i-manager Publications

Significance of the Length of Instructions with Technology: What Pre-Service Teachers Say?

Tharanga M. K. Wijetunge *, Ashley G. Spann **, Gayan Warahena-Liyanage ***, Denny St. John ****

* Division of Mathematics and Science, Lyon College, Batesville, AR, USA.

** Department of Mathematical Sciences, University of Arkansas, USA.

*** Department of Statistics, Actuarial and Data Sciences, Central Michigan University, Michigan.

**** Department of Mathematics, Central Michigan University, Mount Pleasant, MI, USA.

Periodicity:April - June'2020
DOI : https://doi.org/10.26634/jet.17.1.17085

Abstract

Educational technologies can enhance both learning and teaching. Potential benefits of such technologies are documented in the literature. The use of educational technologies in teacher education classroom is highly recommended by educational researchers and national education associations. Teacher education programs can play a critical role in promoting pre-service teachers to effectively integrate technology into their future classrooms. In doing so, teacher education programs face obstacles; time is one crucial obstacle. During this mixed methods study, we interviewed two pre-service teacher groups who used a Student Response System for different instructional time lengths. Coded interview data were compared both qualitatively and quantitatively. Quantitative analysis revealed that there is no statistical difference between the two groups' ability in identifying the functionality of the system and its' benefits towards teaching and learning. Comparison of qualitative data between the two groups compliments quantitative analysis. Implications of the findings towards teacher education programs and future work are discussed.

Keywords

Teacher Education, Student Response Systems, Educational Technology.

How to Cite this Article?

Wijetunge, T. M. K., Spann, A. G., Warahena-Liyanage, G., and St. John, D. (2020). Significance of the Length of Instructions with Technology: What Pre-Service Teachers Say? i-manager’s Journal of Educational Technology, 17(1), 22-34. https://doi.org/10.26634/jet.17.1.17085

References

[1]. Agyei, D. D., & Voogt, J. M. (2011). Exploring the potential of the will, skill, tool model in Ghana: predicting prospective and practicing teachers' use of technology. Computers & Education, 56(1), 91-100.

[2]. Agyei, D., & Voogt, J. (2014). Examining factors affecting beginning teachers' transfer of learning of ICTenhanced learning activities in their teaching practice. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 30(1), 92–105.

[3]. Bachman, L., & Bachman, C. (2011). A study of classroom response system clickers: Increasing student engagement and performance in a large undergraduate lecture class on architectural research. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 22(1), 5-21.

[4]. Banilower, E. R., Smith, P. S., Malzahn, K. A., Plumley, C. L., Gordon, E. M., & Hayes, M. L. (2018). Report of the 2018 NSSME+. Horizon Research, Inc, Chapel Hill, NC.

[5]. Banilower, E. R., Smith, P. S., Weiss, I. R., Malzahn, K. A., Campbell, K. M., & Weis, A. M. (2013). Report of the 2012 national survey of science and mathematics education. Horizon Research, Inc.(NJ1).

[6]. Bartsch, R. A., & Murphy, W. (2011). Examining the effects of an electronic classroom response system on student engagement and performance. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 44(1), 25-33.

[7]. Bell, L. (2001). Preparing tomorrow's teachers to use technology: Perspectives of the leaders of twelve national education associations. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 1(4), 517-534.

[8]. Blackwell, C. K., Lauricella, A. R., Wartella, E., Robb, M., & Schomburg, R. (2013). Adoption and use of technology in early education: The interplay of extrinsic barriers and teacher attitudes. Computers & Education, 69, 310-319.

[9]. Bogdan, R., & Biklen, S. K. (2006). Qualitative Research for Education: An Introduction to Theories and Methods (5th Ed.). New York, NY: Pearson.

[10]. Brown, D., & Warschauer, M. (2006). From the university to the elementary classroom: Students' experiences in learning to integrate technology in instruction. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 14(3), 599-621.

[11]. Brown, J. D. (1972). An evaluation of the Spitz student response system in teaching a course in logical and mathematical concepts. The Journal of Experimental Education, 40(3), 12-20.

[12]. Buabeng-Andoh, C. (2012). Factors influencing teachersâ adoption and integration of information and communication technology into teaching: A review of the literature. International Journal of Education and Development using ICT, 8(1).

[13]. Chen, R. J. (2010). Investigating models for preservice teachers' use of technology to support student-centered learning. Computers & Education, 55(1), 32-42.

[14]. Cox, M. J., Cox, K., & Preston, C. (2000). What factors support or prevent teachers from using ICT in their classrooms?. Paper presented at the BERA 1999 Conference, Brighton.

[15]. Dawson, V. (2008). Use of information and communication technology by early career science teachers in Western Australia. International Journal of Science Education, 30(2), 203-219.

[16]. Dickman, C. B. (1993). Gender Differences and Instructional Discrimination in the Classroom. Journal of Invitational Theory and Practice, 2(1), 35-42.

[17]. Drent, M., & Meelissen, M. (2008). Which factors obstruct or stimulate teacher educators to use ICT innovatively?. Computers & Education, 51(1), 187-199.

[18]. Duncan, D. (2006). Clickers: A new teaching aid with exceptional promise. Astronomy Education Review, 5(1), 70-88.

[19]. Dwyer, D. C., Ringstaff, C., & Sandholtz, J. H. (1991). Changes in teachers' beliefs and practices in technology-rich classrooms. Educational leadership, 48(8), 45-52.

[20]. Ertmer, P. A. (1999). Addressing first-and secondorder barriers to change: Strategies for technology integration. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(4), 47-61.

[21]. Ertmer, P. A., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T., Sadik, O., Sendurur, E., & Sendurur, P. (2012). Teacher beliefs and technology integration practices: A critical relationship. Computers & Education, 59(2), 423-435.

[22]. Ferneding, K., & Chen, R. J. (2003). Technology as a heuristic: How pre-service teachers learn to think about mathematics instruction using technology. In Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 3441-3444). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).

[23]. Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(23), 8410-8415.

[24]. Goktas, Y., Yildirim, Z., & Yildirim, S. (2008). A review of ICT related courses in pre-service teacher education programs. Asia Pacific Education Review, 9(2), 168-179.

[25]. Greenhow, C., Robelia, B., & Hughes, J. E. (2009). Learning, teaching, and scholarship in a digital age: Web2.0 and classroom research: What path should we take now?. Educational Researcher, 38(4), 246-259.

[26]. Hake, R. R. (1998). Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics, 66(1), 64-74.

[27]. Hammond, M., Fragkouli, E., Suandi, I., Crosson, S., Ingram, J., Johnston‐ Wilder, P., ... & Wray, D. (2009). What happens as student teachers who made very good use of ICT during pre‐service training enter their first year of teaching?. Teacher Development, 13(2), 93-106.

[28]. Hegedus, S. J., & Kaput, J. (2003). The Effect of a SimCalc Connected Classroom on Students' Algebraic Thinking. International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, 3, 47-54.

[29]. Kafyulilo, A., Fisser, P., & Voogt, J. (2016). Factors affecting teachers' continuation of technology use in teaching. Education and Information Technologies, 21(6), 1535-1554.

[30]. Kalonde, G., & Mousa, R. (2016). Technology familiarization to preservice teachers: factors that influence teacher educators' technology decisions. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 45(2), 236-255.

[31]. Kavanoz, S., Yüksel, H. G., & Özcan, E. (2015). Preservice teachers' self-efficacy perceptions on Web Pedagogical Content Knowledge. Computers & Education, 85, 94-101.

[32]. Kay, R. H. (2006). Evaluating strategies used to incorporate technology into preservice education: A review of the literature. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38(4), 383-408.

[33]. Kim, C., Kim, M. K., Lee, C., Spector, J. M., & DeMeester, K. (2013). Teacher beliefs and technology integration. Teaching and Teacher Education, 29, 76-85.

[34]. Kirschner, P., & Selinger, M. (2003). The state of affairs of teacher education with respect to information and communications technology. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 12(1), 5-17.

[35]. Koehler, M., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK)?. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 60-70.

[36]. Lim, C. P., Chai, C. S., & Churchill, D. (2010). Leading ICT in education practices: A capacity-building toolkit for teacher education institutions in the Asia-Pacific. Microsoft Partners-in-Learning (Asia-Pacific), Singapore: Microsoft.

[37]. Lowther, D. L., Inan, F. A., Daniel Strahl, J., & Ross, S. M. (2008). Does technology integration “work” when key barriers are removed?. Educational Media International, 45(3), 195-213.

[38]. Lucas, A. (2009). Using peer instruction and i-clickers to enhance student participation in calculus. Primus, 19(3), 219-231.

[39]. Mayo, N. B., Kajs, L. T., & Tanguma, J. (2005). Longitudinal study of technology training to prepare future teachers. Educational Research Quarterly, 29(1), 3- 15.

[40]. Morehead, P., & LaBeau, B. (2005). The continuing challenges of technology integration for teachers. Essays in Education, 15(1), 10.

[41]. Niess, M. L. (2005). Preparing teachers to teach science and mathematics with technology: Developing a technology pedagogical content knowledge. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(5), 509-523.

[42]. Pratton, J., & Hales, L. W. (1986). The effects of active participation on student learning. The Journal of Educational Research, 79(4), 210-215.

[43]. Premadasa, K., Wijetunge, T., & Bhatia, K. (2016). Using cellphones as virtual clickers in a mathematics classroom. Electronic Journal of Mathematics & Technology, 10(3), 165-177.

[44]. Reed, H. C., Drijvers, P., & Kirschner, P. A. (2010). Effects of attitudes and behaviours on learning mathematics with computer tools. Computers & Education, 55(1), 1-15.

[45]. Reynolds, K. C., & Nunn, C. E. (1997). Engaging classrooms: Student participation and the instructional factors that shape it. In Annual meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education, Albuquerque, NM.

[46]. Roschelle, J., Penuel, W. R., & Abrahamson, L. (2004). The networked classroom. Educational Leadership, 61(5), 50-54.

[47]. Scherer, R., Siddiq, F., & Teo, T. (2015). Becoming more specific: Measuring and modeling teachers' perceived usefulness of ICT in the context of teaching and learning. Computers & Education, 88, 202-214.

[48]. Schrum, L. (1999). Technology professional development for teachers. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(4), 83-90.

[49]. Sinclair, M., Wideman, H., Owston, R., Fioroni, M., & Kallish, L. (2008). TI-Navigator study interim report. Ontario, Canada: York University.

[50]. Swain, C. (2006). Preservice teachers selfassessment using technology: Determining what is worthwhile and looking for changes in daily teaching and learning practices. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 14(1), 29-59.

[51]. Teo, T., & Milutinovic, V. (2015). Modelling the intention to use technology for teaching mathematics among pre-service teachers in Serbia. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 31(4), 363-380.

[52]. Thompson, A. D., & Mishra, P. (2007). Editors' remarks: Breaking news: TPCK becomes TPACK!. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 24(2), 38-64.

[53]. Tondeur, J., Aesaert, K., Prestridge, S., & Consuegra, E. (2018). A multilevel analysis of what matters in the training of pre-service teacher's ICT competencies. Computers & Education, 122, 32-42.

[54]. Tondeur, J., Van Braak, J., Sang, G., Voogt, J., Fisser, P., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. (2012). Preparing pre-service teachers to integrate technology in education: A synthesis of qualitative evidence. Computers & Education, 59(1), 134-144.

[55]. Tremblay, E. (2010). Educating the Mobile Generation–using personal cell phones as audience response systems in post-secondary science teaching. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 29(2), 217-227.

[56]. Wijetunge, T. M. K., & St. John, D. (2018). Empowering communication through advanced student response systems: Perspectives of pre-service mathematics teachers. The Educational Review, USA, 2(6), 339-351.

[57]. Zogheib, S. (2014). Factors affecting preservice teachers' computer use for general purposes: Implications for computer training courses. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 43(1), 35-53.

[58]. Zullo, H., Cline, K., Parker, M., Buckmire, R., George, J., Gurski, K., Larson, J. J., Mellor, B., Oberweise, J., Peterson, D., Spindler, R., Stewart, A., & Storm, C. (2011). Student surveys: What do they think?. MAA Notes: Teaching Mathematics with Classroom Voting, 29-34.

Significance of the Length of Instructions with Technology: What Pre-Service Teachers Say?

Abstract

Keywords

How to Cite this Article?

References

If you have access to this article please login to view the article or kindly login to purchase the article

Purchase Instant Access

Options for accessing this content:

	North Americas,UK, Middle East,Europe		India	Rest of world
	USD	EUR	INR	USD-ROW
Pdf	35	35	200	20
Online	35	35	200	15
Pdf & Online	35	35	400	25