Self-efficacy Technology Integration Courses

Self-efficacy & Technology Integration Courses

Jeremy M. Browne, PhD - State University of New York College at Brockport

Charles R. Graham, PhD - Brigham Young University

Conceptual Framework

Skills & Knowledge

National EducationalTechnology Standards

Dispositions

Self-efficacy

Perceived Value

EffectiveIn-PracticeTechnologyIntegration

Can / Can’t

Will / Won’t

Research Questions

• What is the effect of preservice technology integration courses on self-efficacy?

TechnologyIntegrationCourses

Self-efficacy

TechnologyIntegrationCourses

Research Questions

• What is the effect of preservice technology integration courses on self-efficacy?

• What is the effect of pre-course self-efficacy on in-course performance?

Self-efficacySelf-efficacy

Method

• Two course structures• Quasi-experimental Design

– No random assignment• Measured NETS-T self-efficacy pre-

and post-course with the TICS• Repeated measures ANOVA • Linear regression analysis

Course Structure

• IP&T 286– NETS-T Curriculum– One credit hour– Secondary Education majors– Very little “hand-holding”

Course Structure

• IP&T 287– NETS-T Curriculum– Two credit hours– Elementary, Early Childhood, and Special

Education– A lot of “hand-holding”

TICS

• Technology Integration Confidence Scale

• Measures self-efficacy as defined by Bandura (1977, 2006)

• Aligned with (pre-refreshed) NETS-T– Six subscales (one for each NETS-T)

• Freely available at http://www.brownelearning.org/tics

TICS

• Rigorously developed– Technology integration experts: TICS items are

“relevant and representative” to the NETS-T– Item and scale functioning established via Rating

Scale Model (1-Parameter Logistic) analysis– Subscales are unidimensional– Scores do not highly correlate with measures of

“general self-efficacy” (r < .05; Chen et al., 2001)

Participants

Course Male Female Total

286 13 76 89

287 1 121 122

Total 14 197 211

Note: 286 is restricted to Secondary Education majors.287 is restricted to Elementary, Early Childhood, and Special Education majors

Results (1)

• What is the effect of preservice technology integration courses on self-efficacy?

Repeated Measures

• Significant increase in self-efficacy for each NETS-T between pre- and post-course – Except NETS-T IB

• No significant course effect

ANOVA Detailsp-values

NETS-T Pre-post effect Course effectIA <.01 .80IB .19 .33II <.01 .30III <.01 .96IV <.01 .44V <.01 .19VI <.01 .73

NETS-T IB

• Why no significant change in this NETS-T indicator?

• “Teachers demonstrate continual growth in technology knowledge and skills to stay abreast of current and emerging technologies.” (ISTE, 2006)

NETS-T IB

• Paired t-tests (pre-post NETS-T IB)

• Notice the discrepancy between courses

Course Mean diff. SD t df p

286 -.15 .63 -2.2 81 .03

287 -.05 .65 -.97 95 .43

Conclusion (1)

• What is the effect of preservice technology integration courses on self-efficacy?

• Generally, there is a significant increase in NETS-T self-efficacy pre-/post-course.

• CAUTION: Course structure may affect the outcome.

Result (2)

• What is the effect of pre-course self-efficacy on in-course performance?

Linear Regression

• What percentage of variance (R2) in technology integration assignment scores can be explained by pre-course self-efficacy?

Course Pre-course TICS scores Demographics

286 11% 6%287 6% 8%

Note: Demographics included gender, computer ownership, self-rated computer expertise, and other relevant attitudes.

Conclusion (2)

• What is the effect of pre-course self-efficacy on in-course performance?

• It may be highly influential in that it explained up to 11% of variance in assignment scores.

• CAUTION: Course structure may affect the outcome.

Discussion

• Performance in the course with more “hand-holding” (287) was less predicted by pre-course self-efficacy.

• The course with less “hand holding” (286) resulted in significant increases in self-efficacy related to “continual growth in technology knowledge” (NETS-T IB).

Self-efficacy Paradox

• Self-efficacy is gained through “mastery experiences” (Bandura, 2006).

• As “hand holding” increases, opportunities for mastery experiences decrease. Ergo, there is less effect on self-efficacy.

• As “hand holding” decreases, pre-course self-efficacy’s influence grows.

Limitations

• Making mountains out of molehills?– Differences between courses are small.

• Barking up the wrong tree?– Students in each major may be more

different than their courses.• Your mileage may vary.

– Data from only one teacher education program

Future Development ofthe TICS• More data:

– Three more semesters• 600 more participants

– Administration at SUNY Brockport• Large, professional certification program• No technology integration curriculum

• TICS v3– Delayed until “refreshed” NETS-T– Automated, web-based administration and

analysis for all interested institutions

Comments Welcomed

• charles_graham@byu.edu• jbrowne@brockport.edu• http://www.brownelearning.org/tics