Technology integration coursework and finding meaning in pre-service teachers’ reflective practice
This study seeks to inform teacher preparation programs regarding technology integration by understanding (1) relationships between tasks with specific technologies and pre-service teachers’ critical thinking about technology integration and (2) relationships between how pre-service teachers are critically thinking about technology integration and their self-assessed competence in technology integration. A mixed methods research design was employed, which gathered survey and performance task reflection data from pre-service teachers in four sections of a technology for teaching course. Data were analyzed using a process that categorized pre-service teacher thinking about technology integration in accordance with the replacement, amplification, and transformation model of technology integration. Results revealed that there was a significant overall effect of the selection of performance task upon whether it was applied in a transformative manner, but that no such overall effect existed for amplification and replacement. Examining the data descriptively, pre-service teachers generally exhibited a high level of amplification in how they applied technology in their thinking and rarely referred to technology use that did not show some clear benefits in their classrooms (i.e. replacement). Results also showed that there was no relationship between how students were thinking about technology integration and their self-assessment of technology integration competence. These results suggest that the types of performance tasks we used only had an impact on how pre-service teachers applied their understanding of technology integration in their educational contexts for transformative use cases. We also conclude that pre-service teachers’ self-assessments of competence are likely based upon technical fluency rather than thoughtful application toward classroom outcomes.
KeywordsTeacher preparation Technology integration RAT model NETS
- Agresti, A. (2013). Categorical data analysis. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
- Blood, E., & Neel, R. (2008). Using student response systems in lecture-based instruction: Does it change student engagement and learning? Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 1, 375–383.Google Scholar
- Common Core State Standards Initiative (CCSSI). (2010). Common Core State Standards for Mathematics. Washington, DC: National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and the Council of Chief State School Officers. http://www.corestandards.org.
- Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
- Cuban, L. (1988). Constancy and change in schools (1880s to the present). In P. W. Jackson (Ed.), Contributing to educational change: Perspectives on research and practice (pp. 85–105). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.Google Scholar
- Dewey, J. (1933). How we think. Boston: D. C. Heath & Co.Google Scholar
- Dillman, D. A., Smyth, J. D., & Christian, L. M. (2009). Internet, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: The tailed design method. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley.Google Scholar
- Donna, J. D., & Miller, B. G. (2013). Using cloud-computing applications to support collaborative scientific inquiry: Examining pre-service teachers’ perceived barriers towards integration. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 39(3), 1–17.Google Scholar
- Donnison, S. (2007). Unpacking the millennials: A cautionary tale for teacher education. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 32, 1–13.Google Scholar
- Hughes, J., Thomas, R., & Scharber, C. (2006). Assessing technology integration: The RAT—replacement, amplification, and transformation—framework. In C. Crawford, et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of society for information technology & teacher education international conference 2006 (pp. 1616–1620). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.Google Scholar
- Idaho State Department of Education (ISDE). (2011). Content, pedagogy, and performance assessment for certification. Retrieved from: http://www.sde.idaho.gov/site/teacher_certification/praxis.htm.
- Jaggars, S., & Bailey, T. (2010). Effectiveness of fully online courses for college students: Response to a department of education meta-analysis. New York, NY: Community College Research Center. Retrieved from http://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/media/k2/attachments/effectiveness-online-response-meta-analysis.pdf.
- Kimmons, R., & Hall, C. (in press). Emerging technology integration models. In G. Veletsianos (Ed.), Emerging Technologies in Distance Education (2nd Ed.). Edmonton, AB: Athabasca University Press.Google Scholar
- Jenkins, H., Clinton, K., Purushotma, R., Robison, A. J., & Weigel, M. (2006). Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: Media education for the 21st century. Retrieved from MacArthur Foundation website: http://www.macfound.org/media/article_pdfs/JENKINS_WHITE_PAPER.PDF.
- Marzano, R. (2009). Teaching with interactive whiteboards. Multiple Measures, 67, 80–82.Google Scholar
- Mason, C., Berson, M., Diem, R., Hicks, D., Lee, J., & Dralle, T. (2000). Guidelines for using technology to prepare social studies teachers. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 1(1), 107–116.Google Scholar
- Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., & Baki, M. (2013). Evaluation of evidence-based practices in online learning: A meta-analysis and review of online learning studies. Teachers College Record, 115(3), 1–47.Google Scholar
- Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2007, March). Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK): Confronting the wicked problems of teaching with technology. In Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (Vol. 2007, No. 1, pp. 2214–2226).Google Scholar
- National Educational Technology Standards (NETS). (2012). Retrieved from: http://www.iste.org/standards/nets-for-teachers.
- Parette, H. P., Huer, M. B., & Scherer, M. (2004). Effects of acculturation on assistive technology service delivery. Journal of Special Education Technology, 19(2), 31–41.Google Scholar
- Roblyer, M. D., & Doering, A. H. (2013). Integrating educational technology into teaching. San Francisco: Pearson.Google Scholar
- Romano, M., & Schwartz, J. (2005). Exploring technology as a tool for eliciting and encouraging beginning teacher reflection. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 5(2), 149–168.Google Scholar
- U.S. Department of Education. (2002). Technology in schools: suggestions, tools, and guidelines for assessing technology in elementary and secondary education. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2003/tech_schools/index.asp.
- Vannatta, R., Beyerbach, B., & Walsh, C. (2001). From teaching technology to using technology to enhance student learning: Pre-service teachers’ changing perceptions of technology infusion. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 105–127.Google Scholar