PRESERVICE TEACHER GRADUATES’ TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION DISPOSITIONS: KNOWLEDGE, ATTITUDES, AND CURRENT BEHAVIORS

Joan E. Hughes, Ph.D.Yu-Chi Nikki Wen

University of Texas at Austin

Conceptual Frame

Teacher technology preparation moves from “tech course” to “integrated”

Teachers’ decision-making regarding technology use for educative purposes is mediated by their existing knowledge, beliefs, and dispositions

Emphasize understanding teachers’ knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors in teacher research (Lawless & Pellegrino, 2007)

RESEARCH QUESTION:

WHAT ARE TEACHER GRADUATES’ KNOWLEDGE, ATTITUDES, AND BEHAVIORS RELATED TO TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION?

Methods

Participants: Fall 2008 (n=42), Spring 2009 (n=53), and Fall 2009 (n=20) from a southwestern univ preservice program that requires laptops

20-minute end-of-program survey Selected data

attitudes (participant dispositions toward digital technologies and learning technologies)

behaviors (technology use) knowledge (projected technology use in future

classroom teaching) Mixed Methods (descriptive stats; qualitative)

Open-ended Questions

Q1: “Describe the most valuable learning technology (a technology you could not imagine teaching without) that you or your students will use in the future, if available”

Q2: “Please explain why your chosen learning technology (listed above) is so valuable, such as its value to you and your students, how you or your students will use it, and what objectives it helps you reach?”

Qualitative Analysis

Counted # of technologies mentioned in Q1

Explanatory ideas in Q1 & Q2 coded for knowledge explanation represented (TPACK) Coded for essence (not parts) Codes represent integrated ideas

Coded # and type (student vs. tchr) of tech uses in Q1 & Q2

RESULTS

Attitude: Tech Self-Efficacy Moderate/High Digital Technology

Self-Efficacy Fall 2008 cohort: mean score of 3.10

(n=40, variance=.29, SD=.54) Spring 2009 graduates: mean score of

3.00 (n=51, variance=.32, SD=.56). Fall 2009 cohort: mean score of 3.13

(n=20, variance=.29, SD=.54)

*Teachers reported on a scale of 1-4 from Strongly disagree (1) to Strongly agree (4)

Attitude:Learning Technology Strong positive dispositions towards the use of

learning technologies in classroom instruction Fall 2008 cohort: mean score 3.32 (n=40,

variance=.152, SD=.39) Spring 2009 cohort: mean score of 3.18 (n=50,

variance=.153, SD=.39) Fall 2009 cohort: mean score of 3.33 (n=19,

variance=.080, SD=.28)

Teachers reported on a scale of 1-4 from Strongly disagree (1) to Strongly agree (4); A response of (1) reflects a negative perspective of utilizing learning technologies in the classroom, while a (4) represents a positive outlook on learning technologies.

Graduates’ Behaviors

Technology Activity

% Reporting Use

Frequency Purpose Skill

Communication

60% Daily / Weekly

Mostly personal

Very skilled

Web 46% Weekly Mostly personal

Very skilled

Productivity 52% Monthly / Weekly

Mostly educational

Very skilled

Creation 38% Monthly or less

Both personal & educational

Very skilled

Knowledge: Most Valuable Technologies Cited Most identified 1+

F ‘08: 43 items (n=26) S ’09: 53 items (n=34) F ’09: 26 items (n=15)

High prevalence of productivity software (PP, Word), general hardware (computers, projectors, doc cameras)

Few content-specific: word & imovie for publishing, math/rdg games, digital audio creation

Knowledge: LT for teacher or student? Identified 2 -3X more teacher uses of

tech than student uses F ‘08: Teacher LT=36; Student LT=12 S ’09: Teacher LT=41; Student LT=16 F ’09: Teacher LT=14; Student LT=7

Skewness may dispose graduates to more teacher-centric technologies as practitioners

Knowledge: Evidence in Rationales Preservice graduates are relying mostly

on technological pedagogical knowledge (TPK) to justify their identified valuable technologies

Graduates possess depth of knowledge in TPK

TPK is very broad category

Knowledge Types evidenced in ‘Most Valuable LT’ Rationales, Fall 2008

TPK TK CK TCK PK PCK0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100% 96%

2%0% 0% 0%

2%

Knowledge Type

Fre

quen

cy C

ited

(%)

Knowledge Types evidenced in ‘Most Valuable LT’ Rationales, Spring 2009

TPK TK CK TCK PK PCK0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

75%

6%

2%5% 6% 6%

Knowledge Type

Fre

quen

cy C

ited

(%)

Knowledge Types evidenced in ‘Most Valuable LT’ Rationales, Fall 2009

TPK TK CK TCK PK PCK0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

66%

19%

0%3%

13%

0%

Knowledge Type

Fre

quen

cy C

ited

(%)

Knowledge: Depth of Reasoning Mean number of explanatory ideas per

respondent F ‘08: 1.9 ideas S ’09: 1.8 ideas F ’09: 2.0 ideas

Visualization represents each respondent’s # of explanatory ideas & type of knowledge associated with the ideas Only a handful are complex (show depth and

breadth)

Visualization of Depth of

Rationalization Fall 2008

1234567891011121314151617181920212223242526

0 1 2 3 4 5

TPK

TK

CK

TCK

PK

PCK

Knowledge References in Rationale

Res

pond

ent #

Respondent #2, Fall 2008LT: Microsoft Applications: Word, Powerpoint, Excel Rationale: Word can be used [to write lesson plans,] [help students publish work], [communicate with students and parents.] Excel can be used [to organize data and create graphs of student progress.] [Powerpoint can be used to supplement lessons - the visuals it can help teachers create are great!] (Respondent #2, Fall 2008)

LT: Microsoft Applications: Word, Powerpoint, Excel Rationale: Word can be used [to write lesson plans,] [help students publish work], [communicate with students and parents.] Excel can be used [to organize data and create graphs of student progress.] [Powerpoint can be used to supplement lessons - the visuals it can help teachers create are great!] (Respondent #2, Fall 2008)

TPKTPKTPKTPKTPK

Visualization of Depth of

Rationalization Spring 2009

1

3

5

7

9

11

13

15

17

19

21

23

25

27

29

0 1 2 3 4 5

TPKTKCKTCKPKPCK

Knowledge References in Rationale

Respondent

#

Respondent #25, Spring 2009LT: [Video clips usually from Youtube.] Rationale: [In English students almost always read Shakespeare,] and [it is hard to read something that is suppose to be performed and get students actively engaged in the content] (Respondent #25, Spring 2009)

LT: [Video clips usually from Youtube.] Rationale: [In English students almost always read Shakespeare,] and [it is hard to read something that is suppose to be performed and get students actively engaged in the content] (Respondent #25, Spring 2009)

TCKCK

PCK

Visualization of Depth of

Rationalization Fall 2009

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

0 1 2 3 4 5

TPKTKCKTCKPKPCK

Knowledge References in Rationale

Respondent

#

Respondent #11, Fall 2009LT: I was a post-bach student who first graduated in 2000. I have to say that I became much more comfortable with Powerpoint throughout my teacher preparatory semesters. I also really enjoyed learning how to make in imovie.

Rationale: [I have used numerous Powerpoint presentations in my college classes as well as in my placement.] Just recently [I was able to make a Powerpoint slide show showing the first graders pictures of kids in Ghana.] [We talked about the similarities and differences between our school and theirs.] I also was able to help a group of third graders with their imovies on animals. [I felt confident enough to answer their questions.] (Respondent #11, Fall 2009)

TK

TPK

PK

TK

Conclusion

Graduates have high digital tech self-efficacy and positive attitude toward LT

50% graduates report technology use; Most use for personal purposes

Only 38% report using Creation activities (most associated with Web 2.0 affordances)

Graduates have well-developed TPK Deep rationalization missing Having strong or moderate technology self-

efficacy and positive dispositions toward technology integration are not enough to infer deep use of TPACK

JOANH@MAIL.UTEXAS.EDU

Please email me for a copy of the paper – we will gladly send it to you!