practical use of ict in teachers training at
DESCRIPTION
This presentation is in accordance to the study carried out at Dar es salaam University College of Education (DUCE) in Tanzania.TRANSCRIPT
Practical Use of ICT in Science and Mathematics Teachers Training at DUCE: An Analysis of Prospective Teachers’
Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge
Ayoub C KafyuliloMaster Thesis
SupervisorsDr. Petra FisserDr. Joke Voogt
04/10/23 Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge at DUCE
2
Presentation overview
• Introduction• Problem statement • Research questions• Research Design• Results • Conclusion • Recommendations
04/10/23 Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge at DUCE
3
Introduction (1/2)• Why ICT in science and math
teachers preparation?• Education change depends on what
teachers think and do• Change in science and math learning
depend on Teachers’ readiness to use ICT
04/10/23 Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge at DUCE
4
Introduction (2/2)• Use of ICT requires teachers’
understanding of technology, pedagogy and content
• Teacher training programs should develop technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK)
• How teacher training colleges develop this knowledge to teachers?
04/10/23 Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge at DUCE
5
Research problem• High failure rates in science and mathematics in
Tanzania• Teachers are either not using, or inappropriately
use ICT in teaching• Use of technology in teaching depends on how
teachers learned with technology
Knowledge gained Knowledge required
TeachersCollege School
04/10/23 Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge at DUCE
6
Research questions
• What competencies do preservice science and mathematics teachers at DUCE have in relation to the use of ICT in teaching?
• What practices are effective in promoting preservice teachers’ competency for integrating technology with content and pedagogy?
• What is the impact of those practices on the preservice science and mathematics teachers’ ability to apply TPACK in their teaching?
04/10/23 Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge at DUCE
7
Research design (1/7): Action Research
04/10/23 Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge at DUCE
8
Participants Gender Age Teaching Subject
No. M F Mat
Ph Chem
Bio
Students 29 26 3 20-36
14 6 1 8
Instructors
4 3 1 34-42
1 1 0 2
Research Design (2/7): Participants
04/10/23 Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge at DUCE
9
Research design (3/7): Interventions
• Microteaching • Training• Peer appraisal• Lesson design• Lesson
presentation• Example present
ation
04/10/23 Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge at DUCE
10
Research design(5/7): Theoretical Framework
• Two theories guided the study:– Behaviorist learning theory– Constructivist learning theory
• UNESCO ICT integration standards were also adopted
• Ideas of Peker (2009) and Kilic (2010) were adopted for the design of the interventions activities (fig.)
Plan Teach Critique Re-plan Re-teach Critique
Cycle repeats
04/10/23 Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge at DUCE
11
Research design (6/7): Instruments
• Student questionnaire – Pre and post intervention– Reflection questionnaire
• Instructors’ Interview• Observation checklist
– Pre and post intervention
• Researchers’ Log book
04/10/23 Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge at DUCE
12
Research Design (7/7): Data Analysis
• Quantitative data– Descriptive statistics: presenting the
means and standard deviations– Inferential statistics: paired sample t
tests and Pearson correlation
• Qualitative data– Contact summary sheet– Interaction Matrix table
04/10/23 Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge at DUCE
13
Results (Qn 1): What competencies do preservice teachers have in ICT integration?
Competency area X M SD
Technological Knowledge 29 3.18 0.65
Pedagogical Knowledge 29 4.29 0.46
Content knowledge 29 4.55 0.48
Pedagogical Content Knowledge 29 4.17 0.57
Technological Content Knowledge 29 3.54 0.53
Technological Pedagogical Knowledge 29 4.03 0.67
Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge 29 3.46 0.58
Scale: 1=strongly disagree, 2=disagree, 3=not sure, 4=agree, 5=strongly agree
04/10/23 Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge at DUCE
14
Results (Qn 1): What competencies do preservice teachers have in ICT integration?
Competency X M SD
Technological Knowledge 29 1.50 0.28
Content Knowledge 29 1.68 0.20
Pedagogical knowledge 29 1.38 0.27
Pedagogical Content Knowledge 29 1.74 0.32
Technological Content Knowledge 29 1.41 0.33
Technological Pedagogical knowledge 29 1.54 0.41
Technological Pedagogical and Content Knowledge
29 1.41 0.22
Scale: 1 = No and 2 = Yes
04/10/23 Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge at DUCE
15
Results (Qn 1): What competencies do preservice teachers have in ICT
integration?• Correlation analysis showed:
– A significant relationship between:• use of technological tools and technological knowledge (r
(28) = 0.40, P = 0.03) • Use of web 2.0 facilities and technological knowledge (r
(28) = 0.52, P = 0.00)
– Insignificant relationship between:• Accessibility to technological tools and technological
knowledge (r (28) = 0.15, P = 0.44)
• Qualitative analysis showed a relationship between– Preservice teachers’ technological integration
ability and the way they learn to teach with technology (model)
04/10/23 Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge at DUCE
16
Results (Qn2): What practices are effective in enhancing competencies of
integrating TPC
• Effective practices are presented in terms of – Relevance – Skills– Knowledge and– Competency
04/10/23 Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge at DUCE
17
Results (Qn2): Effective practices (Relevance)
Intervention activity X M SD
Microteaching was relevant to my profession 26 4.50 0.51
Training was relevant to my profession26 4.46 0.51
Lesson design was relevant to my profession 26 4.38 0.57
Presentation and peers’ appraisal were relevant to my profession
26 4.42 0.58
Scale: 1=strongly disagree, 2=agree, 3=not sure, 4=agree, 5=strongly agree
04/10/23 Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge at DUCE
18
Results (Qn 2): Effective Practices (Knowledge)
Intervention X M SD
I attained sufficient TPACK during microteaching 26 4.42 0.50
I attained sufficient TPACK during training 26 4.46 0.71
I attain sufficient TPACK during Peers’ appraisal 26 4.38 0.64
I attain sufficient TPACK during lesson design 26 4.27 0.60
Scale: 1=strongly disagree, 2=agree, 3=not sure, 4=agree, 5=strongly agree
04/10/23 Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge at DUCE
19
Results (Qn 2): Effective practices (Skills)
Intervention X M SD
I attained sufficient skills in microteaching 26 4.23 0.59
I attained sufficient skills in training 26 4.42 0.58
I attained sufficient skills Lesson Design 26 4.27 0.60
I attained sufficient skills in peer appraisal 26 4.50 0.51
Scale: 1=strongly disagree, 2=disagree, 3=not sure, 4=agree, 5=strongly agree
04/10/23 Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge at DUCE
20
Results (Qn 2): Effective practices (Competency)
Intervention X M SD
The intervention activities enhanced my technological competency
26 4.04 0.71
The intervention activities enhanced my pedagogical competency
26 4.46 0.51
The intervention activities enhanced my competency in content
26 4.35 0.89
Scale: 1=strongly disagree, 2=agree, 3=not sure, 4=agree, 5=strongly agree
04/10/23 Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge at DUCE
21
Results (Qn3): Impacts of interventions (survey)
M SD P
Pair 1TK2 3.66 0.50
0.05TK1 3.24 0.67
Pair 2PK2 4.35 0.32
0.95PK1 4.34 0.43
Pair 3CK2 4.59 0.24
0.64CK1 4.55 0.14
Pair 4PCK2 4.34 0.45
0.38PCK1 4.20 0.61
Pair 5TCK2 4.27 0.43
0.04TCK1 3.98 0.57
Pair 6TPK2 4.35 0.43
0.05TPK1 4.03 0.76
Pair 7TPACK2 4.17 0.38
0.02TPACK1 3.85 0.51
04/10/23 Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge at DUCE
22
Results (Qn3): Impacts of Interventions (observation)
M SD P
Pair 1
TK1 1.50 0.280.00
TK2 1.68 0.26
Pair 2
PK1 1.38 0.200.00
PK2 1.59 0.19
Pair 3
CK1 1.54 0.410.10
CK2 1.61 0.39
Pair 4
PCK1 1.74 0.270.00
PCK2 1.82 0.36
Pair 5
TCK1 1.41 0.330.00
TCK2 1.61 0.35
Pair 6
TPK1 1.54 0.320.00
TPK2 1.60 0.38
Pair 7
TPCK1 1.41 0.220.00
TPCK2 1.60 0.28
04/10/23 Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge at DUCE
23
Results (Qn3): Impacts of Interventions
Competencies X M SD
I can teach a lesson that combine science/math, technology and pedagogy 26
4.18
0.66
I can use strategies that can combine content, technology and pedagogy 26
4.18
0.66
I can choose technology to use in my classroom that enhances what I teach 26
4.32
0.57
I can provide leadership in helping others on the use of TPACK 26
3.95
0.72
Scale: 1=strongly disagree, 2=disagree, 3=not sure, 4=agree, 5=strongly agree
04/10/23 Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge at DUCE
24
Conclusions• Preservice Teachers at DUCE are more
competent in PK and CK but less competent in TK
• Limited technological knowledge = limited TPACK = poor learning in science and mathematics
• Successful integration of technology pedagogy and content should start by developing instructors’ TPACK
04/10/23 Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge at DUCE
25
Conclusions
• TPACK can best be developed when teachers:– experience it in their own learning (model)– practice it in a context similar to real teaching – share it with colleagues (peers appraisal)
• The adoption of these activities can enhance– Teachers’ confidence and motivation to use
technology in teaching– Teachers’ knowledge, ability and skills for
integration of technology, pedagogy and content
04/10/23 Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge at DUCE
26
Recommendations• There is a need to review the pedagogical
and ICT courses at DUCE to address TPACK• Adoption of activity based instructions in
collaborative teams can have greater impact in developing teachers’ TPACK
• There is a need for investigation of the relationship between TPACK, teachers’ attitude, skills and tools availability (TPACK vs WST)
• A study with larger sample size and more research instruments and intervention activities can also be designed in the future
04/10/23 Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge at DUCE
27
Acknowledgement
• I am indebted to: – Dr. Petra Fisser– Dr. Joke Voogt
• Thanks to the University of Twente management for offering me the UTS
• I am grateful to my classmates who were always encouraging, sharing and cherishing me through out my studies
• Thanks to you all for postponing other responsibilities to attend my presentation