Dissertation Study Proposal

4,380 views

Published on

A presentation of the study I propose to complete for my dissertation. This is an initial presentation for a research class. The full proposal presentation will be completed in Spring 2010. Any suggestions are always welcome :)

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
4,380
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
3
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Dissertation Study Proposal

  1. 1. THE INCLUSION OF TECHNOLOGY IN PHYSICAL EDUCATION TEACHER EDUCATION PROGRAMS IN CANADA AND THE UNITED STATES<br />Proposal of Dissertation Study<br />Helena Baert<br />Dec. 8, 2009<br />University of Arkansas<br />
  2. 2. Introduction<br />1998: DePauw stated that in every university Kinesiology Physical Education department in the US technology is used within instructional programs as a way to inform pedagogy.<br />New innovations track heart rate, motivate new movers, make students think about why and how they move, encourage kids to get off the couch!<br />
  3. 3.
  4. 4. ARE PE TEACHERS PREPARED TO USE THESE TECHNOLOGIES IN THEIR CLASSROOMS? <br />
  5. 5. ARE PE TE EDUCATORS PREPARING PE TEACHERS TO USE THESE TECHNOLOGIES IN THEIR CLASSROOMS? <br />
  6. 6. Statement of the Problem<br />With the inclusion of the new 2008 standards for future PE teachers, PETE faculty have the task to create instruction that effectively integrates technology<br />I ask whether or not current faculty members of PETE programs are adequately prepared to take on such a task.<br />
  7. 7. Research Questions<br />What do current PE educators believe to be their technological proficiency levels? <br />What is the current level of integration of technology of current PE educators? <br />What factors affect technology use of PETE faculty within the PETE programs?<br />How are PETE programs integrating technology? <br />
  8. 8. Relevant Literature<br />Benefits of Educational Technology<br />Technology in Higher Education<br />Technology in Teacher Education<br />Technology in PETE<br />Technology Integration<br />Diffusion Theory<br />Approaches to integrating technology<br />Factors Influencing Technology Integration<br />Perceptions on Technology Integration<br />Technology in Physical Education<br />
  9. 9. Type of study<br />This study will provide a descriptive overview of the current scope regarding the integration of technology in Physical Education Teacher Education programs across North America. <br />Survey Research<br />Future: Case Studies, PD Interventions<br />
  10. 10. Methods<br />
  11. 11. Participants<br />PETE Faculty Members<br />Canada and USA<br />Cluster Sampling<br />
  12. 12. Instrument Development<br />Review the literature<br />Design the instrument<br />Panel of experts review and pre-test the survey instrument <br />Pilot test the instrument <br />Final survey design and planning<br />Survey study<br />
  13. 13. Instrument<br />Howland and Wedman (2004): instrument of integration of technology of faculty within teacher education programs.<br />Conceptual framework based on learning phases that encourage teaching and learning using emerging technologies <br />Measures technology proficiency perceptions & level of technology integration. <br />
  14. 14. Section 1: Technology proficiency <br />Perceptions of personal skill and knowledge levels of technology<br />Non-use: I have no knowledge/limited knowledge.<br />Awareness: I am aware of this technology and how it can be used.<br />Exploration & Learning: I’m in the process of learning this technology.<br />Application: I use this technology.<br />Sharing and Reflection: I encourage colleagues to use this technology through discussion, modeling, mentoring, collaborative planning, or other means.<br />
  15. 15. Section 2: Integration<br />Perceptions of integration in teaching:<br />Not applicable: I do not believe this technology has application for me or for the curriculum area(s) I teach and is not relevant as a teaching and learning tool.<br />None: no use in course(s)<br />Some:some use in course(s)<br />Well-integrated:natural part of course(s)<br />
  16. 16. Section 1 & 2 (example)<br />
  17. 17. Section 3: Factors<br />Factors perceived by the PETE faculty members to affect their technology integration.<br />5-point Likert Scale (SA – SDA)<br />Using common factors from research + open ended option: Fear, Training, Pedagogical Beliefs, Motivation, Time, Student Needs, Funding, Accessibility, Institutional Culture, Technical Support, Institutional Vision, Professional Organizational Guidelines/ Standards<br />
  18. 18. Section 4: Demographics<br />Approaches to Integration of Technology:<br />Single Course<br />Technology Infusion<br />Student Performance Assessment<br />Case-based Integration<br />Other: <br />gender, age, country, years spent teaching PE at the higher education level, number of PE courses taught each year, highest degree completed, level taught (undergraduate, graduate: Masters/Doctorate), degrees offered in institution, number of PETE faculty members part-time and full-time, number of students majoring in PE at institution, NASPE/NCATE accredited for US schools.<br />
  19. 19. Instrument development<br />Validity: Face & Content Validity<br />Define the domain of interest.<br />Select a panel of experts in the content domain.<br />Table of specifications to match the items to the performance domain and judges will be asked to assess the degree to which a given item matches the set objective.<br />Index of Item-Objective Congruence or IIOC value will be calculated<br />Reliability:<br />Internal Consistency Method<br />Cronbach’s Alpha’s<br />
  20. 20. Data Collection<br />Pre-notice letter sent a few days prior to the questionnaire<br />Initial survey mailing including a cover letter explaining why the response is important<br />Thank you postcard sent a few days after the questionnaire<br />Replacement questionnaire sent 2-4 weeks after the first survey mailing<br />Final contact made by telephone or other mode of contact thanking participants for their cooperation.<br />(Dillman, 2007: Tailored Method Design)<br />
  21. 21. Data Analysis<br />Descriptive statistics: <br />Means<br />Standard Deviations<br />Frequencies<br />Confidence Intervals <br />Reliability: <br />Cronbach’s Alpha<br />Item-to-total Correlations<br />
  22. 22. Questions?<br />

×