英语实证论文PPT课件.ppt

《英语实证论文PPT课件.ppt》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《英语实证论文PPT课件.ppt（38页珍藏版）》请在三一文库上搜索。

1、Factors that influence student teachers interest to achieve educational technology standardsDj.Kadijevich Lenni Haapasalo Bearing in mind the importance of a transition from teacher-centred,lecture-based teaching to student-centred,technology-based learning,this study examined teachers interest to a

2、chieve educational technology standards(INTEREST)in terms of their computer attitude(ATTITUDE),computer experience(EXPERIENCE)and the professional support to achieve these standards offered to them from their institutions(SUPPORT).Abstract The study used a sample of 129 elementary student teachers f

3、rom Finland and Serbia.The two groups of teachers differed in all examined variables:EXPERIENCE was higher for the Finnish students,whereas ATTITUDE,INTEREST and SUPPORT were higher for the Serbian students.Furthermore,contrary to the Finnish students,the Serbian student indicated that they received

4、 some instruction on ET standards during their studies and designed learning activities to promote the examined standards.By applying a two-group path analysis,it was found that to improve INTEREST,we need to improve ATTITUDE by means of EXPERIENCE.The analyzed data evidence that a desired role of S

5、UPPORT can be achieved when SUPPORT respects EXPERIENCE.Implications for practice and directions for further research are examined.Abstract 1.Intruduction 2.Method 3.Results 4.DisscussionPaper framework 1.Intruduction 2.Method 3.Results 4.DisscussionPaper framework There is no doubt that it is impor

6、tant to examine the integration of technology in day-to-day teaching/learning with respect to some ET standards.but to understand the extent to which this integration has taken(would take)place and improve the matters(if need be),we need to search for critical variables influencing it.Research has e

7、videnced that:(a)student teachers intention to use educational technology is influenced by perceived usefulness of that technology not by his/her subjective norms concerning it(Ma,Andersson,&Streith,2005);(b)student teachers interest to achieve ET standards is primarily influenced by his/her compute

8、r attitude not by the institutional support concerning this achievement offfferedduring his/her university study(Kadijevich,Haapasalo,&Hvorecky,2005);1.Introduction and to develop student teachers interest to achieve ET standards,the institutional support concerning this achievement offffered during

9、 his/her university study should focus on developing his/her computer attitude(Kadijevich,2006).Bearing in mind that computer attitude and computer experience are related(see,for example,Kadijevich,2000)as well as that,as suggested by Russell,Bebell,ODwyer,and OConnor(2003),computer experience may i

10、nfluence student teachers interest to achieve ET standards，this study examined this interest in terms of computer experience,com-puter attitude and the institutional support offffered,searching for ways that let us improve the interest.1.Introduction 1.Intruduction 2.Method 3.Results 4.DisscussionPa

11、per framework2.1.Subjects This study used a sample of 129 elementary student teachers from Finland and Serbia.These countries maybe taken as good representatives of highly and poorly technologically developed countries.According to the CIA World Factbook,an estimated GDP per capita for 2005 was$30,6

12、00 for Finland and just$2700 for Serbia.Sixty-four of these 129 student teachers came from three universities in Finland(about 30%of the targeted population at each of these universities).The other 65 student teachers came from one teacher-training faculty in Serbia(about 70%of the targeted populati

13、on at that institution).2.Method Almost all Finnish subjects(about 90%for each of the three universities)indicated in the survey that they did not receive any instruction on ET standards during their studies,whereas the majority of the Serbian subjects(about 75%)indicated the opposite.About 80%of th

14、ese students who reported receiving the instruction in question(or about 60%of all Serbian subjects)also indicated that they designed learning activities to promote the examined standard(s).2.Method2.2.Design This study used five variables:teachers interest to achieve ET standards(INTEREST),his/her

15、computer attitude(ATTITUDE),his/her total computer experience(EXPERIENCE),the professional support to achieve ET standards(SUPPORT),COUNTRY(with two values:Finland and Serbia).2.Method 2.3.Path model To study direct and indirect effffects among several dependent and independent variables simultaneou

16、sly,researchers use path analysis.This study used a four-variable path model illustrated in Fig.1,which was an extension of a three-variable path model applied in Kadijevich(2006).In order to estimate parameters in this model and its appropriateness,two parameters(e.g.two regression weights)had to b

17、e made equal.Note that a regression model,where the three predictors(ATTITUDE,EXPERIENCE and SUPPORT)correlate,might also be used.2.Method 2.3.Path model 2.Method2.4.Instruments EXPERIENCE was measured by a short questionnaire collecting data about total experience regarding the following six activi

18、ties:Internet search,text processing,work with spreadsheets,making presentations,work with databases and programming.Like in Kadijevich(2000),for each of these activities(or indicators),total experience had to be indicated in hours.Time interval responses like 1020 h were also allowed,and such respo

19、nses were considered as time point responses by using the mean of the corresponding numbers.2.Method Because the values of each indicator did not come from a normal distribution for each of the countries as well as the whole sample,these values for all subjects were normalized.Indicator work with da

20、tabases loaded less than 0.30 on the first underlying factor for the data of the six normalized indicators and this indicator was not taken into account.Because the proportion of variance accounted for one-factor solution became greater than 60%when indicator programming was excluded,EXPERIENCE was

21、represented by the average of the normalized values of the following four indicators:Internet search,text processing,work with spreadsheets and making presentations.The reliability of the applied measure(Cronbachs a)was good(0.81 for the whole sample,0.83 for the Finnish students and0.80 for the Ser

22、bian students).2.Method ATTITUDE was measured by Selwyns computer attitude scale(Selwyn,1997)presented as a list of 21 statements along a 5-point Likert scale.Scores were obtained by allocating numerical values to students responses:strongly disagree was scored by 1,and disagree,neutral,agree and st

23、rongly agree by 2,3,4 and 5,respectively.Scoring was reversed for 12 items(statements 1,4,5,8,10,11,12,13,14,16,19 and 20).ATTITUDE was represented by the average of the scores on these 21 statements.The reliability of the applied measure(Cronbachs a)was very good(0.88 for the whole sample,0.90 for

24、the Finnish students and 0.89 for the Serbian students).2.Method INTEREST and SUPPORT were measured by a questionnaire presented as a list of 17 statements concerning five ET standards.For each of the two variables,scores were obtained by allocating numerical values to students responses:none was sc

25、ored by 0,andlittle medium and large by 1,2 and 3,respectively.Each variable was represented by the average of the scores on the 17 statements from the corresponding main column.2.Method The reliability of the applied measure(Cronbachs a)for INTEREST was very good(0.87 for the whole sample,0.87 for

26、the Finnish students and 0.91 for the Serbian students).The reliability of the applied measure(Cronbachs a)for SUPPORT was also very good(0.96 for the whole sample,0.92 for the Finnish students and 0.93 for the Serbian students).Note that SUPPORT referred to the total professional support to achieve

27、 ET standards offffered by the institution(by all completed courses)not just by a single course where ET standards might be examined.2.Method2.5.Procedure The subjects were told the purpose of this research(an international study on the educational use of computers)and asked to complete,as accuratel

28、y as possible,the instruments given in their mother tongues.In Serbia,in March and April 2006,a paper version of the instruments was administered during student teaching practice by a teaching assistant from the subjects institution.By using a web-based questionnaire,the Finnish subjects submitted t

29、heir answers via the Internet in April 2006.2.Method2.6.Statistical analysis For each country,the mean,standard deviation and correlations among the four variables were determined by the SPSS software.Correlation coeffifficients for the two countries were compared by a Microsoft Excel file available

30、 at www.stat- four-variable two group path analysis applied in this study was done in Amos that processed raw data stored in an SPSS file.The sample size(N=129)respected Stevenss(1996)recommendation to have at least 15 cases per measured variable or indicator.It also respected the recommendation of

31、Bentler and Chou(1987)to have at least five cases per parameter estimate.2.Method 1.Intruduction 2.Method 3.Results 4.DisscussionPaper framework The means and standard deviations of the four measured variables by country are reported in Table 1.The t-test for independent samples revealed that,on the

32、 average,EXPERIENCE was higher for the Finnish students(t127=4.22,p 0.01),whereas ATTITUDE,INTEREST and SUPPORT were higher for the Serbian students(Attitude:t127=-2.09,p 0.05;Interest:t127=-2.62,p=0.01;Support:t127=-12.23,p 0.01).The t-test for pairedsamples revealed that,on the average,SUPPORT was

33、 equal to INTEREST for the Serbian students(t64=0.54,p=0.59),whereas SUPPORT was considerably below INTEREST for the Finnish students(t63=-12.29,p 0.01).3.Results Correlations among the four measured variables by country are reported in Tables 2 and 3.The reported correlation coeffifficients mainly

34、showed positive relationships between the four variables in question and most of these coeffifficients were significant.Significant difffferences between the corresponding correlations of the two groups were not found.3.Results3.Results Because the correlation coeffifficients between INTEREST and EX

35、PERIENCE for the two countries were close(0.335 vs.0.281),the unstandardized regression weights concerning path EXPERIENCE INTEREST were made equal.The obtained path model is presented in Fig.2.Its fit indices were very good,specifically:X2=0.039(df=1,p=0.844),NIF=1.000,TLI=1.152,RMSEA=0.000(pH0:RMS

36、EA 0.05=0.867)and RMSR(root mean square residual)=0.001.3.Results3.Results 1.Intruduction 2.Method 3.Results 4.DisscussionPaper framework 4.1.First group of findings and their possible explanation As regards the values of the four variables(EXPERIENCE,ATTITUDE,INTEREST and SUPPORT),the two groups of

37、 students diffffered in the following way:lEXPERIENCE was higher for the Finnish students,whereas ATTITUDE,INTEREST and SUPPORT were higher forthe Serbian students.lSUPPORT matched INTEREST for the Serbian students,whereas SUPPORT was considerably below INTEREST forthe Finnish students.4.Discussion

38、Because of a higher technologically developed society,it was expected that EXPERIENCE would be larger for the Finnish students.What came as a surprise was the fact that this pattern favouring the Finns only applied for the two activities:Internet search(0.43 vs.-0.43;t127=5.46,p 0.01)and text proces

39、sing(0.53 vs.-0.51;t127=7.22,p 0.01).There were no difffferences between the two groups of students with respect to work with spreadsheets(0.12 vs.-0.10;t127=1.28,p=0.20)and making presentations(0.03 vs.-0.02;t127=0.29,p=0.77)on which,as raw data revealed,the subjects had spent much less time than o

40、n Internet search and text processing.This is not a desirable outcome having in mind the role of presentations and classroom statistics in the teachers day-to-day school work.4.Discussion The fact that ATTITUDE,INTEREST and SUPPORT were higher for the Serbian students may,extrapolating from Shen(200

41、2),be a result of lower educational standards in Serbia than in Finland.This explanation may only be one part of a story.The other part says that the sample of Finnish institutions for elementary teacher education,contrary to the participating Serbian institution,did not provide opportunities for st

42、udent teacher to meet ET standards.It is therefore not surprising that SUPPORT matched INTEREST for the Serbian students,whereas was below for the Finnish students.4.Discussion The unfavourable outcome that SUPPORT is below INTEREST was also obtained for mathematics(student)teachers from Finland,Ser

43、bia and Slovakia who did not receive any explicit instruction on ET standards from their institutions(Kadijevich et al.,2005).When students receive some basic instruction on these standards,SUPPORT can match INTEREST(see Kadijevich,2006).It should be underlined that the current edition of the ISTE N

44、ational Educational Technology Standards for Teachers requires the following:4.Discussion All candidates seeking certification or endorsements in teacher preparation should meet these educational technology standards.It is the responsibility of faculty across the university and at cooperating school

45、s to provide opportunities for teacher candidates to meet these standards.However,as evidenced by Kadijevich(2006)and Kadijevich et al.(2005)and this study,it seems that this important recommendation has not generally been put into practice at teacher training institutions.4.Discussion 4.2.Second gr

46、oup of findings and their possible explanation Table 5 presents similarities and difffferences between the two groups of students concerning non-zero direct and indirect effffects among the four variables.4.Discussion The reported similarities can be summarized in the following way:to improve INTERE

47、ST,we need to improve ATTITUDE by means of EXPERIENCE.A crucial role of ATTITUDE to INTEREST was also found in Kadijevich(2006)and Kadijevich et al.(2005)despite the fact that a less detailed questionnaire regarding the indicators of SUPPORT and INTEREST was used.4.Discussion The analyzed data evide

48、nce that when SUPPORT respects EXPERIENCE,a desired role of SUPPORT(positive impact on EXPERIENCE and ATTITUDE)can be achieved,possibly also resulting in an effffect of SUPPORT on INTEREST.When,on the other hand,SUPPORT does not respect EXPERIENCE and is not explicitly concerned with ET standards,th

49、e desired role of SUPPORT would not be achieved even though an effffect of SUPPORT on INTEREST may be present.4.Discussion 4.3.Implications for practice The outcomes of this study support the position that SUPPORT,which is explicitly concerned with ET standards,should take into account EXPERIENCE an

50、d develop it further.This has to be done through promoting teachers understanding why,when and how to use technology.bearing in mind that computer skill should not be taught separately from knowledge structure and pedagogical thinking.To achieve this end,new forms of continuous teacher development a