Preparing Teachers to Integrate Technology into K-12 Instruction Comparing a Stand-alone Technology Course with a Technology-infused Approach

We compared the effectiveness of learning TPACK domain knowledge in a new infused approach for teaching technology to teacher candidates with a more traditional, stand-alone course.. Pre

Preparing Teachers to Integrate Technology into K-12 Instruction:

Comparing a Stand-alone Technology Course with a Technology-infused Approach

Ray R Buss, Keith A Wetzel, Teresa S Foulger, and LeeAnn Lindsey

Mary Lou Fulton Teachers CollegeArizona State University

This paper was presented April 6, 2014 at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Philadelphia, PA The authors of this paper received the American Educational Research Association Technology as an Agent of Change in Teaching and Learning (TACTL) Special Interest GroupBest Paper Award, which was presented to them on April 3,

2014 at the Annual Meeting Please do not cite or quote without first obtaining permission from the first author

We compared the effectiveness of learning TPACK domain knowledge in a new infused approach for teaching technology to teacher candidates with a more traditional, stand-alone course In the new approach, learning to use technology is infused into program methods courses Candidates all improved their TPACK domain scores (post-test scores were higher) Interestingly, there were interactions of cohort (stand-alone vs technology-infused) x time of testing (pre- vs post-test scores) on the TPACK measures From pre- to post-test assessment, candidates’ scores from the standalone course increased more rapidly for TK and TPK; whereas candidates’ pre- to post-test scores from the technology-infused courses increased faster for CK and PK Qualitative data also supported the quantitative results In the discussion, we accountedfor the differences, connected the results to the literature, and posed questions for consideration

technology-in future research We concluded by offertechnology-ing implications for technology-technology-infused courses technology-in teacher preparation programs

Preparing Teachers to Integrate Technology into K-12 Instruction:

Comparing a Stand-alone Technology Course with a Technology-infused Approach

candidates) learned to use technology to aid their future classroom instruction

Context and Related Literature

An institutional change in program requirements that provided for substantially more content coursework and a full year of student teaching necessitated removal of a required

foundational, educational technology course and infusion of that content into methods courses This change in requirements was consistent with concerns that stand-alone technology courses were ineffective in providing teacher education candidates with appropriate preparation to successfully integrate technology into their instruction (Bielefeldt, 2001) Others have also written about the value of integrating technology into methods and content courses to foster technology skills more strongly connected to use in PK-12 instruction and cognitive

development of candidates (Pierson & Thompson, 2005; Tonduer van Braak, Sang, Voogt, Fisser, & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2012) Nevertheless, due to the historical contexts in which educational technology courses were initially offered in desktop labs, stand-alone courses have continued to be a critical element in many initial teacher preparation programs (Gronseth et al., 2010; Kleiner, Thomas, and Lewis, 2007) Given the ubiquitous availability of mobile devices,

we suggest that it may be time to once again consider Bielefeldt’s (2001) observation that

standalone courses in computer labs may not provide optimal preparation for candidates to integrate technology into their teaching Further, careful consideration of the technological pedagogical and content knowledge (TPACK) framework (see next section) provides a tentative rationale and a potential model by which technology infusion might be situated in methods courses because technology, pedagogy, and content can be brought together and taught in

meaningful ways in these courses

Theoretical Perspective The TPACK Framework

As educational technology leaders, we consider the transition from an isolated

educational technology course in the candidates’ first semester to infusion of technology into two

technology intensive methods courses through an educational framework known as TPACK

(Koehler & Mishra, 2008; Mishra & Koehler, 2006) The TPACK framework has its roots in Shulman’s (1986) work who suggested good teaching involves blending content and pedagogicalknowledge and extends the model to include incorporating technological knowledge and

blending it with the others Thus, Mishra and Koehler suggested the integration of technology requires teachers to not only have strong content knowledge (CK), pedagogical knowledge (PK),technology knowledge (TK), pedagogical content knowledge (PCK), technological content knowledge (TCK), technological pedagogical knowledge (TPK), but, to seamlessly weave these knowledge bases together as they develop technological pedagogical content knowledge

(TPACK) See Figure 1

Insert Figure 1 about here

As a result of the interactive nature of the three knowledge bases, we began to question the effectiveness of the stand-alone course for technology integration that had been the tradition

in our college, because the stand-alone course may not provide the much-needed, concurrent, authentic content and pedagogy that methods courses can supply Additionally, the TPACK framework is widely accepted internationally by teacher educators who recognize that explicitly addressing the development of teacher candidates’ TPACK knowledge is a more appropriate pathway to foster technology integration than merely addressing fluency with technological tools(Niess, 2011)

Development of TPACK in Preservice Teacher Candidates

Before reviewing the literature on development of TPACK in preservice teachers, we briefly digress to review the work of Niess and her colleagues (Niess, 2011; Niess et al., 2009) Niess and her associates have examined the development of TPACK among inservice teachers They suggested the development of TPACK included five steps: (a) recognizing (knowing about) the alignment of technology with content, but do not yet integrating technology into teaching content; (b) accepting (being persuaded about) the use of technology for teaching specific content; (c) adapting (making a decision about) technology to assist in teaching a contentarea; (d) exploring (implementing), that is, actively integrating technology into teaching, and (e) advancing (confirming) by evaluating the results of the instructional technology integration efforts Recent, additional research evidence suggested inservice teachers attained TPACK through unique pathways where they focused on one domain, e.g., TK or TPK, more than others (Author, under review)

Others have explored the development of TPACK in preservice teacher candidates (Chai,Koh, & Tsai, 2010; Hofer & Grandgenett, 2012; Mouza & Karchmer-Klein, 2013; Özgün-Koca,

Meagher, & Edwards, 2010; Pamuk, 2011) For example, Pamuk (2011) studied TPACK growth

in 78 preservice teachers taking an information and communication technologies (ICT) course where they designed “educational materials for teaching subject matter to learners who are eitherdistant-located or are using computers independently” (p 427) These students would become technology teachers at the middle or high school level or work in other technology positions Results showed participants struggled with developing new TPACK knowledge Moreover, Pamuk concluded limited pedagogical knowledge may have inhibited technology integration In

a quantitative study, Chai et al (2010) also observed TPACK development in an ICT course for

365 secondary, preservice teachers Participants completed both a pre- and post-course TPACK survey adapted from the work of Schmidt, Baran, Thompson, Mishra, Koehler, and Shin (2009) The adaptations included use of only TK, PK, CK, and TPACK subscales; a 7-point Likert format rather than a 5-point format; and revision of CK to make them appropriate to teaching of secondary content Results indicated there were gains on all the subscales Moreover, regressionanalyses indicated TK, PK, and CK all predicted secondary preservice teachers’ TPACK with

PK having the greatest influence

Özgün-Koca et al (2010) examined the development of TPACK using surveys and assignments of preservice, secondary mathematics teachers enrolled in a mathematics methods course Data indicated TPACK development among preservice teachers was related to a shift in identity from learners to teachers of mathematics Hofer and Grandgenett (2012) investigated TPACK development among eight secondary, preservice teachers who participated in an 11-month M.A.Ed program Results from surveys, reflections, and instructional plans showed considerable development of TPK and TPACK, but limited growth of TCK Finally, Koh and Divaharan (2011) examined the development of TPACK among 74 primary, preservice teachers,

using an instructional model they formulated, which was called the TPACK-developing

instructional model (TPACK-DIM) TPACK-DIM was based on the five developmental

TPACK stages observed by Niess (2011; Niess et al 2009) and it was composed of three

instructional stages: (a) fostering acceptance, (b) technological proficiency and pedagogical modeling, and (c) pedagogical application The TPACK-DIM model was applied in a seven-week ICT course focused on instruction on the use of Interactive Whiteboards Data revealed participants chiefly improved their TK, how to use the technical capabilities of the Whiteboard, and TPK To develop other TPACK areas, Koh and Divaharan recommended, “More emphasis

on subject-focused pedagogical modeling, product critique, and peer sharing may better develop their Technological Content Knowledge and TPACK” (p 35)

Given the recent wide-ranging work on the development of TPACK, we were interested

in examining how TPACK developed in two technology-infused methods courses offered over several semesters of the teacher preparation program as compared to its development in a

standalone course As noted in the research reviewed above, many of the studies that have been conducted to examine the development of TPACK have been carried out in single-semester, ICT course (Chai et al., 2010; Koh & Divaharan, 2011; Pamuk, 2011) rather than in technology-infused methods courses, which are offered over time throughout the program Of interest to us, was the question of whether a different type of educational technology curriculum that spanned multiple contexts, was iterative and developmental in nature, and was not isolated in one

semester afforded teacher education candidates better preparation? Further, infusing technology into the methods courses is consistent with Niess’ (2008) conceptualization, in which she

suggested that “guiding preservice teachers in developing TPCK” could best be accomplished by

incorporating technological knowledge into methods courses where teacher education candidates

would be concurrently developing pedagogical knowledge and content knowledge

Research Questions

The research questions guiding the study were:

1 To what extent do standalone and technology-infused courses facilitate learning of TPACK domains?

2 Are there any differences in the rates of learning of TPACK domains across the two types of courses?

3 What accounts for TPACK learning and perceptions of technology integration abilities

of preservice teacher education candidates?

Quantitative data were used to answer the first two research questions whereas; qualitative data were used to answer the third research question

Method Context for the Courses

The required standalone educational technology course, TEL 313, was taken by all

candidates during the first semester of their junior year at the beginning of their program The course was designed to help candidates: (a) learn how to use technology tools for teaching and learning, (b) stay updated and adopt a mindset of being innovative with technology, (c) apply ethical principles of using technology with their students, (d) attain experiences with a variety technologies and their use in classroom settings, and (e) integrate technology into teaching standards-based content Further, this course content was reflected in what we asked students to

do in major assignments such as digital video storytelling, a micro-teaching situation employing

the TPACK framework, and development of unit that integrated technology

The two tech-infused courses for elementary and special education candidates were EED

433—Language Arts Methods, Management, and Assessment; and EED 324—Social Studies in Elementary Schools For secondary candidates, the two courses tech-infused courses were SED 464—Middle School Curriculum and Organization, and RDG 323—Content Area Reading The technology component of these courses was designed to afford students opportunities like those

in the standalone course such as learning about technology tools, applying ethical principles, attaining experiences with various technologies, and integrating technology into their teaching Importantly, these technology aspects of the courses were conducted within the context of the methods candidates were learning A “digital media” component was included in EED 433 and SED 464, which assisted candidates in developing skills associated with conducting research such as identifying and evaluating web-based resources, fair use, plagiarism, and proper citation

of sources

Participants

In all, 282 undergraduate teacher candidates had complete data for the two quantitative data collections in the spring 2012 (standalone course) and fall, spring, fall 2012-2013 semesters (technology-infused courses; offering of tech-infused courses varied by program) There were 94candidates in the first cohort, the stand-alone course, and 188 in the second cohort, technology-infused courses In both cohorts, candidates came from elementary, secondary, and special education programs The mean age of the participants was 23.17 years with a SD of 6.04 years Ethnic makeup was 70.8% Caucasian, 3.2% African American, 18.5% Hispanic, 3.0% Asian or Pacific Islander, and 2.6% Native American Approximately 55 candidates participated in the nine focus groups

Design of the Study

We employed a mixed method design to gather both quantitative and qualitative data Consistent with Greene’s (2007) explanation for using a mixed method procedure, we sought a deeper more comprehensive understanding of the phenomena we were examining by allowing

qualitative data to provide complementarity to the quantitative data Greene suggested, “In a

complementarity mixed methods study, results from the different methods serve to elaborate, enhance, deepen, and broaden the overall interpretations and inferences from the study” (p 101).Quantitative measures included pre- and post-test measures of various TPACK knowledge domains See the next section on Instruments Qualitative data came from candidates’ responses

to as set focus group questions

Instruments

Knowledge of the TPACK domains including CK, TK, PK, TPK, CPK, and TPACK were assessed using a 53-item instrument based on the work of Schmidt et al (2009) Candidates

responded to the items on a 5-point Likert scale, 1 = Strongly disagree to 5 = Strongly agree

Examples of items were: “I have the technical skills I need to use technology;” “I can adapt my teaching style to different learners;” and “I can use strategies that combine content, technologies,and teaching approaches in the classroom.” Those three items were representative of items on the

TK, PK, and TPACK scales, respectively Quantitative data were analyzed using multivariate and univariate repeated measures analysis of variance procedures

Qualitative data were obtained in nine focus group interviews in which groups of 4 to 8 candidates responded to a series of nine interview items Interview items included:

1 How well do you feel prepared to teach elementary students to use technology to work toward content standards?

2 What factors account for your level of preparation in being able to integrate technologyinto your instruction?

3 What would prepare you better to integrate technology into your instruction?

4 Do you think you are representative of other students in being able to integrate

9 What technology integration procedures have you seen modeled in your education courses? What technologies? What activities? What assignments?

Data Analyses

Prior to conducting the quantitative analyses, Cronbach’s coefficient alpha reliabilities were computed Quantitative data were analyzed using multivariate, repeated measures analyses

of variance procedures with follow-up ANOVAs as appropriate

Qualitative data were analyzed in the following way Responses for all focus groups were audiotaped, transcribed, entered into HyperRESEARCH Qualitative Analysis Tool, coded, and then analyzed using predetermined and emerging codes (Creswell, 2009) Predetermined

codes arose naturally from the literature review and our understanding of the TPACK frameworkand the National Education Technology Standards—Teachers and Students (ISTE, 2011) Examples of predetermined codes included: understand various tech tools, understand digital literacy, students use technology in research, and students use technology for communication andcollaboration Based on our analysis, examples of emerging codes included: faculty exposed candidates to tools, faculty embedded tech into assignments, critical thinking emphasis, and faculty should provide more instruction on pedagogy with technology Emerging codes were developed using the constant comparative method (Strauss & Corbin, 1998)

To ensure credibility, specific steps were taken as outlined in what follows First, two of authors read and reread transcriptions of the interviews and then began to code the candidate focus group data They met multiple times to compare and refine the nascent codes Each coded the same transcript individually and then they met to discuss codes and their application of the codes They repeated this process for portions of each transcript After reaching substantial agreement on the coding of transcripts, they individually coded the remaining transcripts Second, they met and worked to combine the codes into larger categories Subsequently, theme-related components and themes were developed At each step of the process, the data were revisited and carefully reflected on to ensure they continued to support the higher level

interpretations of the data Thus, the data analysis was performed in an analytical, dependable, and careful way The processes are credible because reflective efforts were employed, detailed processes were followed, and a comprehensive audit trail was developed Finally, consistent with interpretive methods, we do not claim nor should the reader infer that our accounts are the only way to interpret the data

Results Quantitative Results

Cronbach’s alpha reliabilities were well above 70, with a range from 85 to 94 See last column of Table 1 To answer research question 1 about whether the courses facilitated learning

technology-infused courses) was significant, multivariate F(6, 275) = 3.36, p < 003 Follow-up

univariate tests of the cohort effect showed only one variable, CK, was significantly different

between the cohort groups, F(1, 280) = 11.28, p < 001 The mean for cohort 2 was significantly

higher—4.20 vs 3.96

The within-subject effect for time of testing (pre- vs post-test) was significant,

multivariate F(6, 275) = 22.81, p < 001, with η2 = 332 Follow-up univariate ANOVAs for all the post-test variable scores were significantly higher than the pre-test scores See Table 1 for theresults of these tests Importantly, for the majority of the TPACK variables effect sizes

measured by partial η2 were large effect sizes for a within-subjects design based on Cohen’s criteria (Olejnik & Algina, 2000) with the exceptions of TK, which was medium, and CK, which was small Cohen (1988; Olejnik & Algina, 2000) suggested η2 values equal to or exceeding 01,.06, and 14 are considered to be small, medium, and large effect sizes, respectively, when proportion of variance accounted for is used as a measure of effect size for a within-subjects

design Thus, the gains observed reflect meaningful increases in knowledge and are not merely aresult of large sample sizes Also, see Table 2 for the means and standard deviations

Insert Table 2 about here

Additionally, the within-subject interaction effect for time of testing x cohort was

significant, multivariate F(6, 275) = 10.46, p < 001, with η2 = 186 Follow-up, univariate tests for the interaction effects showed TK, CK, PK, and TPK developed at different rates from pre-

to post-test assessments for the two cohorts; whereas, PCK and TPACK did not grow at differentrates over time by cohort Specifically, TK and TPK developed at faster rates from pre- to post-test assessments in the stand-alone group On the other hand, CK and PK grew at faster rates from pre- to post-test measures for the technology-infused group See Table 1 for details on the follow-up, repeated measures ANOVA tests for time of testing and the time x cohort interactionsand Table 2 for the means

skills and technologies in the courses, which prepared them to integrate technology into PK-12 teaching; (b) intention to integrate technology into PK-12 instruction with concerns about limits

on their abilities; and (c) course limitations and suggestions to improve courses The data were quite consistent across the two cohorts with respect to the first two themes Both groups

suggested exposure to various technologies in the course(s) benefitted them Further, there were similar claims about intending to integrate technology into their instruction Information for the third theme on course limitations and suggestions for improvement came primarily from cohort 2when they discussed the new, technology-infused courses

Theme 1 With respect to technology integration (TI), candidates suggested the courses

were beneficial in developing their abilities to integrate technology into PK-12 instruction

Candidates offered a range of responses with respect to their preparation to integrate technology into their teaching When candidates responded to the focus group question whether

they were well prepared to integrate technology into their classrooms, they offered a range of responses from less or somewhat prepared to well prepared For example, one candidate

averred, “… in our class, I noticed … a lot of us don't know how to exactly use technology extremely well either.” Another suggested she perceived she was somewhat prepared when she stated, “I feel sort of prepared to use it.”

By comparison, about half of the students felt they were well prepared, like the one who

affirmed, I believe that the assignments … have helped to prepare me to the level I am now as far as transferring that into my teaching later.” Importantly, they learned to learn based on theirpreparation in the courses and this contributed to increased confidence to use technology during instruction This confidence is clearly captured in one candidate’s comments when he

maintained, “While we may not have had the time to go through and learn how to use all the

specific features…I’d be comfortable rolling (these tools) out with kids, assuming I had the time (to prepare).” Another advised, “I feel confident, but I want more practice in using technology found at schools, like the SMART Boards.” Finally, one declared,

I feel prepared in the sense of being aware of all the technology I can use, not so much in the sense that I can use them all individually… I was satisfied with that because it allows

me to pick and choose the ones [tools] I would want to go deeper into

Taken together, these results suggest over half the candidates felt they were well prepared

to integrate technology in their instruction; whereas others were less certain Candidates

indicated they learned to use technology tools Candidates described a variety of technologies,

which they had learned about and used They noted they most often learned to use technology tools such as Microsoft Office, iMovie, iPhoto; communication tools like email and pen pal programs; and content area websites One candidate offered a characteristic response when she acknowledged, “We've used like iMovie and iPhoto and the SMART Board, educational sites to play games In our writing course, we're making a digital story using iMovie That was a cool technology-[in]fused assignment.” Another commented, “We were introduced to a lot of

different techniques.”

Others focused their comments on online tools One respondent declared the importance

of these tools when she declared, “things we’re doing right now … Google Docs … and also the Wiki pages.” Another’s response also indicated this viewpoint when she acknowledged, “We were introduced to a lot of different web sites …” A third candidate mentioned the use of pen pals as an online tool she learned when she affirmed, “The pen pals … I could probably do that with an elementary school class.” Candidates’ perceptions about the value of learning the different technology tools was best summed up in the following comment, “I feel like being

exposed to those different types of technology was useful because I mean if we want to

implement something like that into our classroom, then at least we know that it's out there.”

Candidates affirmed that instructors provided strategies that prepared them to

integrate technology into instruction Candidates reported that instructors employed three

strategies that helped to prepare them to integrate technology in their future classrooms: (a) embedding technology and requiring candidates to create something with technology for

required assignments and online modules; (b) employing project-based learning; and (c)

encouraging candidates to share with each other

For some candidates, required work prepared them to integrate technology For example,one candidate maintained, “The assignments that we have been given, and we've had to look into

it ourselves … have helped to prepare me … as far as transferring that into my teaching later.” Another described the modules as being beneficial when she stated, “I agree with the module being integrated into the class and being very useful.”

One instructor organized instruction around project-based learning projects during class time Candidates found this was beneficial because technology use was inherent to the project activity, as noted when one candidate testified,

…he does a good job of like letting us explore what technology we can use, because he might be like, ‘Okay, use any aspect of technology you want to explain your lesson or whatever.’ That gives us the opportunity to kind of go out and see what is out there, and then share with each other I learned more from my peers, than I did necessarily from him It’s because of the way he designed—the way he taught the class

Another suggested sharing thoughts on the discussion board was helpful, when she averred,

“We've used discussion boards, so we can all share information and comment on each other's

[work].” Nevertheless, another candidate commented on the limited number of technologies explored in the projects, “In this class we've done projects and she says, ‘Go pick a technology Here's a bunch of them, go explore.’ That's been the only thing other than PowerPoint that I've seen integrated in this [course].”

Candidates had a strong understanding of digital media, which they would use in their

instruction Candidates responded to two questions about appropriate use of digital media (e.g., critical

consumption by P-12 students, copyright and fair use, etc.) They generally agreed on the importance of learning and teaching these skills Responses were focused on three issues: (a) critical consumption, (b) copyright and fair use, and (c) critical thinking With respect to P-12 students being critical

consumers, one candidate suggested, “I think that it would be extremely important to teach them to

be critical viewers, and to always question, and to look up … other things, and to get the full picture.”

With respect to copyright and fair use, predictably candidates indicated these issues should be taught to P-12 students One candidate maintained, “I think it's extremely important to show them ways to document their source and to summarize.” Similarly, candidates expressed the

importance of using digital media as a means to develop critical thinking among their P-12 students For example, one candidate asserted, “I think that using technology to help them develop these skills is a really good way to do it because they need problem solving skills and critical thinking skills.” Another acknowledged,

I think it's very important because digital media is gonna [sic] be everywhere It's only

escalating, and we need to make sure that they can think critically about what they're being shown and how to use it to help them be better prepared for life

Theme 2 Candidates communicated their visions for TI in their future classrooms, but

they expressed concerns about their abilities to engage in practical classroom applications of technology to implement technology integration

Candidates indicated how they would employ technology in teaching Candidates

offered suggestions about various technologies they intended to use in their instruction One future middle school teacher discussed using a mind-mapping tool to teach science processes when she asserted,

I want to teach middle school science…I would actually use photosynthesis, and have them create a computer diagram of how it goes through the process…I think that is a big motivator … in order to make the model, and they'll be forced to analyze the information that they have, to understand it and make it

Another advocated for using technology to allow students to conduct their own research work when she affirmed, “depending on the grade level, like obviously make it towards their grade level, but some kind of research project, where they can pick their own topics.” Still another

offered, “For me … I wanna [sic] teach between third and fifth grade I really like the digital

story idea.” Another prospective elementary teacher indicated how he would employ technologywith his students so they could chart data when he declared, “ I wanna [sic] teach middle school

science, so of course they're gonna [sic] do tests and get data and things like that Using

Microsoft Excel to make charts and graphs and then they can take that and put them into

PowerPoints, things like that.”

Other candidates suggested similar powerful applications for social studies, language arts,and mathematics They discussed using technologies such as Smart Boards, pen pal programs,