
C
EP
TE
D
M
AN
U
SC
RI
PT
TPACK Components in Preservice Teachers’ Reflections Excerpted from Author, (2013)
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Highlights
Preservice teachers’ ability to identify technology utility values was explored
•
Collaboration emphases lowered the likelihood to recognize Instructing utility value
•
High expectancy for TPACK increased reference to Classroom management utility value
•
More secondary preservice teachers tended to recognize Involvement utility value
AC
C
EP
TE
D
M
AN
U
SC
RI
PT
•
Документ
Категория
Без категории
Просмотров
0
Размер файла
1 425 Кб
Теги
2017, 007, compedu
1/--страниц
Пожаловаться на содержимое документа