10 SES 13 A, Research on Programmes and Pedagogical Approaches in Teacher Education
Developments and the huge investment on technology in education direct teachers to use technology as an instructional material in their classrooms. In this perspective, most of the research on technology concentrated on effective usage of technology. From that point ‘A fundamental question seldom asked is this: Is it teachers’ usage or teachers’ ability that we are trying to increase in technology integration?’(Hsu, 2010, p.310) .Technology has been widely used in some schools because of its easy access that specific schools (NCES, 2003). Technology integration has its own practices almost all of the disciplines taught at schools(Wachira & Keengwe, 2011; Howley, Wood & Hough, 2011; Inan & Lowther, 2010).
The use of computers and other technologies in teaching and learning activities and school management can be defined as technology-supported instruction(TSI) (Demirel et al., 2001). As TSI, it is understood that the use of technology as a tool to help the teacher to enrich the education and to improve the quality during the educational activities. Yanpar and Yıldırım (1999: p.62-64) listed the benefits of TSI in the teaching environment as follows:
- Enables students to learn the subject on their own speed.
- Ensures active participation of the students in the course.
- Increases the quality and quantity of instructional activities.
- Offers opportunities to the students to monitor their own performance.
- Provides students opportunities to practice and repeat what they learned out of the classroom.
Researches indicates the struggle of teacher education programs with choosing and representing practices and strategies to the preservice teacher to use of iteffectively. (Goktas, Yıldırım, & Yıldırım, 2008). Lots of the teacher education implications were comprised of presenting a course on educational technology at an introduction level (Polly, Mims, Shepherd, & Inan,2010) which could be mostly limited with theoretical part of technology integration. Although preservice teachers need exemplary implication of technology integration at all their teacher education courses (Ertmer et al., 2003). However, they do not feel well-prepared to instruct with technology in their future classrooms (Drent & Meelissen, 2008; Kay, 2006). These studies may emphasize that teacher education programs need to be reviewed considering exemplary implications and the opportunities to design TSI. These skills have been developed with many different ways such as technology integration content, hands on technology activities, practice with educational technology, and reflections on TSI. (Ottenbreit-Leftwich et al., 2010; Polly et al., 2010). These were implemented individually or binary which may limit effectiveness of the preservice teachers’ skill development and change of attitude toward educational technology.
TSI is accepted as influential and requisite for education, therefore European countries make changes in teacher education programs with variety of implications (Eurydice, 2011).There is need to concantrated on teachers’ development on TSI both inservice and preservice education in Turkey cesi ve hizmet içi eğitimlerine yoğunlaşılması gerektiği çeşitli araştırmalarla ortaya konmuştur (Yurdakul Kabakçı, 2011; Kayaduman, 2017). Atlhough renewed programs include some courses related to technology usage, TSI implications are needed for preservice teachers development. Therefore, preservice teachers’ technology acceptance and attitudes toward the instruction with technology is needed to be analyzed within the revised teacher education program.
The purpose of the current study is to report preservice teachers’ attitude toward computer-supported instruction and their technology acceptance in the context of reformist approach to teacher education program. The research questions are:
- Is there a significant difference between preservice teachers’ attitude toward computer-supported instruction who took computer-supported and traditional educational philosophy course?
- Is there a significant difference between preservice teachers’ technology acceptance who took computer-supported and traditional educational philosophy course?
- How do preservice teachers plan to use technologies that they have experienced in the course in their future classrooms?
This is a mixed method research aiming to reveal differences among the preservice teachers views on technology in a newly revised teacher education curriculum at their first year in the context educational philosophy curriculum. Among the types of mixed design, explanatory sequential design with the purpose of using qualitative approach to explain quantitative results is performed because of that one data resource is not be enough; initial results need to be further explained; and a second method is needed to enhance a primary method (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011). As research instruments, survey comprised of a scale to measure of preservice teachers’ attitude toward computer-supported instruction (Arslan, 2006), technology acceptance measure for teachers (T-TAM) (Ursavas, Sahin, & McIlroy, 2014). Additionally, interview to reveal their actual intention to use technology in their future classrooms will be performed. The scales were implemented two times at the beginning and end of semester like pre and post-test experiment and control group design. For final implementation of the scales, an open-ended question was added as qualitative data source to reveal their actual intention to use technology in their future classrooms. Context of the study is a faculty of education with revised curriculum to meet need of the society and education system in Turkey. The participants (Women: 84 , Men: 38) with the age ranging from 18 to 29 mostly between 18 to 22 (p: 95,9%) are first year student at the program enrolled two different sections of the educational philosophy course. The aim of the course is to make them familiar with educational theories and philosophies with their founders/famous representatives, general characteristics and their reflections on modern education systems. Parallel to this, control group(women:43, men:16) confronted with classical face-to-face teaching methods and techniques such as instruction, question-answering, discussion. Controversially, implementation group (women:41, men:22) imposed upon current technologies mostly used in school as projects of the course such as, learning management system (Edmodo), video creation tools (IMovie, Moviemaker,Animoto,Pawtoon,etc.), online video sharing platform (Yotube,Teachertube,Vimeo, etc.), timeline creation tools (TikiToki,Knightlab,Free-timeline,MyHistro, etc.), and online collaborative working platforms (Google-Drive,Skype,Dropbox,Weshare, etc.) in addition to classical teaching methods and techniques. For data analysis, after checking normality, it is founded that sample represents normal distribution. Therefore, pair sample t-tests were implemented to compare the pre and post-test results. Preservice teachers’ views on technology-supported instruction and technology acceptance were analyzed during their first semester at the reformed teacher education program.
To analyze the difference between the attitude of preservice teachers(between the pre-tests and post-tests of the implementation and the control group), one-way ANOVA was performed and significant difference is found between the pretest and posttest scores of the groups. This analysis yielded a main effect for attending to the course enriched with IT tools at the end of the semester,(F(1, 85)=5.199,p<.05), such that the attitude toward technology-supported instruction was significantly higher for implementation group(M=53.88,Sd=5.32) than for control group (M=51.03,Sd=6.01). It is also observed that the effect of the implementation of IT tools on their attitude is also significant(p˂0.01). To answer second question, the groups were tested before and after the course on their technology acceptance. According to the test results, the mean pre-test scores of the students in the implementation group was 51.04, the post-test mean scores was 53.88(p<0,0). On the other hand, the mean of the pre-test and post-test mean scores of the control group were 52.66 and 51.03, respectively. While there is significant difference for the scores of implementation group, there is not significant difference for control group. This indicates that courses with supported IT-tools contribute their views on technology-supported instruction. TAM scale has eleven factor measuring technology integration behavior, which are perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, attitude towards use, subjective norms, self-efficacy, facilitating conditions, technological complexity, anxiety, perceived enjoyment, compatibility, behavioral intention. For implementation group, t-tests indicated that there was no significant difference between pre and post-test results, except anxiety. The participants’ anxiety level had significantly decreased(M:-1.21,Sd:3.55,p<0.05) from pre-test(M:16.94, Sd:65.84) to post-test(M:18.15, Sd:64.24). To answer third question, interview will be conducted to analyze their intention to use technologies that they have experienced in the course in their future classrooms. Preservice teachers were reported their future usage mostly how they introduced with the implications and platforms during the program. Video editing programs, student response systems, learning management platforms were most influential implications for their future plans. Once they asked how they decide to use these platforms, their reports are about both (1) the exemplary implications that represented to them and analyzed by them during the course and (2) the implications that they experienced either in their projects or within the classroom activities. This indicates that future plans were shaped with the real-life experiences and the examples from real life. Reformed teacher education program in the context, shaped with the help of technology at the first semester. Such programs were implemented in different countries contributing preservice teachers’ ability on designing technology supported instruction (Angeli, 2005; Bahr et al. 2006; Baser, Kopcha,& Ozden, 2016 ). Transforming teacher preparations programs could contribute future teachers from different perspectives: anxiety, self-efficacy, attitudes, etc. Evolution of the programs in terms of TSI could contribute preservice teachers’ design and implement of their courses. While renovating the programs, it would be effective for teachers’ ability on TSI to concentrate on the factors (perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, attitude towards use, subjective norms, self-efficacy, facilitating conditions, technological complexity, anxiety, perceived enjoyment, compatibility, behavioral intention) with the help of real=life experiences and exemplary implications of TSI.
Angeli, C. (2005). Transforming a teacher education method course through technology: Effects on preservice teachers’ technology competency. Computers & Education, 45(4), 383-398. Arslan, A. (2006). Bilgisayar destekli eğitim yapmaya ilişkin tutum ölçeği. Y.Y.Ü. Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 3(2), 24-33. Bahr, D. L., Shaha, S. H., Farnsworth, B. J., Lewis, V. K., & Benson, L. F. (2004). Preparing Tomorrow's Teachers to Use Technology: Attitudinal Impacts of Technology-supported Field Experience On Pre-service Teacher Candidates. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 31(2). Baser, D., Kopcha, T. J., & Ozden, M. Y. (2016). Developing a technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) assessment for preservice teachers learning to teach English as a foreign language. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 29(4), 749-764. Chen, F., Looi, C. ve Chen, W. (2009). Integrating technology in the classroom: A visual conceptualization of teachers’ knowledge, goals and beliefs. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25(5), 470-488. Chen, L., Gillenson, M.L. ve Sherrell, D.L. (2002). Enticing online consumers: Anextended technology acceptance perspective. Information & Management,39(8), 705-719. Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2017). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Sage. Demirel, Ö., Seferoğlu S.,Yağcı E. (2001). Öğretim Teknolojileri ve Materyal Geliştirme. Ankara: Pegem. Drent, M., & Meelissen, M. (2008). Which factors obstruct or stimulate teacher educators to use ICT innovatively? Computers & Education, 51, 187–199. Edyburn, D. L. (1998). Part III: A map of the technology integration process. Closing the gap: Computer technology for people with special needs, 1(5), 97-118. Ertmer, P. A., Conklin, D., Lewandowski, J., Osika, E., Selo, M., & Wignall, E. (2003). Increasing preservice teachers' capacity for technology integration through the use of electronic models. Teacher Education Quarterly, 30(1), 95-112. Eurydice (2011). Key Data on Learning and Innovation through ICT at School in Europe European Commision/ Web: www.eurydice.com. Fullan. M.(2007). The New Meaning of Educational Change. Fourth Edition. Teachers’ College Press, NewYork. Goktas, Y., Yıldırım, Z., & Yıldırım, S. (2008). A review of ICT related courses in pre-service teacher education programs. Asia Pacific Education Review, 9, 168–179. Howley, A., Wood, L., & Hough, B. (2011). Rural elementary school teachers' technology integration. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 26. Hu, P. J., Clark, T. H. K. & Ma, W.W. (2003). Examining technology acceptance by school teachers: a longitudial study. Information & Manegement, 41(2), 227-241. Inan, F. A., & Lowther, D. L. (2010). Factors affecting technology integration in K-12 classrooms: A path model. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(2), 137-154.
Some networks have already started to plan their chairperson(s).
But at the moment chairpersons are only pencilled in, as we will still need to check for time conflicts between presentation and chairing duties. EERA office will work on this in due course and then officially let chairpersons know about their chairing duties.
Meanwhile, thank you for your patience.
00. Central Events (Keynotes, EERA-Panel, EERJ Round Table, Invited Sessions)
Network 1. Continuing Professional Development: Learning for Individuals, Leaders, and Organisations
Network 2. Vocational Education and Training (VETNET)
Network 3. Curriculum Innovation
Network 4. Inclusive Education
Network 5. Children and Youth at Risk and Urban Education
Network 6. Open Learning: Media, Environments and Cultures
Network 7. Social Justice and Intercultural Education
Network 8. Research on Health Education
Network 9. Assessment, Evaluation, Testing and Measurement
Network 10. Teacher Education Research
Network 11. Educational Effectiveness and Quality Assurance
Network 12. LISnet - Library and Information Science Network
Network 13. Philosophy of Education
Network 14. Communities, Families and Schooling in Educational Research
Network 15. Research Partnerships in Education
Network 16. ICT in Education and Training
Network 17. Histories of Education
Network 18. Research in Sport Pedagogy
Network 19. Ethnography
Network 20. Research in Innovative Intercultural Learning Environments
Network 22. Research in Higher Education
Network 23. Policy Studies and Politics of Education
Network 24. Mathematics Education Research
Network 25. Research on Children's Rights in Education
Network 26. Educational Leadership
Network 27. Didactics – Learning and Teaching
The programme is updated regularly (each day in the morning)
- 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 you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
- If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.