24
EXAMINING THE RELATIONSHIP AMONG HIGH-SCHOOL TEACHERS’ TECHNOLOGY SELF-EFFICACY, ATTITUDES TOWARDS TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION, AND QUALITY OF TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION Dissertation Defense Stacey L. Gonzales Doctoral Candidate Northern Illinois University

Dissertation Oral Defense

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Dissertation Oral Defense

EXAMINING THE RELATIONSHIP AMONG HIGH-SCHOOL TEACHERS’ TECHNOLOGY SELF-EFFICACY, ATTITUDES TOWARDS TECHNOLOGY

INTEGRATION, AND QUALITY OF TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION

Dissertation DefenseStacey L. GonzalesDoctoral Candidate

Northern Illinois University

Page 2: Dissertation Oral Defense

Brief Introduction• Who am I?• What did I want to know?

Page 3: Dissertation Oral Defense

Need for the Study• There is an expectation that U.S. high-school teachers

can successfully utilize technology for instruction.• National Education Technology Plan (2011) indicates:

• Schools must be “applying the advanced technologies used in our daily personal and professional lives to our entire education system to improve student learning”

• Paucity of peer-reviewed research studies which examine high-school teachers’ technology self-efficacy in relationship to attitudes and quality of technology integration.

Page 4: Dissertation Oral Defense

Research Questions1. Is there a relationship between high-school teachers’

technology self-efficacy and quality of technology integration?

2. Is there a relationship between high-school teachers’ technology self-efficacy and attitudes towards technology integration?

3. Is there a relationship between high-school teachers’ attitudes towards technology integration and quality of technology integration?

4. Ad Hoc Research Question: Is there a statistically significant difference in the technology self-efficacy between teachers who spend much time or little time on technology integration professional development?

Page 5: Dissertation Oral Defense

Methodology• Descriptive• Quantitate• Correlational

• Survey Data—self-efficacy & attitudes• Lesson Plan Rubric Scores—quality of technology integration

• Assumption:• Teachers’ lesson plans are indicative of typical teachers’ classroom

instruction and actual practice (Shavelson, 1983).

Page 6: Dissertation Oral Defense

Participants and Setting• In-service high-school teachers (n = 74)• 47% male; 53% female• Average of 12 years teaching• 85% received at least one Master’s Degree• Numerous Subject Areas

• Career and Tech. Ed., Driver’s Ed., English, Fine Arts, JROTC, Math, P.E., Science, Special Ed., Social Science, World Language, ESL

• Large, public, Midwestern, urban, and “technology-rich” district

Page 7: Dissertation Oral Defense

Theoretical Framework• Bandura’s Theory of Self-Efficacy

• Teacher Technology Self-efficacy• TPACK Framework

• Technological, Pedagogical, Content Knowledge

http://mkoehler.educ.msu.edu/tpack/files/2011/05/tpack.jpghttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e4/Bandura-Self-Effi

cacy-400pix.jpg

Page 8: Dissertation Oral Defense

InstrumentsInstrument Original Instrument Authors Final Instrument

1 Computer Technology Integration Survey (CTIS)

Wang, Ertmer and Newby (2004)

Teacher Technology Beliefs and Attitudes Survey (TTBAS)

2 Teacher Technology Beliefs Survey (TTBS)

An and Reigeluth (2011)

3 TPACK-Based Technology Integration Assessment Rubric (TTIAR)

Harris, Grandgenett, and Hofer (2010)

TPACK-Based Technology Integration Assessment Rubric

Page 9: Dissertation Oral Defense

Pilot Study• Two months prior to data collection• Survey Design• Three Expert Raters

• Inter-rater reliability• Operationalize Rubric• Determined need for open-ended responses

Page 10: Dissertation Oral Defense

Data (Rubric) Analysis1. Each teacher submitted two lesson plans; Lesson 1 and

Lesson 22. Rater A and B, scored all of the Lesson 1 plans3. Rater C and the researcher scored all of the Lesson 2

plans4. The median score for Lesson 1 and Lesson 2 was used to

provide a final rating for each lesson plan and consisted of a minimum score of 4 and a maximum score of 16

5. The median scores of Lesson 1 and Lesson 2 were added together to provide a cumulative total of both lessons submitted by each teacher

6. The total score, a minimum score of 8 and maximum score of 32, was used to answer the research questions

Page 11: Dissertation Oral Defense

Results – Research Question OneIs there a relationship between high-school teachers’ technology self-efficacy and quality of technology integration?

There was a moderate relationship between the respondents’ levels of technology integration self-efficacy and the quality of technology integration into their lesson plans (r = .41, p < .01).

Page 12: Dissertation Oral Defense

Results – Research Question Two• Is there a relationship between high-school teachers’

technology self-efficacy and attitudes towards technology integration?

There is a strong relationship between the respondents’ levels of technology integration self-efficacy and their positive beliefs that utilizing technology for instruction is valuable (r = .61, p<.01).

Page 13: Dissertation Oral Defense

Results – Research Question Three• Is there a relationship between high-school teachers’

attitudes toward technology integration and quality of technology integration?

There was a weak relationship between the respondents’ beliefs about the importance of utilizing technology for instruction and the quality of technology integration ( r = .26, p < .05)

Page 14: Dissertation Oral Defense

Results – Ad Hoc Question FourIs there a statistically significant difference in the technology self-efficacy between teachers who spend much time and little time on technology integration professional development?

There was a statistically significant difference at the p < .05 level in CTIS scores for two of the five categories of professional development F (4, 69) = 2.5, p = .05). Group 1 (much professional development) differed significantly from Group 5 (no professional development).

Approximately how much professional development regarding technology integration have you had OUTDISE of [district] professional development?5 = Much4 = Not Labeled3= Some2 = Not Labeled1 = None

Page 15: Dissertation Oral Defense

Results – Ad Hoc Question Four Comparisons of Efficacy of Professional Development Groups

Group Label M SE Sig. 95% CI

LB UB 1 2 -.65490 .32672 .275 -1.5701 .2603

3 -.51405 .30195 .439 -1.3599 .3318 4 -.45294 .37961 .755 -1.5163 .6104 5 -1.35297* .45232 .031 -2.6200 -.0859

2 1 .65490 .32672 .275 -.2603 1.5701 3 .14085 .30195 .990 -.7050 .9867 4 .20196 .37961 .984 -.8614 1.2653 5 -.69804 .45232 .538 -1.9651 .5690

3 1 .51405 .30195 .439 -.3318 1.3599 2 -.14085 .30195 .990 -.9867 .7050 4 .06111 .35852 1.000 -.9432 1.0654 5 -.83889 .43477 .312 -2.0568 .3790

4 1 .45294 .37961 .755 -.6104 1.5163 2 -.20196 .37961 .984 -1.2653 .8614 3 -.06111 .35852 1.000 -1.0654 .9432 5 -.90000 .49189 .365 -2.2779 .4779

5 1 1.35297* .45232 .031 .0859 2.6200 2 .69804 .45232 .538 -.5690 1.9651 3 .83889 .43477 .312 -.3790 2.0568 4 .90000 .49189 .365 -.4779 2.2779

*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

Page 16: Dissertation Oral Defense

Results – Ad Hoc Question Four

Approximately how much professional development regarding technology integration have you had OUTDISE of [district] professional development?Collapsed groups from 5 groups to 3 groups:• None = 1 or 2• Some = 3• Much = 4 or 5

There was no statistically significant differences at the p < .05 level in between groups in self-efficacy, attitude, and quality of technology integration.

Is there a statistically significant difference in the technology self-efficacy between teachers who spend much time and little time on technology integration professional development?

Page 17: Dissertation Oral Defense

Additional AnalysisSummer Technology Bootcamp refers to the school district’s week-long, in-house summer professional development session. It was designed to prepare teachers for the following academic year’s 1:1 technology initiative where all freshman students received a notebook computer to use at school and take home daily. The professional development included training on classroom management tools and a new online learning management system. Other sessions included product demonstrations of various teaching and learning technologies.

There were no statistically significant differences in bootcamp participants’ comparisons between self-efficacy, attitude, and quality of technology integration to those who did not attend.

Page 18: Dissertation Oral Defense

Discussion• School administrators and those providing professional

development must find ways to help teachers see the value of technology for instruction.• Resistant teachers need to see practical and authentic applications

of technology in their subject areas to be persuaded that technology has value in the classroom (Lambert and Gong, 2010).

• Context specific examples are used to bolster the value of technology for instruction.

• Exemplars of technology enhanced lessons which take into account all aspects of the TPACK model should be addressed.

Page 19: Dissertation Oral Defense

Professional Development• Findings support that those who seek out new ways to

understand technology for instruction hold beliefs that they are capable of using technology and that it can enhance their instructional practices.

• However, teachers who are most aggressive in their pursuit of technology for instruction have the highest levels of self-efficacy.

Page 20: Dissertation Oral Defense

Combine Content with Context• Teachers working in content specific groups were found to

have higher levels of self-efficacy after participation in a week-long workshop (Shriner et al., 2010).• Technology integration may need to be combined with the specific

content area knowledge to ensure relevance and effective integration.

• Balance of content, pedagogy, and technology which allow for the most rich integration of technology for instruction (Abbitt, 2011).

• Hopefully will lead to greater levels of technology self-efficacy and greater quality of technology integration into instructional practices.

Page 21: Dissertation Oral Defense

Future Suggestions• Consider teachers’ current levels of technology self-

efficacy prior to developing technology training opportunities.

• Allow teachers to explore relevant examples in order to demonstrate the value of technology to enhance instructional outcomes.

• Include TPACK framework as a part of teacher technology professional development so that technology is not an isolated facet of instruction, but it is inter-woven with teaching practices and content area expertise.

Page 22: Dissertation Oral Defense

Future Suggestions Cont’d• Pre- and Post-test measures can be used to assess

teachers’ efficacy and attitudes upon completion of technology integration professional development.

• Further research should be done on the consistency with which the quality of technology integration into teacher’s lesson plans is assessed.

• Examine teachers’ lesson plans in relationship with students’ products to determine if students are able to demonstrate the technology competencies and curricular objectives identified in the lesson plan.

Page 23: Dissertation Oral Defense

Future Suggestions Cont’d• Conduct oral interviews and classroom observations of

teachers’ lesson plans in conjunction with survey data and rubric scores.

• Determine relationship between administrators’ technology attitudes and self-efficacy in conjunction with teachers’ attitudes and self-efficacy.

Page 24: Dissertation Oral Defense

QUESTIONS