Live Chat Hours: M-F 6am - 4pm PST
For Attendees

favorites

Evolution of Teacher Technology Knowledge, Beliefs and Practices: Preservice to Inservice (Paper table 5)

[Listen and learn : Research paper]

Monday, June 27, 11:00 am–12:00 pm
CCC 109, Table 5

favoritesDr. Anne Leftwich  favoritesYin-Chan (Janet) Liao  favoritesOlgun Sadik  
This longitudinal study interviewed four technology-savvy teachers through three phases over four years: their last year of courses, after student teaching, and during their second year of teaching. Through this progression, we examined the evolution of their technology-integration knowledge, self-efficacy beliefs, value beliefs and intentions/practices.

Skill level: Beginner
Attendee devices: Devices not needed
Focus: Professional learning
Topic: Teacher education
Grade level: Community college/university
ISTE Standards: Teachers : Engage in professional growth and leadership
Additional detail: ISTE Professional Learning Network pick


Digital tote resources

ISTE2016HandoutEvolutionCELTeachers.pdf
Description: ISTE Handout - Evolution of Teacher Technology Knowledge, Beliefs, and Practices
ISTEDraftAOLJune2016.pdf
Description: Research Paper Draft
ISTE_2016CELEvolution.pdf
Description: PowerPoint Presentation


Proposal summary

Framework

Studies have reported the positive effects of using technology on student learning outcomes (e.g., Hixon & Buckenmeyer, 2009), but teachers are still not using technology to achieve these positive effects (Author A, 2011). Some have suggested that the major barriers teacher encounter (e.g., lack of resources, teachers’ knowledge) (Hew & Brush, 2007) can sometimes limit their ability to integrate technology into practices. Ertmer (1999) classified barriers as first-order barriers (observable, external to teachers (i.e., availability of resources) and second-order barriers (internal to teachers (i.e., knowledge, self-efficacy beliefs, pedagogical beliefs); second order barriers are more difficult to identify.
Currently, first order barriers are being addressed and the availability of resources and support is increasing (Project Tomorrow, 2013). However, even with these improvements made to eliminate the first order barriers, the second order barriers are more difficult to change due to teachers’ existing beliefs or lack of knowledge (Author A, 2012a).

How are teacher education programs addressing this problem? Studies have shown that teacher education programs are incorporating a wide array of strategies to equip newly graduated preservice teachers with technology integration skills and abilities (Author A, 2012b, Kay, 2006). Furthermore, studies have suggested the importance of pre-service teachers intentions to use technology in their future classroom, showing that value beliefs and self-efficacy beliefs play a critical role in the formation of intentions (Anderson & Maninger, 2007; Smarkola, 2008). However, how do internal factors help these newly graduated teachers overcome first- and second-order barriers. This study examined how do technology integration knowledge, self-efficacy beliefs, value beliefs, and intentions/practices interact and evolve among four technology-savvy teachers during their teacher education coursework, after student teaching, and after their first year teaching.

Methods

Studies have reported the positive effects of using technology on student learning outcomes (e.g., Hixon & Buckenmeyer, 2009), but teachers are still not using technology to achieve these positive effects (Author A, 2011). Some have suggested that the major barriers teacher encounter (e.g., lack of resources, teachers’ knowledge) (Hew & Brush, 2007) can sometimes limit their ability to integrate technology into practices. Ertmer (1999) classified barriers as first-order barriers (observable, external to teachers (i.e., availability of resources) and second-order barriers (internal to teachers (i.e., knowledge, self-efficacy beliefs, pedagogical beliefs); second order barriers are more difficult to identify.
Currently, first order barriers are being addressed and the availability of resources and support is increasing (Project Tomorrow, 2013). However, even with these improvements made to eliminate the first order barriers, the second order barriers are more difficult to change due to teachers’ existing beliefs or lack of knowledge (Author A, 2012a).

How are teacher education programs addressing this problem? Studies have shown that teacher education programs are incorporating a wide array of strategies to equip newly graduated preservice teachers with technology integration skills and abilities (Author A, 2012b, Kay, 2006). Furthermore, studies have suggested the importance of pre-service teachers intentions to use technology in their future classroom, showing that value beliefs and self-efficacy beliefs play a critical role in the formation of intentions (Anderson & Maninger, 2007; Smarkola, 2008). However, how do internal factors help these newly graduated teachers overcome first- and second-order barriers. This study examined how do technology integration knowledge, self-efficacy beliefs, value beliefs, and intentions/practices interact and evolve among four technology-savvy teachers during their teacher education coursework, after student teaching, and after their first year teaching.

Results

This longitudinal study followed four technology savvy teachers through three phases over the course of 5 years: their last year of course work, after student teaching, and after their first year of teaching. Through this progression, we examined the evolution of their knowledge, self-efficacy beliefs, value beliefs, and intentions/practices with regards to integrating technology.
Preliminary results indicated that the teachers’ had high levels of knowledge related to how to integrate technology into their respective core subject areas within the first two phases. For example, during student teaching, one secondary math teacher had students create Google Sketch Up images to explore geometric principles. In her interview, she explained that was an example of a meaningful incorporation of technology for her students to visualize and “help students see what happens in math.” The knowledge themes that emerged were as follows: (1) teachers built classroom technology management knowledge through field experiences and actual class experiences, (2) teachers searched for their own technology knowledge through self-exploration, learning new tools and approaches on their own, (3) teachers had knowledge to be able to teach other teachers how to use technology, and (4) teachers had pedagogical knowledge of how to use computers within their own specific subject areas. These themes will be expanded on during the presentation and in the full paper.
In terms of self-efficacy beliefs, all four teachers tended to feel confident in their abilities to integrate technology. Teachers were asked to rate themselves, on a scale from one to five for eleven key computer constructs in both phase 1 and phase 2 interviews. On average, teachers’ self-efficacy typically increased after student teaching (phase 2). When rated lower on second interview, teachers indicated that it had been some time since they had used the software and would need to reacquaint themselves first. In one teachers’ phase 3 interview, she stated that her student teaching actually decreased her confidence: “It had a reverse effect because I didn’t get to use technology - it was not available. And now I have it all and I’m like OK. I can do it again.” The self-efficacy themes that emerged were as follows: (1) all teachers maintained a positive attitude toward technology throughout all three phases, (2) all teachers reported having confidence in their abilities to adopt new technology tools and find ways to use them in teaching, especially after student teaching and seeing how adept they were at technology as compared to other teachers, (3) teachers reported being proficient in all technologies that they used in their teaching, (4) all teachers had experience teaching other teachers (which seemed to impact their self-efficacy) during student teaching and their first year teaching, and (5) teachers that experienced failure with technology in the classroom during field experiences or during their first year seemed to negatively impact self-efficacy slightly. These themes will be expanded on during the presentation and in the full paper.
Their pedagogical value beliefs were all positive, indicating that they believed it was important to use technology in their respective subject areas. From phase 1 to phase 2, teachers’ descriptions of technology use increased in detail, and became more realistic. This evolution seemed to be due to their interactions with students and recognizing limitations/capabilities of students and the environment. For example, in her initial interview, the English teacher described viewing technology as a way to make literature become more relevant to her students, although she did express slight worry about technology diminishing writing. In her follow-up interview, she described using technology with clearer examples of relevance (Using blogs to make writing meaningful with more people listening, recording audio books for others to motivate). She was still focused on using technology to make learning relevant, but her phase 2 interview ideas were more refined after her student teaching. The pedagogical value beliefs themes that emerged were as follows: (1) progressively through the phases, teachers reported more instances, and more firmly, that technology has to be worth it (e.g., it should not take up too much time), (2) technology has the potential to save time, (3) progressively through the phases, pedagogical value beliefs tended to become more sophisticated and reflect diverse pedagogical beliefs, and (4) some teachers reported the potential for technology being used for visualization. These themes will be expanded on during the presentation and in the full paper.

During both the phase 1 and phase 2 interviews, teachers were optimistic in both the frequency and the quality of their intentions/practices to use technology with future students. However, their espoused intentions/practices changed slightly based on environmental factors, but were still able to implement their ideas with slight modifications. For example, in his phase 1 interview, one teacher had strong intentions to use technology in his student teaching: “in my student teaching I’ll be using it all day every day. We have a learning management system that our daily agenda goes on and the agendas are hyperlinked to the activities if necessary, a lot of Google forums, a lot of websites, readings.” However, in the 2nd interview, he found that sometimes, the use of technology was too overwhelming and required students to put technology away. In his first year of teaching, the school he worked at had far fewer technology resources, which impacted his practices. However, he was still able to find ways around this barrier by monopolizing carts, borrowing SmartBoards, and writing grants. The intentions/practices themes that emerged were as follows: (1) the availability of technology influences their intentions to use technology in practice (the more technology available to them, the stronger intentions of different ways to use that technology), (2) intentions and practices rely heavily on technology available and whether it functions properly, and (3) resources profoundly impact practices – practices seemed to become more diverse with more technology resources. These themes will be expanded on during the presentation and in the full paper.
Overall, although teachers had initially anticipated first-order barriers in future teaching situations (i.e., lack of resources), they had the knowledge and self-efficacy beliefs to help overcome first-order barriers. In other words, three factors (knowledge, self-efficacy beliefs, and value beliefs) were strong enough to overcome barriers and illustrated a strong intent to use technology. In their first year of teaching, although resources strongly impacted their uses, they still remained optimistic about their uses and found ways to use technology. For those in technology rich schools, they used it more than they had originally intended, but for those in schools with fewer resources, they found ways to use technology albeit, not in the full scope they had initially imagined. The full paper will provide more on the relationship among these four factors, how the 3rd phase (after first year teaching) changed this relationship, and discuss implications.

Importance

Studies have suggested the importance of pre-service teachers intentions to use technology in their future classrooms, showing that beliefs play a critical role in the formation of intentions. However, how do internal factors help these newly graduated teachers overcome first-order and second-order barriers? By examining the evolution of these teachers' technology integration knowledge, self-efficacy beliefs, value beliefs, and intentions/practices, we can provide better support mechanisms to engage them in technology integration development as induction teachers and beyond.

More...



Presenters

favorites Dr. Anne Leftwich, Indiana University


favorites Olgun Sadik, Indiana University