Self-efficacy & Technology Integration Courses Jeremy M. Browne, PhD - State University of New York College at Brockport Charles R. Graham, PhD - Brigham Young University

Conceptual Framework Skills & Knowledge National Educational Technology Standards Can / Can’t Effective In-Practice Technology Integration Will / Won’t Dispositions Self-efficacy Perceived Value

Technology Integration Courses Research Questions What is the effect of preservice technology integration courses on self-efficacy? Technology Integration Courses Self-efficacy

Technology Integration Courses Research Questions What is the effect of preservice technology integration courses on self-efficacy? What is the effect of pre-course self-efficacy on in-course performance? Technology Integration Courses Self-efficacy Self-efficacy

Method Two course structures Quasi-experimental Design No random assignment Measured NETS-T self-efficacy pre- and post-course with the TICS Repeated measures ANOVA Linear regression analysis

Course Structure IP&T 286 NETS-T Curriculum One credit hour Secondary Education majors Very little “hand-holding”

Course Structure IP&T 287 NETS-T Curriculum Two credit hours Elementary, Early Childhood, and Special Education A lot of “hand-holding”

TICS Technology Integration Confidence Scale Measures self-efficacy as defined by Bandura (1977, 2006) Aligned with (pre-refreshed) NETS-T Six subscales (one for each NETS-T) Freely available at http://www.brownelearning.org/tics

TICS Rigorously developed Technology integration experts: TICS items are “relevant and representative” to the NETS-T Item and scale functioning established via Rating Scale Model (1-Parameter Logistic) analysis Subscales are unidimensional Scores do not highly correlate with measures of “general self-efficacy” (r < .05; Chen et al., 2001)

Participants Course Male Female Total 286 13 76 89 287 1 121 122 14 197 211 Note: 286 is restricted to Secondary Education majors. 287 is restricted to Elementary, Early Childhood, and Special Education majors

Results (1) What is the effect of preservice technology integration courses on self-efficacy?

Repeated Measures Significant increase in self-efficacy for each NETS-T between pre- and post-course Except NETS-T IB No significant course effect

ANOVA Details p-values NETS-T Pre-post effect Course effect IA <.01 .80 IB .19 .33 II .30 III .96 IV .44 V VI .73

NETS-T IB Why no significant change in this NETS-T indicator? “Teachers demonstrate continual growth in technology knowledge and skills to stay abreast of current and emerging technologies.” (ISTE, 2006)

NETS-T IB Paired t-tests (pre-post NETS-T IB) Notice the discrepancy between courses Course Mean diff. SD t df p 286 -.15 .63 -2.2 81 .03 287 -.05 .65 -.97 95 .43

Conclusion (1) What is the effect of preservice technology integration courses on self-efficacy? Generally, there is a significant increase in NETS-T self-efficacy pre-/post-course. CAUTION: Course structure may affect the outcome.

Result (2) What is the effect of pre-course self-efficacy on in-course performance?

Pre-course TICS scores Linear Regression What percentage of variance (R2) in technology integration assignment scores can be explained by pre-course self-efficacy? Course Pre-course TICS scores Demographics 286 11% 6% 287 8% Note: Demographics included gender, computer ownership, self-rated computer expertise, and other relevant attitudes.

Conclusion (2) What is the effect of pre-course self-efficacy on in-course performance? It may be highly influential in that it explained up to 11% of variance in assignment scores. CAUTION: Course structure may affect the outcome.

Discussion Performance in the course with more “hand-holding” (287) was less predicted by pre-course self-efficacy. The course with less “hand holding” (286) resulted in significant increases in self-efficacy related to “continual growth in technology knowledge” (NETS-T IB).

Self-efficacy Paradox Self-efficacy is gained through “mastery experiences” (Bandura, 2006). As “hand holding” increases, opportunities for mastery experiences decrease. Ergo, there is less effect on self-efficacy. As “hand holding” decreases, pre-course self-efficacy’s influence grows.

Limitations Making mountains out of molehills? Differences between courses are small. Barking up the wrong tree? Students in each major may be more different than their courses. Your mileage may vary. Data from only one teacher education program

Future Development of the TICS More data: Three more semesters 600 more participants Administration at SUNY Brockport Large, professional certification program No technology integration curriculum TICS v3 Delayed until “refreshed” NETS-T Automated, web-based administration and analysis for all interested institutions

Comments Welcomed charles_graham@byu.edu jbrowne@brockport.edu http://www.brownelearning.org/tics