Skip to main content

The impact of student teaching experience on pre-service teachers’ readiness for technology integration: A mixed methods study with growth curve modeling

Educational Technology Research and Development volume 65, pages 597–629 (2017)Cite this article

Abstract

Adopting a two-phase explanatory sequential mixed methods research design, the current study examined the impact of student teaching experiences on pre-service teachers’ readiness for technology integration. In phase-1 of quantitative investigation, 2-level growth curve models were fitted using online repeated measures survey data collected from 68 pre-service teachers doing their student teaching. The results revealed significant progress in readiness for technology integration during student teaching and significant variability in individual change trajectories of readiness for technology integration. Two dummy variables, prior-teaching (0 = “having no prior teaching experience”; 1 = “having prior teaching experience”) and grade-level (0 = “elementary level”; 1 = “secondary level”), were identified as significant in predicting the shape of individual change trajectories of readiness for technology integration. In phase-2 of qualitative investigation, follow-up interview data were collected from 11 pre-service teachers among those who participated in the online surveys. The interview data was analyzed both deductively and inductively yielding clues and insights for interpreting and understanding the quantitative results from phase-1. Based on its quantitative and qualitative results, this study made recommendations for future technology integration research and for improving pre-service teachers’ technology use experience during student teaching.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

References

  • Albion, P. R. (1996). Student teachers’ use of computers during teaching practice in primary classrooms. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 24, 63–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Albion, P. R. (1999). Self-efficacy beliefs as an Indicator of teachers’ preparedness for teaching with technology. In J. Price et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 1999 (pp. 1602-1608). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.

  • Angeli, C., & Valanides, N. (2009). Epistemological and methodological issues for the conceptualization, development, and assessment of ICT–TPCK: Advances in technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK). Computers & Education, 52, 154–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Argueta, R., Huff, J., Tingen, J., & Corn, J. O. (2011). Laptop initiative: Summary of research across seven states. Retrieved from https://www.fi.ncsu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/laptop-initiatives-summary-of-research-across-seven-states.pdf.

  • Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (1988). Organizational application of social cognitive theory. Australian Journal of Management, 13(2), 275–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman and Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bastable, S. B. & Dart, M.A. (2006). Developmental stages of the learner. Retrieved August 23, 2013, from http://www.jblearning.com/samples/0763751375/46436_CH05_000_000.pdf.

  • Becker, P. H. (1993). Common pitfalls in published grounded theory research. Qualitative Health Research, 3, 254–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Belland, B. R. (2009). Using the theory of habitus to move beyond the study of barriers to technology integration. Computers & Education, 52(2), 353–364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blumer, H. (1954). What is wrong with social theory? American Sociological Review, 18, 3–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interactionism. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brinkerhoff, J. D., Ku, H., Glazewski, K., & Brush, T. (2002). Development, results, and validation of technology integration surveys for preservice and practicing teachers. Paper presented at the annual meeting for the association of educational communications and technology, Atlanta, GA.

  • Brown, D., & Warschauer, M. (2006). From the university to the elementary classroom: Students’ experiences in learning to integrate technology in instruction. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 14(3), 599–621.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brush, T., Glazewski, K., Rutowski, K., Berg, K., Stromfors, C., Van-Nest, M. H., et al. (2003). Integrating technology in a field-based teacher training program: The PT3@ASU project. Educational Technology Research and Development, 51(1), 57–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bullock, D. (2004). Moving from theory to practice: An examination of the factors that preservice teachers encounter as the attempt to gain experience teaching with technology during field placement experiences. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 12(2), 211–237.

    Google Scholar 

  • Charmaz, K. (2003). Grounded theory—objectivist and constructivist methods. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Strategies of qualitative inquiry (pp. 249–291). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collier, S., Weinburgh, M. H., & Rivera, M. (2004). Infusing technology skills into a teacher education program: Change in students’ knowledge about and use of technology. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 12(3), 447–468.

    Google Scholar 

  • Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Curran, P. J., Obeidat, K., & Losardo, D. (2010). Twelve frequently asked questions about growth curve modeling. Journal of Cognition and Development, 11(2), 121–136. doi:10.1080/15248371003699969.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Darling-Hammmond, L., Hammerness, K., Grossman, P., Rust, F., & Shulman, L. (2005). The design of teacher education programs. In L. Darling-Hammond & J. Bransford (Eds.), Preparing teachers for a changing world (pp. 390–441). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dexter, S., & Riedel, E. (2003). Why improving pre-service teacher educational technology preparation must go beyond the college’s walls. Journal of Teacher Education, 54(4), 334–346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt, S., Besnoy, K., & Steele, E. (2011). Creating dissonance in pre-service teachers’ field experiences. RATE Journal, 21(1), 1–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erikson, E. H. (1993). Childhood and society. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Franklin, C. A., & Molebash, P. E. (2007). Technology in the elementary social studies classroom: Teacher preparation does matter. Theory and Research in Social Education, 35(2), 153–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gaus, W., Mayer, B., & Muche, R. (2015). Interpretation of statistical significance: Exploratory versus confirmative testing in clinical trials, epidemiological studies, meta-analyses and toxicological screening. Clinical & Experimental Pharmacology, 5(4), 182–187. doi:10.4172/2161-1459.1000182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Given, L. M. (2008). The sage encyclopedia of qualitative research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications Inc.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, C., Culatta, R., Pratt, M., & West, R. (2004). Redesigning the teacher education technology course to emphasize integration. Computer in the Schools, 21(1), 127–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green, L., Kennedy, K., Chassereau, K., & Evans, A. (2012). Integrating technology in content methods courses: A co-teaching experience. In Proceeding of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2012 (pp. 3457–3461). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.

  • Greenberg, J., Pomerance, L., & Walsh, K. (2011). Student teaching in the United States. Washington, DC: National Council on Teacher Quality. Retrieved March 26, 2012, from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED521916.pdf.

  • Grove, K., Strudler, N., & Odell, S. (2004). Mentoring toward technology use: cooperating teacher practice in supporting student teachers. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 37(1), 85–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grove, K., Strudler, N., & Odell, S. (2007). Assessing technology integration in mentoring practices during student teaching: Multi-case. International Journal of Technology in Teaching and Learning, 3(1), 66–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hargrave, C. P., & Hsu, Y. (2000). Survey of instructional technology courses for preservice teachers. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 8(4), 303–314.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hightower, A. (2009). Tracking U.S. trends: States earn B average for supporting ed. tech. use. Education Week, 28(26), 30–33.

  • Jimoyiannis, A. (2010). Designing and implementing an integrated technological pedagogical science knowledge framework for science teacher professional development. Computer and Education, 55, 1259–1269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, L. D. (2012). The effect of design teams on preservice teachers’ technology integration. (Order No. 3550513, Syracuse University). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, 225. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1287054009?accountid=13360. (1287054009).

  • Kleiner, B., Thomas, N., & Lewis, L. (2007). Educational technology in teacher education programs for initial licensure (NCES 2008-040). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.

  • Koerner, M., & Rust, F. O. (2002). Exploring roles in student teaching placements. Teacher Education Quarterly, 29(2), 35–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Korthagen, F. A., & Kessels, J. P. A. M. (1999). Linking theory and practice: Changing the pedagogy of teacher education. Educational Researcher, 28(4), 4–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Law, N., Pelgrum,W. J., & Plomp, T. (2008). Pedagogy and ICT use in schools around the world. Findings from the IEA SITES 2006 study. Hong Kong: Comparative Education Research Centre, The University of Hong Kong. Retrived March 18, 2012, from http://www.springerlink.com/content/978-1-4020-8928-2#section=152250&page=1.

  • Lawless, K. A., & Pellegrino, J. W. (2007). Professional development in integrating technology into teaching and learning: Knowns, unknowns, and ways to pursue better questions and answers. Review of Educational Research, 77(4), 575–614.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin, C. M., & Lu, M. (2010). The study of teachers’ task values and self-efficacy on their commitment and effectiveness for technology-instruction integration. US-China Education Review, 7(5), 1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lin, M., Lucas, H. C., & Schmueli, G. (2013). Too big to fail: large samples and the p-value problem. Information Systems Research, 24(4), 906–917.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McIntyre, J., Byrd, D., & Foxx, S. (1997). Field and laboratory experiences. In J. Sikula (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 171–193). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mims, C., Polly, D., Shepherd, C., & Inan, F. (2006). Examining PT3 projects designed to improve preservice education. TechTrends, 50(3), 16–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A new framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moursund, D., & Bielefeldt, T. (1999). Will new teachers be prepared to teach in a digital age? A national survey on information technology in teacher education (Research Study). Santa Monica, CA: Milken Family Foundation. Retrieved May 18, 2012 from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED428072.pdf.

  • Mroczek, D. K., & Spiro, A., III. (2005). Change in life satisfaction over 20 years during adulthood: Findings from the VA normative aging study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 189–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mueller, J., Wooda, E., Willoughby, T., Ross, C., & Specht, J. (2008). Identifying discriminating variables between teachers who fully integrate computers and teachers with limited integration. Computers & Education, 51(4), 1523–1537.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • NCATE (National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education) (2008). Professional standards for the accreditation of teacher preparation institutions. Retrieved June 10, 2012 from http://www.ncate.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=nX43fwKc4Ak%3D&tabid=669.

  • Özgün-Koca, S. A., Meagher, M., & Edwards, M. T. (2010). Pre-service teachers’ emerging TPACK in a technology-rich methods class. The Mathematics Educator, 19(2), 10–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pelgrum, W. J., & Anderson, R. A. (Eds.). (1999). ICT and the emerging paradigm for life long learning: A worldwide educational assessment of infrastructure, goals and practices. Amsterdam: IEA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Piper, D. (2003). The relationship between leadership, self-efficacy, computer experience, attitudes, and teachers’ implementation of computers in the classroom. In C. Crawford, D. Willis, R. Carlsen, I. Gibson, K. McFerrin, J. Price & R. Weber (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference 2003 (pp. 1057–1060). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.

  • Polly, D., Mims, C., Shepherd, C. E., & Inan, F. (2010). Evidence of impact: Transforming teacher education with preparing tomorrow’s teachers to teach with technology (PT3) grants. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 863–870.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ravid, R. (2011). Practical statistics for educators (4th ed.). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, D., Baran, E., Thompson, A., Mishra, P., Koehler, M., & Shin, T. (2009). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK): The development and validation of an assessment instrument for pre-ervice teachers. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(2), 123–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schrum, L. (1999). Technology professional development for teachers. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(4), 83–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singer, J. D. (1998). Using SAS proc mixed to fit multilevel models, hierarchical models, and individual growth models. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 23, 323–355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singer, J. D., & Willett, J. B. (2003). Applied longitudinal analysis: Modeling change and event occurrence. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sproull, N. L. (1988). Handbook of research methods: A guide for practitioners and students in the social sciences. Metuchen, NJ: The Scarecrow Press Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strudler, N. B., McKinney, M. O., Jones, W. P., & Quinn, L. F. (1999). First-year teachers’ use of technology: Preparation, expectations, and realities. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 7(2), 115–129.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strudler, N., & Wetzel, K. (1999). Lessons from exemplary colleges of education: Factors affecting technology integration in pre-service programs. ETR&D, 47(4), 63–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tigchelaar, A., & Korthagen, F. (2004). Deepening the exchange of student teaching experiences: Implications for the pedagogy of teacher education of recent insights into teacher behavior. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20, 665–679.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, L., Ertmer, P. A., & Newby, T. J. (2004). Increasing pre-service teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs for technology integration. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 36(3), 231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ward, G., & Overall, T. (2011). Technology integration for pre-service teachers: Evaluating the team-taught cohort model. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 19(1), 23–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wetzel, K., Zambo, R., Buss, R., & Padgett, H. (2001). A picture of change in technology-rich K-8 classrooms. Paper presented at the meeting of the National Educational Computing Conference, Chicago, IL. Retrieved May16, 2012, from http://www.west.asu.edu/pt3/research/documents/PictureofChange.pdf.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Education, University of West Alabama, Livingston, AL, USA

    Yan Sun

  2. School of Information Science & Learning Technologies, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, USA

    Johannes Strobel

  3. College of Education, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA

    Timothy J. Newby

Authors
  1. Yan Sun
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Johannes Strobel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Timothy J. Newby
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yan Sun.

Appendix: survey instrument for measuring pre-service teachers’ readiness for technology integration

Appendix: survey instrument for measuring pre-service teachers’ readiness for technology integration

Thank you for taking time to complete this survey. Please answer each question to the best of your knowledge. Your thoughtfulness and candid responses will be greatly appreciated. Your individual name will be coded and will not at any time be associated with your responses. Your responses will be kept completely confidential and will not influence your course grade. Before taking the survey please check the box below.

Part II

Direction The purpose of this survey is to determine how you feel about integrating technology into classroom teaching. Technology is a broad concept that can mean a lot of different things. For the purpose of this survey, technology is referring to digital technology/technologies—that is, the digital tools we use such as computers, laptops, iPods, handhelds, interactive, whiteboards, software programs, etc. For each statement below, indicate the strength of your agreement or disagreement by circling one of the five scales (i.e., Strongly Disagree = SD; Disagree = D; Neither Agree/Disagree = N; Agree = A; Strongly Agree = SA).

Part III: please list all technologies you have used in your instruction during your student teaching.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sun, Y., Strobel, J. & Newby, T.J. The impact of student teaching experience on pre-service teachers’ readiness for technology integration: A mixed methods study with growth curve modeling. Education Tech Research Dev 65, 597–629 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-016-9486-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-016-9486-x

Keywords

  • Readiness for technology integration
  • Pre-service teachers
  • Student teaching
  • Growth curve model
  • Individual change trajectory