1. The Effect of Preservice Teacher Technology Integration Courses on Related Measures of Self-efficacy Jeremy M. Browne, PhD - SUNY Brockport Charles R. Graham, PhD - Brigham Young University

2. McKay School of Education NCATE-accredited Nearly 1,000 teachers credentialed annually Technology Skills Assessment Requires technology integration courses

3. Conceptual Framework Skills & Knowledge National Educational Technology Standards Effective In-Practice Technology Integration Can / Can’t

4. Conceptual Framework Skills & Knowledge National Educational Technology Standards Effective In-Practice Technology Integration Can / Can’t Will / Won’t

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

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

7. Self-efficacy “A theory of personal and collective agency” (Pajares & Schunk, 2002) “Extraordinary personal feats [and formative feedback] serve as transforming experiences” (Bandura, 1977, 2006)

8. Teacher Efficacy? Goddard, Hoy & Hoy, 2000, 2004 Henson, Kogan, Vacha-Haase, 2001 Hoy & Spero, 2005a, 2005b Hoy & Woolfolk, 1993 Milner & Hoy 2003 Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001 Tschannen- Moran, Hoy, & Hoy, 1998 Woolfolk & Hoy, 1990 Woolfolk, Rosoff, & Hoy, 1990

9. Self-Efficacy vs. Teacher Efficacy Self-EfficacyTeacher Efficacy Major Authors Bandura, Pajares, etc. Woolfolk, Hoy, Tschannen-Moran, etc. Ability to… Perform actions Cause outcomes Theoretical Basis Bandura’s self-efficacy Rotter’s locus of control

10. The Difference "Beliefs about whether one can produce certain actions (perceived self-efficacy) are not the same as beliefs about whether actions affect outcomes (locus of control). (Tschannen-Moran, et al., 1998, summarizing Bandura, 1997)

11. Self-efficacy Multon, Brown, & Lent (1991) Browne (2007) Dispositions Self-efficacy Effective In-Practice Technology Integration Will / Won’t

12. Research Question What is the effect of MSE preservice technology integration courses on technology integration self-efficacy? Technology Integration Courses Self-efficacy

13. Method Pre-/post-course measures of technology integration self-efficacy pre- and post-course Repeated measures ANOVA

14. Self-Efficacy Measure Technology Integration Confidence Scale (TICS) Measures self-efficacy as defined by Bandura Aligned with (pre-refreshed) NETS-T –Six subscales (one for each NETS-T) Freely available online

15. 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)

16. Course Structures IP&T 286IP&T 287 Majors Secondary Education Elem., Early Childhood, Special Education Credit Hours12 Content NETS-T I-III, V-VI NETS-T I-VI Lab TimeNot MuchLots

17. Course Structures IP&T 286IP&T 287 Majors Secondary Education Elem., Early Childhood, Special Education Credit Hours12 Content NETS-T I-III, V-VI NETS-T I-VI Lab TimeNot MuchLots There should be a difference

18. Results: Repeated Measures Significant increase in self-efficacy for each NETS-T between pre- and post- course –Except NETS-T I.B No significant course effect

19. ANOVA Details p-values NETS-TPre-post effectCourse effect I.A<.01.80 I.B.19.33 II<.01.30 III<.01.96 IV<.01.44 V<.01.19 VI<.01.73

20. Discussion Why no course effect on NETS-T IV? 1.Placebo effect? The additional NETS-T IV activities were as effective as no NETS-T IV activities. 2.Self-efficacy in the non-NETS-T IV course bled between TICS subscales (Bandura, 2006). 3.The measure (TICS) may not be sensitive enough to such small differences.

21. Check Time

22. ANOVA Details p-values NETS-TPre-post effectCourse effect I.A<.01.80 I.B.19.33 II<.01.30 III<.01.96 IV<.01.44 V<.01.19 VI<.01.73

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

24. NETS-T IB Paired t-tests (pre-post NETS-T IB) CourseMean diff.SDtdfp 286-.15.63-2.281.03 287-.05.65-.9795.43

25. NETS-T IB Paired t-tests (pre-post NETS-T IB) Notice the discrepancy between courses CourseMean diff.SDtdfp 286-.15.63-2.281.03 287-.05.65-.9795.43

26. Course Structures IP&T 286IP&T 287 Majors Secondary Education Elem., Early Childhood, Special Education Credit Hours12 Content NETS-T I-III,V-VI NETS-T I-VI Lab TimeNot MuchLots There should be a difference

27. Course Structures IP&T 286IP&T 287 Majors Secondary Education Elem., Early Childhood, Special Education Credit Hours12 Content NETS-T I-III,V-VI NETS-T I-VI Lab TimeNot MuchLots There may be a difference

28. Mastery Experience Paradox More guidance  Less of a mastery experience  Little gain in self-efficacy Less Guidance  More of a mastery experience  More gain in self-efficacy

29. Check Time

30. Bonus Question What is the effect of pre-course self- efficacy on in-course performance? Self-efficacy Technology Integration Courses

31. Linear Regression What percentage of variance (R 2 ) in MSE technology integration assignment scores can be explained by pre-course self-efficacy? CoursePre-course TICS scoresDemographics 28611%6% 2876%8% Note: Demographics included gender, computer ownership, self-rated computer expertise, and other relevant attitudes.

32. Discussion Self-efficacy may be highly influential in that it explained up to 11% of variance in assignment scores. Course structure may affect the outcome.

33. Mastery Experience Paradox More guidance  Less of a mastery experience  Little gain in self-efficacy  Limits influence of pre-course self-efficacy Less Guidance  More of a mastery experience  More gain in self-efficacy  Increases influence of pre-course self-efficacy

35. Conclusion Generally, these technology integration courses resulted in short-term increases in related self-efficacy. There were some issues with self- efficacy associated with specific NETS- T (IB, IV). Self-efficacy may be as complex as it is important.

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

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

39. Participants CourseMaleFemaleTotal 286137689 2871121122 Total14197211 Note: 286 is restricted to Secondary Education majors. 287 is restricted to Elementary, Early Childhood, and Special Education majors