Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
Dissertation Oral Defense
Dissertation Oral Defense
Dissertation Oral Defense
Dissertation Oral Defense
Dissertation Oral Defense
Dissertation Oral Defense
Dissertation Oral Defense
Dissertation Oral Defense
Dissertation Oral Defense
Dissertation Oral Defense
Dissertation Oral Defense
Dissertation Oral Defense
Dissertation Oral Defense
Dissertation Oral Defense
Dissertation Oral Defense
Dissertation Oral Defense
Dissertation Oral Defense
Dissertation Oral Defense
Dissertation Oral Defense
Dissertation Oral Defense
Dissertation Oral Defense
Dissertation Oral Defense
Dissertation Oral Defense
Dissertation Oral Defense
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Dissertation Oral Defense

453

Published on

Published in: Education, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
453
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
16
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide
  • When one-way between-groups analysis of variance was conducted to explore the self-efficacy of participants who reported the amount of time spent outside of the district on technology integration professional development as measured by the CTIS, there was no statistically significant difference between participants’ technology self-efficacy. Also, a one-way between-groups analysis of variance was conducted to explore the quality of technology integration into teachers’ lesson plans as measured by the TPACK rubric and the amount of time participants spent outside of the district on technology integration professional development. There was no statistically significant difference between the three groups. Moreover, a one-way between-groups analysis of variance was conducted to explore attitudes towards technology of participants of the three groups for time spent outside of the district on technology integration professional development. There was no statistically significant difference of participants’ attitudes towards technology integration among the three groups.
  • The data indicated there was no statistically significant difference in technology self-efficacy scores for those who attended the district’s technology professional development (M = 4.29, SD = 1.10) and those who did not attend (M = 4.37, SD = .90); t (72) = .34, p = .73 (two-tailed).There was no statistically significant difference in attitude scores for those who attended the district’s technology professional development (M = 4.90, SD = .79) and those who did not attend (M = 5.01, SD = .70); t (72) = .67, p = .50 (two-tailed).There was no statistically significant difference in scores for those who attended the district’s technology professional development (M = 22.84, SD = 5.84) and those who did not attend the district’s technology professional development (M = 21.81, SD = 5.87); t (72) = -.75 (two-tailed).
  • Transcript

    • 1. EXAMININGTHE RELATIONSHIPAMONG HIGH-SCHOOLTEACHERS’TECHNOLOGYSELF-EFFICACY,ATTITUDESTOWARDSTECHNOLOGYINTEGRATION,AND QUALITYOFTECHNOLOGYINTEGRATIONDissertation DefenseStacey L. GonzalesDoctoral CandidateNorthern Illinois University
    • 2. Brief Introduction• Who am I?• What did I want to know?
    • 3. Need for the Study• There is an expectation that U.S. high-school teacherscan successfully utilize technology for instruction.• National Education Technology Plan (2011) indicates:• Schools must be ―applying the advanced technologies used in ourdaily personal and professional lives to our entire education systemto improve student learning‖• Paucity of peer-reviewed research studies which examinehigh-school teachers’ technology self-efficacy inrelationship to attitudes and quality of technologyintegration.
    • 4. Research Questions1. Is there a relationship between high-school teachers’technology self-efficacy and quality of technologyintegration?2. Is there a relationship between high-school teachers’technology self-efficacy and attitudes towardstechnology integration?3. Is there a relationship between high-school teachers’attitudes towards technology integration and quality oftechnology integration?4. Ad Hoc Research Question: Is there a statisticallysignificant difference in the technology self-efficacybetween teachers who spend much time or little time ontechnology integration professional development?
    • 5. 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’ classroominstruction and actual practice (Shavelson, 1983).
    • 6. 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
    • 7. Theoretical Framework• Bandura’s Theory of Self-Efficacy• Teacher Technology Self-efficacy• TPACK Framework• Technological, Pedagogical, Content Knowledgehttp://mkoehler.educ.msu.edu/tpack/files/2011/05/tpack.jpghttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e4/Bandura-Self-Efficacy-400pix.jpg
    • 8. InstrumentsInstrument Original Instrument Authors Final Instrument1 Computer Technology IntegrationSurvey (CTIS)Wang, Ertmer and Newby(2004)Teacher TechnologyBeliefs and AttitudesSurvey (TTBAS)2 Teacher Technology Beliefs Survey(TTBS)An and Reigeluth (2011)3 TPACK-Based TechnologyIntegration Assessment Rubric(TTIAR)Harris, Grandgenett, andHofer (2010)TPACK-BasedTechnology IntegrationAssessment Rubric
    • 9. Pilot Study• Two months prior to data collection• Survey Design• Three Expert Raters• Inter-rater reliability• Operationalize Rubric• Determined need for open-ended responses
    • 10. Data (Rubric) Analysis1. Each teacher submitted two lesson plans; Lesson 1 andLesson 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 toprovide a final rating for each lesson plan and consisted of aminimum score of 4 and a maximum score of 165. The median scores of Lesson 1 and Lesson 2 were addedtogether to provide a cumulative total of both lessonssubmitted by each teacher6. The total score, a minimum score of 8 and maximum scoreof 32, was used to answer the research questions
    • 11. Results – Research Question OneIs there a relationship between high-school teachers’technology self-efficacy and quality of technologyintegration?There was a moderaterelationship between therespondents’ levels oftechnology integration self-efficacy and the quality oftechnology integration intotheir lesson plans(r = .41, p < .01).
    • 12. Results – Research Question Two• Is there a relationship between high-school teachers’technology self-efficacy and attitudes towards technologyintegration?There is a strong relationshipbetween the respondents’levels of technologyintegration self-efficacy andtheir positive beliefs thatutilizing technology forinstruction is valuable(r = .61, p<.01).
    • 13. Results – Research Question Three• Is there a relationship between high-school teachers’attitudes toward technology integration and quality oftechnology integration?There was a weakrelationship between therespondents’ beliefs about theimportance of utilizingtechnology for instruction andthe quality of technologyintegration ( r = .26, p < .05)
    • 14. Results – Ad Hoc Question FourIs there a statistically significant difference in thetechnology self-efficacy between teachers who spendmuch time and little time on technology integrationprofessional development?There was a statistically significant difference at the p < .05 level inCTIS scores for two of the five categories of professionaldevelopment F (4, 69) = 2.5, p = .05). Group 1 (much professionaldevelopment) differed significantly from Group 5 (no professionaldevelopment).Approximately how much professional development regarding technology integrationhave you had OUTDISE of [district] professional development?5 = Much4 = Not Labeled3= Some2 = Not Labeled1 = None
    • 15. Results – Ad Hoc Question FourComparisons of Efficacy of Professional Development GroupsGroup Label M SE Sig.95% CILB UB1 2 -.65490 .32672 .275 -1.5701 .26033 -.51405 .30195 .439 -1.3599 .33184 -.45294 .37961 .755 -1.5163 .61045 -1.35297* .45232 .031 -2.6200 -.08592 1 .65490 .32672 .275 -.2603 1.57013 .14085 .30195 .990 -.7050 .98674 .20196 .37961 .984 -.8614 1.26535 -.69804 .45232 .538 -1.9651 .56903 1 .51405 .30195 .439 -.3318 1.35992 -.14085 .30195 .990 -.9867 .70504 .06111 .35852 1.000 -.9432 1.06545 -.83889 .43477 .312 -2.0568 .37904 1 .45294 .37961 .755 -.6104 1.51632 -.20196 .37961 .984 -1.2653 .86143 -.06111 .35852 1.000 -1.0654 .94325 -.90000 .49189 .365 -2.2779 .47795 1 1.35297* .45232 .031 .0859 2.62002 .69804 .45232 .538 -.5690 1.96513 .83889 .43477 .312 -.3790 2.05684 .90000 .49189 .365 -.4779 2.2779*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.
    • 16. Results – Ad Hoc Question FourApproximately how much professional development regarding technologyintegration 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 5There was no statistically significant differences at the p < .05 level inbetween groups in self-efficacy, attitude, and quality of technologyintegration.Is there a statistically significant difference in thetechnology self-efficacy between teachers who spendmuch time and little time on technology integrationprofessional development?
    • 17. Additional AnalysisSummer Technology Bootcamp refers to the school district’s week-long,in-house summer professional development session. It was designedto prepare teachers for the following academic year’s 1:1 technologyinitiative where all freshman students received a notebook computer touse at school and take home daily. The professional developmentincluded training on classroom management tools and a new onlinelearning management system. Other sessions included productdemonstrations of various teaching and learning technologies.There were no statistically significant differences in bootcampparticipants’ comparisons between self-efficacy, attitude, and quality oftechnology integration to those who did not attend.
    • 18. Discussion• School administrators and those providing professionaldevelopment must find ways to help teachers see thevalue of technology for instruction.• Resistant teachers need to see practical and authentic applicationsof technology in their subject areas to be persuaded thattechnology has value in the classroom (Lambert and Gong, 2010).• Context specific examples are used to bolster the value oftechnology for instruction.• Exemplars of technology enhanced lessons which take intoaccount all aspects of the TPACK model should be addressed.
    • 19. Professional Development• Findings support that those who seek out new ways tounderstand technology for instruction hold beliefs thatthey are capable of using technology and that it canenhance their instructional practices.• However, teachers who are most aggressive in theirpursuit of technology for instruction have the highestlevels of self-efficacy.
    • 20. Combine Content with Context• Teachers working in content specific groups were found tohave higher levels of self-efficacy after participation in aweek-long workshop (Shriner et al., 2010).• Technology integration may need to be combined with the specificcontent area knowledge to ensure relevance and effectiveintegration.• Balance of content, pedagogy, and technology which allow for themost rich integration of technology for instruction (Abbitt, 2011).• Hopefully will lead to greater levels of technology self-efficacy andgreater quality of technology integration into instructional practices.
    • 21. Future Suggestions• Consider teachers’ current levels of technology self-efficacy prior to developing technology trainingopportunities.• Allow teachers to explore relevant examples in order todemonstrate the value of technology to enhanceinstructional outcomes.• Include TPACK framework as a part of teacher technologyprofessional development so that technology is not anisolated facet of instruction, but it is inter-woven withteaching practices and content area expertise.
    • 22. Future Suggestions Cont’d• Pre- and Post-test measures can be used to assessteachers’ efficacy and attitudes upon completion oftechnology integration professional development.• Further research should be done on the consistency withwhich the quality of technology integration into teacher’slesson plans is assessed.• Examine teachers’ lesson plans in relationship withstudents’ products to determine if students are able todemonstrate the technology competencies and curricularobjectives identified in the lesson plan.
    • 23. Future Suggestions Cont’d• Conduct oral interviews and classroom observations ofteachers’ lesson plans in conjunction with survey data andrubric scores.• Determine relationship between administrators’technology attitudes and self-efficacy in conjunction withteachers’ attitudes and self-efficacy.
    • 24. QUESTIONS

    ×