7.2 Interpretation of Research on Technology Integration in Teacher Education in the USA: Preparation and Current Practices

  • Anne T. Ottenbreit-Leftwich
  • Peggy A. Ertmer
  • Jo Tondeur
Chapter

Abstract

Researchers have called for renewed efforts in exploring both what knowledge should be taught in preservice teacher education programs with regard to technology. In addition, researchers have also called for renewed efforts on how to best prepare teachers to effectively use that knowledge to support teaching and learning. There were multiple ways to approach this problem, but researchers selected a two-phase mixed-methods research design. This chapter examines how the research focus and results were selected and interpreted through a two-phase mixed-methods research design. The chapter describes why and how specific populations were selected (teacher educators and practicing teachers). In addition, the chapter describes why data sources were selected (surveys and multiple case studies – interviews, documents). The analysis of data is also detailed, noting the various statistical tests run, as well as the methods for coding open-ended data. Furthermore, descriptions of interpretations of the results and how findings were established are presented.

References

  1. Bartlett, J. E., Kotrlik, J. W., & Higgins, C. C. (2001). Organizational research: Determining appropriate sample size in survey research. Information Technology, Learning, and Performance Journal, 19(1), 43–50.Google Scholar
  2. Brush, T., Glazewski, K., Rutowski, K., Berg, K., Stromfors, C., Hernandez Van-Nest, M., 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2000). Research methods in education (5th ed.). London: RoutledgeFalmer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Fink, A. (2003). The survey kit (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  5. Guest, G., Bunce, A., & Johnson, L. (2006). How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods, 18(1), 59–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Kay, R. H. (2006). Evaluating strategies used to incorporate technology into pre-service education: A review of the literature. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38, 383–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Keengwe, J., Onchwari, G., & Wachira, P. (2008). Computer technology integration and student learning: Barriers and promise. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 17, 560–565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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.Google Scholar
  9. Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  10. National Education Association. (2008). Technology in schools: The ongoing challenge of access, adequacy, and equity (Policy brief # 19). Washington, DC: NEA Policy and Practice Department.Google Scholar
  11. Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T., Glazewski, K. D., Newby, T. J., & Ertmer, P. A. (2010). Teacher value beliefs associated with using technology: Addressing professional and student needs. Computers & Education, 55(3), 1321–1335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Patton, M. (1980). Qualitative evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  13. Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  14. Pellegrino, J., Goldman, S., Bertenthal, M., & Lawless, K. (2007). Teacher education and technology: Initial results from the “What Works and Why” project. Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, 106(2), 52–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Schmidt, W. (1997). World-Wide Web survey research: Benefits, potential problems, and solutions. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 29(2), 274–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Spector, J. M. (2010). An overview of progress and problems in educational technology. Interactive Educational Multimedia, 1, 27–37.Google Scholar
  18. Stake, R. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  19. Stake, R. (2006). Multiple case study analysis. New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  20. Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (Eds.). (2009). Foundations of mixed methods research: Integrating quantitative and qualitative approaches in the social and behavioral sciences. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  21. Tondeur, J., van Braak, J., & Valcke, M. (2007). Towards a typology of computer use in primary education. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23, 197–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Tondeur, J., van Braak, J., Sang, G., Voogt, J., Fisser, P., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. (2012). Preparing pre-service teachers to integrate technology in education: A synthesis of qualitative evidence. Computers & Education, 59(1), 134–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. U. S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology. (2010). Transforming American education: Learning powered by technology. National Educational Technology Plan 2010. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/technology/netp-2010
  24. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education. (2002). Preparing tomorrow’s teachers to use technology program (PT3). Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/teachtech/about.htm
  25. Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anne T. Ottenbreit-Leftwich
    • 1
  • Peggy A. Ertmer
    • 2
  • Jo Tondeur
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Instructional Systems TechnologyIndiana University – BloomingtonBloomingtonUSA
  2. 2.Learning Design and Technology Program, Department of Curriculum & InstructionPurdue UniversityLafayetteUSA
  3. 3.Research Foundation Flanders, Department of Educational StudiesGhent UniversityGhentBelgium

Personalised recommendations