self-efficacy technology integration courses
DESCRIPTION
Conceptual Framework Skills & Knowledge National Educational Technology Standards Can / Can’t Effective In-Practice Technology Integration Will / Won’t Dispositions Self-efficacy Perceived ValueTRANSCRIPT
Self-efficacy & Technology Integration Courses
Jeremy M. Browne, PhD - State University of New York College at Brockport
Charles R. Graham, PhD - Brigham Young University
Conceptual Framework
Skills & Knowledge
National EducationalTechnology Standards
Dispositions
Self-efficacy
Perceived Value
EffectiveIn-PracticeTechnologyIntegration
Can / Can’t
Will / Won’t
Research Questions
• What is the effect of preservice technology integration courses on self-efficacy?
TechnologyIntegrationCourses
Self-efficacy
TechnologyIntegrationCourses
Research Questions
• What is the effect of preservice technology integration courses on self-efficacy?
• What is the effect of pre-course self-efficacy on in-course performance?
Self-efficacySelf-efficacy
Method
• Two course structures• Quasi-experimental Design
– No random assignment• Measured NETS-T self-efficacy pre-
and post-course with the TICS• Repeated measures ANOVA • Linear regression analysis
Course Structure
• IP&T 286– NETS-T Curriculum– One credit hour– Secondary Education majors– Very little “hand-holding”
Course Structure
• IP&T 287– NETS-T Curriculum– Two credit hours– Elementary, Early Childhood, and Special
Education– A lot of “hand-holding”
TICS
• Technology Integration Confidence Scale
• Measures self-efficacy as defined by Bandura (1977, 2006)
• Aligned with (pre-refreshed) NETS-T– Six subscales (one for each NETS-T)
• Freely available at http://www.brownelearning.org/tics
TICS
• Rigorously developed– Technology integration experts: TICS items are
“relevant and representative” to the NETS-T– Item and scale functioning established via Rating
Scale Model (1-Parameter Logistic) analysis– Subscales are unidimensional– Scores do not highly correlate with measures of
“general self-efficacy” (r < .05; Chen et al., 2001)
Participants
Course Male Female Total
286 13 76 89
287 1 121 122
Total 14 197 211
Note: 286 is restricted to Secondary Education majors.287 is restricted to Elementary, Early Childhood, and Special Education majors
Results (1)
• What is the effect of preservice technology integration courses on self-efficacy?
Repeated Measures
• Significant increase in self-efficacy for each NETS-T between pre- and post-course – Except NETS-T IB
• No significant course effect
ANOVA Detailsp-values
NETS-T Pre-post effect Course effectIA <.01 .80IB .19 .33II <.01 .30III <.01 .96IV <.01 .44V <.01 .19VI <.01 .73
NETS-T IB
• Why no significant change in this NETS-T indicator?
• “Teachers demonstrate continual growth in technology knowledge and skills to stay abreast of current and emerging technologies.” (ISTE, 2006)
NETS-T IB
• Paired t-tests (pre-post NETS-T IB)
• Notice the discrepancy between courses
Course Mean diff. SD t df p
286 -.15 .63 -2.2 81 .03
287 -.05 .65 -.97 95 .43
Conclusion (1)
• What is the effect of preservice technology integration courses on self-efficacy?
• Generally, there is a significant increase in NETS-T self-efficacy pre-/post-course.
• CAUTION: Course structure may affect the outcome.
Result (2)
• What is the effect of pre-course self-efficacy on in-course performance?
Linear Regression
• What percentage of variance (R2) in technology integration assignment scores can be explained by pre-course self-efficacy?
Course Pre-course TICS scores Demographics
286 11% 6%287 6% 8%
Note: Demographics included gender, computer ownership, self-rated computer expertise, and other relevant attitudes.
Conclusion (2)
• What is the effect of pre-course self-efficacy on in-course performance?
• It may be highly influential in that it explained up to 11% of variance in assignment scores.
• CAUTION: Course structure may affect the outcome.
Discussion
• Performance in the course with more “hand-holding” (287) was less predicted by pre-course self-efficacy.
• The course with less “hand holding” (286) resulted in significant increases in self-efficacy related to “continual growth in technology knowledge” (NETS-T IB).
Self-efficacy Paradox
• Self-efficacy is gained through “mastery experiences” (Bandura, 2006).
• As “hand holding” increases, opportunities for mastery experiences decrease. Ergo, there is less effect on self-efficacy.
• As “hand holding” decreases, pre-course self-efficacy’s influence grows.
Limitations
• Making mountains out of molehills?– Differences between courses are small.
• Barking up the wrong tree?– Students in each major may be more
different than their courses.• Your mileage may vary.
– Data from only one teacher education program
Future Development ofthe TICS• More data:
– Three more semesters• 600 more participants
– Administration at SUNY Brockport• Large, professional certification program• No technology integration curriculum
• TICS v3– Delayed until “refreshed” NETS-T– Automated, web-based administration and
analysis for all interested institutions
