The Effect of Preservice Teacher Technology Integration Courses on
Related Measures of Self-efficacy
Jeremy M. Browne, PhD - SUNY Brockport
Charles R. Graham, PhD - Brigham Young University
McKay School of Education• NCATE-accredited
• Nearly 1,000 teachers credentialed annually
• Technology Skills Assessment
• Requires technology integration courses
Conceptual Framework
Skills & KnowledgeSkills & Knowledge
National EducationalTechnology Standards
EffectiveIn-PracticeTechnologyIntegration
EffectiveIn-PracticeTechnologyIntegration
Can / Can’t
Conceptual Framework
Skills & KnowledgeSkills & Knowledge
National EducationalTechnology Standards
EffectiveIn-PracticeTechnologyIntegration
EffectiveIn-PracticeTechnologyIntegration
Can / Can’t
Will / Won’t
Conceptual Framework
Skills & KnowledgeSkills & Knowledge
National EducationalTechnology Standards
DispositionsDispositions
Self-efficacy
Perceived Value
EffectiveIn-PracticeTechnologyIntegration
EffectiveIn-PracticeTechnologyIntegration
Can / Can’t
Will / Won’t
Conceptual Focus
Skills & KnowledgeSkills & Knowledge
National EducationalTechnology Standards
DispositionsDispositions
Self-efficacy
Perceived Value
EffectiveIn-PracticeTechnologyIntegration
EffectiveIn-PracticeTechnologyIntegration
Can / Can’t
Will / Won’t
Self-efficacy
• “A theory of personal and collective agency” (Pajares & Schunk, 2002)
• “Extraordinary personal feats [and formative feedback] serve as transforming experiences” (Bandura, 1977, 2006)
Teacher Efficacy?
• Goddard, Hoy & Hoy, 2000, 2004• Henson, Kogan, Vacha-Haase, 2001• Hoy & Spero, 2005a, 2005b• Hoy & Woolfolk, 1993• Milner & Hoy 2003• Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001• Tschannen- Moran, Hoy, & Hoy, 1998• Woolfolk & Hoy, 1990• Woolfolk, Rosoff, & Hoy, 1990
Self-Efficacy vs.Teacher Efficacy
Self-Efficacy Teacher Efficacy
Major Authors
Bandura, Pajares, etc.
Woolfolk, Hoy, Tschannen-Moran, etc.
Ability to…Perform actions
Causeoutcomes
Theoretical Basis
Bandura’s self-efficacy
Rotter’s locusof control
The Difference
"Beliefs about whether one can produce certain actions (perceived self-efficacy) are not the same as beliefs about whether actions affect outcomes (locus of control).
(Tschannen-Moran, et al., 1998, summarizing Bandura, 1997)
Self-efficacy
Multon, Brown, & Lent (1991)
Browne (2007)
DispositionsDispositions
Self-efficacy
EffectiveIn-PracticeTechnologyIntegration
EffectiveIn-PracticeTechnologyIntegration
Will / Won’t
Research Question
• What is the effect of MSE preservice technology integration courses on technology integration self-efficacy?
TechnologyIntegrationCourses
TechnologyIntegrationCourses
Self-efficacySelf-efficacy
Method
• Pre-/post-course measures of technology integration self-efficacy pre- and post-course
• Repeated measures ANOVA
Self-Efficacy Measure
• Technology Integration Confidence Scale (TICS)
• Measures self-efficacy as defined by Bandura
• Aligned with (pre-refreshed) NETS-T– Six subscales (one for each NETS-T)
• Freely available online
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)
Course StructuresIP&T 286 IP&T 287
MajorsSecondary Education
Elem., Early Childhood, Special Education
Credit Hours 1 2
ContentNETS-T
I-III, V-VI
NETS-T
I-VI
Lab Time Not Much Lots
Course StructuresIP&T 286 IP&T 287
MajorsSecondary Education
Elem., Early Childhood, Special Education
Credit Hours 1 2
ContentNETS-T
I-III, V-VI
NETS-T
I-VI
Lab Time Not Much LotsThere sh
ould be
a difference
Results:Repeated Measures• Significant increase in self-efficacy for
each NETS-T between pre- and post-course– Except NETS-T I.B
• No significant course effect
ANOVA Detailsp-values
NETS-T Pre-post effect Course effect
I.A <.01 .80
I.B .19 .33
II <.01 .30
III <.01 .96
IV <.01 .44
V <.01 .19
VI <.01 .73
Discussion
• Why no course effect on NETS-T IV?1. Placebo effect? The additional NETS-T
IV activities were as effective as no NETS-T IV activities.
2. Self-efficacy in the non-NETS-T IV course bled between TICS subscales (Bandura, 2006).
3. The measure (TICS) may not be sensitive enough to such small differences.
ANOVA Detailsp-values
NETS-T Pre-post effect Course effect
I.A <.01 .80
I.B .19 .33
II <.01 .30
III <.01 .96
IV <.01 .44
V <.01 .19
VI <.01 .73
Additional Analyses
• Why no significant change in this NETS-T indicator IB?
• “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)
Course Mean diff. SD t df p
286 -.15 .63 -2.2 81 .03
287 -.05 .65 -.97 95 .43
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
Course StructuresIP&T 286 IP&T 287
MajorsSecondary Education
Elem., Early Childhood, Special Education
Credit Hours 1 2
ContentNETS-T
I-III,V-VI
NETS-T
I-VI
Lab Time Not Much LotsThere sh
ould be
a difference
Course StructuresIP&T 286 IP&T 287
MajorsSecondary Education
Elem., Early Childhood, Special Education
Credit Hours 1 2
ContentNETS-T
I-III,V-VI
NETS-T
I-VI
Lab Time Not Much Lots
There m
ay be
a difference
Mastery ExperienceParadox• More guidance
Less of a mastery experience Little gain in self-efficacy
• Less Guidance More of a mastery experience More gain in self-efficacy
Bonus Question
• What is the effect of pre-course self-efficacy on in-course performance?
Self-efficacySelf-efficacySelf-efficacySelf-efficacyTechnologyIntegrationCourses
TechnologyIntegrationCourses
Linear Regression
• What percentage of variance (R2) in MSE 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.
Discussion
• Self-efficacy may be highly influential in that it explained up to 11% of variance in assignment scores.
• Course structure may affect the outcome.
Mastery ExperienceParadox• More guidance
Less of a mastery experience Little gain in self-efficacy
Limits influence of pre-course self-efficacy
• Less Guidance More of a mastery experience More gain in self-efficacy
Increases influence of pre-course self-efficacy
Conclusion
• Generally, these technology integration courses resulted in short-term increases in related self-efficacy.
• There were some issues with self-efficacy associated with specific NETS-T (IB, IV).
• Self-efficacy may be as complex as it is important .
Future Development ofthe TICS• More data:
– Three more semesters• 600 more participants
– Administration at SUNY Brockport• Smaller professional certification program• No technology integration curriculum
• TICS v3– Delayed until “refreshed” NETS-T– Automated, web-based administration and
analysis for all interested institutions
Comments Welcomed
• http://www.brownelearning.org/tics