Enjoyment, Resistance to Change and mLearning Acceptance Among Pre-Service Teachers
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
0 likes•82 views
This document summarizes the results of a study that examined pre-service teachers' enjoyment of routine, resistance to change, and acceptance of mobile learning. The study surveyed 382 pre-service teachers across three university locations. It found moderate levels of resistance to change, especially in cognitive rigidity. Scores were slightly higher than other studies. The training received by students did not significantly impact their dispositional resistance to change. Branch location and course year did not significantly influence most resistance to change factors.
Recommended
More Related Content
Viewers also liked
Viewers also liked (20)
Similar to Enjoyment, Resistance to Change and mLearning Acceptance Among Pre-Service Teachers
Similar to Enjoyment, Resistance to Change and mLearning Acceptance Among Pre-Service Teachers (20)
More from Technological Ecosystems for Enhancing Multiculturality
More from Technological Ecosystems for Enhancing Multiculturality (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Enjoyment, Resistance to Change and mLearning Acceptance Among Pre-Service Teachers
- 1. ENJOYMENT, RESISTANCE TO CHANGE AND MLEARNING ACCEPTANCE AMONG PRE- SERVICE TEACHERS José Carlos Sánchez Prieto Susana Olmos Migueláñez Francisco J. García Peñalvo GRupo de Investigación en InterAcción y eLearning Instituto Universitario de Ciencias de la Educación (IUCE) Universidad de Salamanca
- 2. INTRODUCTION
- 3. I: RESISTANCE TO CHANGE IN THE KNOWLEDGE SOCIETY CHANGE KNOWLEDGE SOCIETY SCHOOL • The integration of new technologies • New assessment methods • Special education needsTEACHERS PLAY A KEY ROLE IN THE CHANGE PROCESS
- 4. I: RESEARCHING RESISTANCE TO CHANGE Organizational sciences Traditionally focused on organizational factors Lack of consensus on the definition and measurement of this concept
- 5. I: RESEARCHING RESISTANCE TO CHANGE Self-efficacy in the management of change Switching costs Techlogical Change Dispositional Resistance to Change RC
- 6. I: RCS An individuals’tendency to resist or avoid making changes, to devalue change generally. • Routine Seeking: The extent to which one enjoys and seeks out stable and routine environments. • Environmental Reaction: The extent to which individuals feel stressed and uncomfortable in response to imposed change. • Short-term Focus: The degree to which individuals are preoccupied with the short-term inconveniences versus the potential ling-term benefits of the change. • Cognitive Rigidity: A form of stubbornness and an unwillingness to consider alternative ideas and perspectives.
- 7. I: RCS Instrument •Composed by 17 Likert-tipe ítems. Validated •In different studies using CB-SEM methodlogy. •Combined with other models and variables. Educational Field •Initial stage of development.
- 8. METHODOLOGY
- 9. Exogenous •Routine seeking •Emotional Endogenous • Dispositional resistance to change Other Variables • Age • Gender • Course year • Branch M: VARIABLES
- 10. M: SAMPLE • Sample: 382 students. • Branch: • Salamanca: 50.8% • Ávila: 24.9% • Zamora: 24.3% • Course year: • First year: 32.7 • Second year: 33.2 • Third year: 33.8 • Age: • Average: 21.3 • Standard deviation: 3 0 500 Faculty of Education of Salamanca School of Education and Tourism of Ávila University School of Teacher Training of Zamora 100 110 120 130 140 First Second Third
- 11. M: INSTRUMENT Identification data: •Age •Gender •Course year •Branch. 17 Likert tipye items (0-7): •Routine seeking (5) •Emotional reaction (4) •Short-term focus (4) •Cognitive rigidity (4) Cronbach’s alpha: .843
- 12. RESULTS
- 13. R: DESCRIPTIVES AVG STD MED % Valid N1 2 3 4 5 6 7 CR_01 4.52 1.635 5 2.9 10.815.816.421.621.111.3379 CR_02 4.01 1.799 4 12.311.314.219.716.819.2 6.6 381 CR_03 4.17 1.551 4 4.7 10.818.922.620.517.1 5.5 381 CR_04 4.57 1.374 5 2.4 5.8 12.922.629.421.8 5.2 381 ER_01 3.39 1.595 3 15.515.722.018.919.7 5.2 2.9 381 ER_02 3.67 1.550 4 10.613.521.920.322.4 9.0 2.4 379 ER_03 3.89 1.662 4 10.111.720.317.621.913.9 4.5 375 ER_04 3.30 1.517 3 15.017.120.826.612.9 5.5 2.1 380 RS_01 2.47 1.516 2 33.428.613.511.7 8.2 3.2 1.3 377 RS_02 2.75 1.642 2 30.420.918.513.0 9.3 6.3 1.6 378 RS_03 2.01 1.304 2 46.228.315.5 3.4 2.9 2.6 1.0 381 RS_04 2.93 1.355 3 14.526.629.316.1 9.5 2.6 1.3 379 RS_05 1.58 1.012 1 64.522.9 6.7 3.2 1.3 1.1 .3 375 SF_01 3.08 1.524 3 16.924.818.720.612.9 4.2 1.8 379 SF_02 2.47 1.423 2 30.929.117.112.3 6.9 3.2 .5 375 SF_03 2.72 1.522 2 24.927.320.511.511.3 2.4 2.1 381 SF_04 3.44 1.687 3 16.316.520.515.220.2 7.9 3.4 381
- 14. R: DESCRIPTIVES 5 4 4 5 3 4 4 3 2 2 2 3 1 3 2 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 CR_01CR_02CR_03CR_04 ER_01 ER_02 ER_03 ER_04 RS_01 RS_02 RS_03 RS_04 RS_05 SF_01 SF_02 SF_03 SF_04 CR RS
- 15. R: BRANCH Branch of the students Ávila Salamanca Zamora AVG STD N AVG STD N AVG STD N CR_01 4.32 1.654 94 4.68 1.585 193 4.38 1.702 92 CR_02 3.61 1.853 95 4.24 1.714 194 3.95 1.860 92 CR_03 3.99 1.562 94 4.24 1.542 194 4.19 1.562 93 CR_04 4.45 1.486 95 4.62 1.319 194 4.59 1.376 92 ER_01 3.44 1.635 95 3.41 1.562 194 3.28 1.633 92 ER_02 3.69 1.545 94 3.64 1.514 193 3.71 1.641 92 ER_03 3.94 1.627 93 3.81 1.577 192 4.01 1.869 90 ER_04 3.43 1.562 94 3.19 1.428 193 3.42 1.644 93 RS_01 2.50 1.501 94 2.36 1.465 190 2.69 1.622 93 RS_02 2.74 1.678 94 2.83 1.639 191 2.59 1.617 93 RS_03 1.91 1.247 95 2.02 1.269 193 2.09 1.434 93 RS_04 2.87 1.347 95 2.87 1.247 192 3.09 1.566 92 RS_05 1.48 .898 95 1.53 .890 189 1.78 1.306 91 SF_01 3.09 1.516 95 2.91 1.444 191 3.42 1.644 93 SF_02 2.52 1.457 93 2.38 1.362 190 2.61 1.512 92 SF_03 2.81 1.635 94 2.60 1.378 194 2.90 1.675 93 SF_04 3.57 1.635 95 3.30 1.683 194 3.60 1.742 92
- 16. R: BRANCH Chi squared df Asympt. Sig. CR_01 3.511 2 .173 CR_02 7.891 2 .019 CR_03 1.385 2 .500 CR_04 .728 2 .695 ER_01 .645 2 .724 ER_02 .088 2 .957 ER_03 .907 2 .635 ER_04 2.235 2 .327 RS_01 3.005 2 .223 RS_02 1.657 2 .437 RS_03 1.238 2 .539 RS_04 .573 2 .751 RS_05 2.245 2 .325 SF_01 6.338 2 .042 SF_02 1.368 2 .504 SF_03 1.358 2 .507 SF_04 2.923 2 .232
- 17. R: COURSE YEAR Corse year of the students 1 2 3 AVG STD N AVG STD N AVG STD N CR_01 4.48 1.650 124 4.34 1.676 128 4.73 1.566 127 CR_02 4.05 1.804 125 4.05 1.761 128 3.94 1.843 128 CR_03 4.18 1.571 125 4.28 1.500 127 4.05 1.585 129 CR_04 4.69 1.394 125 4.55 1.285 128 4.48 1.442 128 ER_01 3.34 1.546 125 3.63 1.557 128 3.19 1.659 128 ER_02 3.62 1.501 124 3.81 1.526 127 3.58 1.620 128 ER_03 3.97 1.629 123 4.04 1.550 127 3.66 1.787 125 ER_04 3.37 1.473 124 3.30 1.493 128 3.23 1.590 128 RS_01 2.48 1.405 123 2.47 1.511 126 2.48 1.631 128 RS_02 2.79 1.542 124 2.76 1.664 127 2.70 1.724 127 RS_03 2.13 1.403 125 1.83 1.013 128 2.06 1.446 128 RS_04 2.93 1.298 123 2.70 1.282 128 3.14 1.451 128 RS_05 1.53 .869 124 1.49 .789 125 1.72 1.294 126 SF_01 3.06 1.477 125 3.13 1.566 126 3.05 1.536 128 SF_02 2.35 1.378 122 2.36 1.289 127 2.69 1.572 126 SF_03 2.64 1.489 125 2.63 1.473 128 2.90 1.596 128 SF_04 3.46 1.739 125 3.56 1.654 128 3.30 1.671 128
- 18. R: COURSE YEAR Chi squared df Asympt. Sig. CR_01 3.561 2 .169 CR_02 .227 2 .893 CR_03 1.139 2 .566 CR_04 1.260 2 .533 ER_01 5.780 2 .056 ER_02 1.476 2 .478 ER_03 2.933 2 .231 ER_04 .382 2 .826 RS_01 .387 2 .824 RS_02 .723 2 .696 RS_03 1.875 2 .392 RS_04 5.774 2 .056 RS_05 .419 2 .811 SF_01 .207 2 .902 SF_02 3.056 2 .217 SF_03 2.253 2 .324 SF_04 1.517 2 .468
- 19. CONCLUSIONS
- 20. CONCLUSIONS • The results reflect a moderate resistance to change. • Specially in the factor of cognitive rigidity. • The averages obtained by the students are slightly above the scores obtained in other studies • The training received does not have a significant impact on the dispositional resistance to change.