The Use of Educational Technology in Fostering Reflective Thinking Among Physical and Health Education Preservice Teachers
Author(s):
Nelli Lyyra (presenting / submitting) Raili Välimaa Päivikki Jääskelä Pilvikki Heikinaro-Johansson
Conference:
ECER 2017
Network:
18. Research in Sports Pedagogy
Format:
Paper

Session Information

18 SES 05, Using Technology to Empower Learning in Physical Education Settings

Paper Session

Time:
2017-08-23
13:30-15:00
Room:
K3.23
Chair:
Fiona Chambers

Contribution

Curricular reform is ongoing in many countries worldwide and in Finland the emphasis is shifting to the inclusion of technology within pedagogical practices at all levels of education (Lonka et al., 2015; Government Publications, 2015). The primary challenge of integrating technology within education is finding and designing pedagogically meaningful educational settings in which technology adds value to teaching and learning. This requires a new set of competences for teachers, teacher educators and education leaders (Koehler & Mishra, 2005; Lonka et al., 2015).

The University of Jyväskylä (JyU) is currently undergoing a university-wide development of its teaching under the theme ‘eEducation: Digital learning environments’, which prioritises flexible, interactive, student-oriented learning environments of high pedagogical quality. As part of this institutional initiative, the physical and health education teacher education (PHETE) programme at JyU participated in a multidisciplinary eEducation project which saw the creation of a digital learning environment to support students’ reflective thinking on their teaching behaviour. The goal of the project was, through an associated course, to guide preservice teachers through reflections on their own behaviour during teaching situations in order to heighten their awareness of pedagogical decisions they made as teachers and how those decisions influenced student behaviour and learning. The course centred on videotaped microteaching lessons, which were subsequently analysed through various observation methods using educational technology. An online digital platform, Pedanet, was employed which supports individual and interactive learning, in line with principles of personal learning environments (PLE). Additionally, a web-based application, Moveatis, was designed for the analysis of teaching situations. The application was developed at JyU jointly between the Department of Sport Pedagogy and the Department of Mathematical Information Technology (moveatis.sport.jyu.fi/).

The aim of this study was two-fold. Firstly, the intention was to examine how physical and health education preservice teachers reflect on their own teaching behaviour, using the framework of Van Manen (1977) as a guide. The ability to reflect on teaching behaviour serves as a benchmark for professional development and also speaks to a teacher’s level of self-efficacy (Van Manen, 1977). Secondly, the meaningfulness of educational technology in supporting preservice teachers’ reflection was analysed.

Method

Data collection, which took place in autumn 2016, involved 44 preservice teachers (24 female, 20 male). Participants were second-year students in a master’s programme and their age varied from 21 to 29 (average age 23). A mixed methods methodological approach was employed. The preservice teachers’ level of reflection was examined by analysing the reflective journals students wrote at the end of the course (in all, 391 journal pages). Content analysis was used to analyse the journal entries (Cohen, Manion & Morrison, 2007). Participants’ perceptions of the meaningfulness of the utilised educational technologies were examined through an anonymous online survey (webropolsurveys.com). The survey included both structured and open-ended questions which explored participants’ use of technology and whether/how it supported their learning. Quantitative data analysis was carried out on the survey responses to yield descriptive statistical results (Cohen, Manion & Morrison, 2007).

Expected Outcomes

Preliminary results indicate that when provided with concrete observation materials students are better positioned to observe and reflect upon their teaching behaviour. Preservice teachers demonstrate an ability to reflect on their teaching at both technical and practical levels (Van Manen 1977). Videotaping the microteaching lessons was found by participants to be useful and observation exercises carried out in the digital learning environment helped students to see and assess their teaching from new perspectives. Reflecting upon teaching situations afterwards also increased their awareness of the interaction between teacher behaviour and student learning. The majority found that the included educational technology allowed increased flexibility in studying for the current course and was seen by most students as very useful in setting one’s own learning objectives for the course and documenting the work. It was also valued for its use in reflecting upon one’s own learning. However, students placed a higher value on face-to-face conversations and communications than on communications in the digital platform. The main challenge of educational technology from the student perspective was the variety of digital learning environments and applications that are used in higher education. There was a sense that one adaptive technical design solution that would replace existing options might be useful in reducing the time-consuming need to master a variety of technologies together. In summary, this study suggest that educational technologies offer various possibilities for the enhancement of teaching and learning in higher education and for fostering the professional development of physical and health education teachers. However, the wide variety of applications and technologies poses a challenge for both teachers and students. For teachers in particular, there is a need for a deep understanding of content, pedagogical decisions and technical solutions, as modelled by Koehler and Mishra (2005) in their framework of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK).

References

Cohen, L., Manion, L. & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education. 6th edition. London, UK: Routledge. Government Publications (2015). Finland, a land of solutions. Prime minister’s office Finland. (http://valtioneuvosto.fi/documents/10184/1427398/Ratkaisujen+Suomi_EN_YHDISTETTY_netti.pdf/8d2e1a66-e24a-4073-8303-ee3127fbfcac) Lonka, K. & Mind the Gap Research Group (2015). Working document 1. In Innovative schools: Teaching & Learning in the digital era. European parliament. (http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2015/563389/IPOL_STU(2015)563389_EN.pdf) Koehler, M.J. & Mishra, P. (2005). What happens when teachers design educational technology? The development of technological pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 32(2), 131-152. Van Manen, M. (1977). Linking ways of knowing with ways of being practical. Curriculum Inquiry, 6, 205-228.

Author Information

Nelli Lyyra (presenting / submitting)
University of Jyväskylä
Department of Sport and Health Sciences
Jyväskylä
Raili Välimaa
University of Jyväskylä, Finland
Päivikki Jääskelä
University of Jyväskylä, Finland
Pilvikki Heikinaro-Johansson
University of jyväskylä
Faculty of Sport and Health Sciences
Jyväskylä

Update Modus of this Database

The current conference programme can be browsed in the conference management system (conftool) and, closer to the conference, in the conference app.
This database will be updated with the conference data after ECER. 

Search the ECER Programme

  • Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
  • Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
  • Search for authors and in the respective field.
  • For planning your conference attendance, please use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference and the conference agenda provided in conftool.
  • If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.