10. Teacher Education Research
Paper
VR in Education: The impact of a VR-supported intervention on Pre-service teachers’ VR Technological and Pedagogical Content Knowledge
Lavinia Hirsu, Gabriella Rodolico
University of Glasgow, United Kingdom
Presenting Author: Hirsu, Lavinia;
Rodolico, Gabriella
This study contributes to research on the impact that Virtual reality (VR) supported lessons in Initial Teacher Education (ITE) courses may have on the Pre-Service Teachers (PSTs)’ confidence and VR Technological and Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK). Our aim was to analyse if the implementation of VR-supported lessons in the practical aspect of already packed ITE courses, such as Post-Graduate Diploma in the Education (PGDE) course, alongside with already existing traditional effective pedagogies, could have an impact on PSTs’ willingness to try this new digital technology in their classroom and to explore its pedagogical potential.
Emerging evidence has demonstrated that VR-supported lessons are able to enhance positive emotions and engagement when compared to more traditional tools, such as readings from textbooks and videos (Allcoat & von Mühlenen, 2018). However, to experience and facilitate these benefits in a learning environment, educators should consider their self-efficacy while teaching with VR technologies, their safety in the classroom, as well as the need for technical support. These have been identified as potential obstacles for PSTs, who are interested in the effective use of VR in the classroom but may not feel well equipped to deliver VR-based lessons (Cooper et al., 2019).
In addition, according to Kavanagh et al. (2017), there are several external barriers to classroom implementation such as costs, hardware and software usability, and internal barriers such as confidence in teachers’ ability to use and create content, as well as PSTs’ VR Technological Pedagogical and Content Knowledge (TPACK) to consider (Jang et al., 2021).
In a recent pilot study, we explored the PSTs’ learning experience with a specific interest in the impact of VR-supported lessons on their Specific Self-Confidence (SSC) as an aspect that could be improved by research evidence-based, well-designed hands-on lessons in ITE courses. We decided to focus on SSC after making two important considerations. On the one hand, we reflected on the assumption that self-efficacy could be considered a multifaced personality trait that spans in several domains including motivational, cognitive, and affective domains (Cramer et al., 2009) and could require a lifetime to be changed. On the other hand, SSC is only one aspect of self-confidence, but it seems to be mainly affected by everyday performance and circumstances, exerting higher levels of effect on the recurrent behaviours and attitude towards technology of an individual (Oney & Ulugad, 2013). This, in return, could have an impact on PSTs’ willingness to use technology such as VR in their practice (Yilmaz & Bayraktar, 2014) even after a short intervention, and it may affect their self-efficacy on a long-term (Kent, 2017).
The initial pilot study results, presented at ECER Geneva 2020, showed that engagement with VR lessons, for example in ITE science courses, encouraged PSTs to explore this technology for their future practice and expand the range of their pedagogical activities to teach various subjects, positively impacting on their self-confidence.
In this study, we moved on to explore the second possible internal barrier: the VR Technological and Pedagogical Content Knowledge. The TPACK refers not only to teachers’ VR technological knowledge, but also to their ability to choose this technology in conjunction with the appropriate pedagogical approaches that could support learning when teaching specific subject content (Fragkaki et al., 2020; Mishra, 2019). We aimed to provide further evidence on the minimal intervention required in ITE courses to support sustainable development of VR supported lessons in school education. This involves reflections on possible daily implementation of VR, alongside other effective pedagogical strategies in student-teachers’ career, as we present in the research design below.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used99 PGDE Primary student teachers (group A) and 33 PGDE Secondary Sciences student teachers (group B), enrolled in the class 2022-2023, participated in this study. The process involved a purposive sampling approach (Palys, 2008). Participants were all PSTs, and they all attended the PGDE science course on which one of the researchers had a tutor’s responsibilities.
Demographic data have been collected to set up the general study context with a strong prevalence of females (84) vs. males (11) in Group A, and an equal number of females (16) vs. males (16) in Group B. In both groups most participants were in the age range between 18-34 years old. An initial overview of teachers’ attitudes towards technology, was examined by using the five categories of adopters defined by Hixon et al. (2012). Data showed that in both group A and B, about 80% of participants showed a positive attitude towards innovative technologies, defining themselves as early adopters and early majority.
Implementation of VR in PGDE primary Science classes
The VR intervention has been planned in science lessons with a total 2 two-hour VR supported sessions, a week apart.
Session 1: PST explored and analysed the TPACK framework in the context of science and pedagogical approaches to VR lessons, with a blending of individual and collaborative tasks. Students analysed available digital resources including AR and desktop VR programmes and reflected on own beliefs through peer- and tutor- supported discussion.
Session 2: Several ideas of active learning strategies on the topic of Body System were explored by student-teachers to better understand benefits and disadvantages of different pedagogical strategies, from more traditional, such as peak flow meters and body organ aprons, to more innovative such as AR T-shirt Virtuali Tee and VR-technology, ClassVR®, with an immersive virtual tour around the body.
Data was collected using a mixed method approach and an online version of the Graham et al. (2019) validated tool to measure the TPACK confidence of science teachers, with some modifications to suit the VR supported lessons.
A baseline was established by providing participants with a pre- and post- intervention survey, with quantitative data measured using a series of Likert scale questions. Qualitative data were collected through five open-ended questions in the post-intervention questionnaire related to the VR-supported intervention and aimed to explore participants’ opinions. To analyse the data, we used a combination of descriptive statistics and qualitative inductive thematic analysis (Thomas, 2006).
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsOur findings indicate that the VR-supported intervention had a significant impact on both groups of student-teachers (group A primary and group B secondary). Data showed a significant percentage increase in both groups’ VR TPACK confidence, after the intervention. For example, participants said they would feel more confident to effectively manage a VR-supported lesson (group A +20%, group B +40 %) and use VR to actively engage students in learning (group A +32%, group B +37 %). Student-teachers showed a growing disposition towards exploring the pedagogical potential of VR content and expressed an interest in continuing to engage with VR technologies, should these be available in their schools,“Gained an insight into the types of activities and learning that VR could be used for. Before this class I was unaware that VR could be introduced into the classroom”. However, moving from experimenting with VR to using it consistently in a classroom context requires further professional support and continued opportunities to develop pedagogical expertise in this area, “I am keen to explore VR options, but feel I would need some specific training/development”. Data showed an increase in PSTs’ willingness to explore VR for their teaching practice to draw the benefits afforded by VR-based learning.
Nevertheless, although PSTs’ responses showed how this intervention can move teachers over the threshold of non-use and newness of innovative digital technologies such as VR, it is interesting to note that it also did not have a significant impact on the majority of the other TPACK measurements. In other words, student-teachers’ wider perceptions of their attitudes towards the use of digital technologies in general did not change. These findings raise interesting considerations regarding the impact and transferability of knowledge and practice when we introduce new digital technologies and pedagogies in teacher professional development.
ReferencesAllcoat, D., & von Mühlenen, A. (2018). Learning in virtual reality: Effects on performance, emotion and engagement. Research in Learning Technology, 26: 2140. https://doi.org/10.25304/rlt.v26.2140
Cooper, G., & Thong, L. P. (2018). Implementing virtual reality in the classroom: envisaging possibilities in STEM Education. In STEM education: An emerging field of inquiry (pp. 61-73). Brill. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004391413_005
Cramer, R. J., Neal, T., & Brodsky, S. L. (2009). Self-efficacy and confidence: Theoretical distinctions and implications for trial consultation. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 61(4), 319. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017310
Fragkaki, M., Mystakidis, S., Hatzilygeroudis, I., Kovas, K., Palkova, Z., Salah, Z., Hamed G., Khalilia W. M., Ewais, A. (2020). TPACK instructional design model in virtual reality for deeper learning in science and higher education: From ‘apathy’ to ‘empathy’. In EDULEARN20 Proceedings (pp. 3286-3292). IATED.
Graham, R. C., Burgoyne, N., Cantrell, P., Smith, L., St Clair, L., & Harris, R. (2009). Measuring the TPACK confidence of inservice science teachers. TechTrends, 53(5), 70-79. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-009-0328-0
Hixon, E., Buckenmeyer, J., Barczyk, C., Feldman, L., & Zamojski, H. (2012). Beyond the early adopters of online instruction: Motivating the reluctant majority. The Internet and Higher Education, 15(2), 102-107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.11.005
Jang, J., Ko, Y., Shin, W. S., & Han, I. (2021). Augmented reality and virtual reality for learning: An examination using an extended technology acceptance model. IEEE Access, 9, 6798-6809. doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3048708.
Kavanagh, S., Luxton-Reilly, A., Wuensche, B., & Plimmer, B. (2017). A systematic review of virtual reality in education. Themes in Science and Technology Education, 10(2), 85-119. URL: http://earthlab.uoi.gr/theste
Kent, A. M., & Giles, R. M. (2017). Pre-service teachers' technology self-efficacy. SRATE Journal, 26 (1), 9-20.
Mishra, P. (2019). Considering contextual knowledge: The TPACK diagram gets an upgrade. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 35(2), 76-78. https://doi.org/10.1080/21532974.2019.1588611
Oney, E., & Uludag, O. (2013). Classification of self-confidence: Is general self-confidence an aggregate of specific self-confidences? In 6th International Conference on Service Management (pp. 20-22). At: Kyrenia, North Cyprus
Palys, T. (2008). Purposive sampling. In L. M. Given (Ed.) The Sage Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods. (Vol.2). Sage: Los Angeles, pp. 697-8
Thomas, D. R. (2006). ‘A general inductive approach for analyzing qualitative evaluation data.’ American Journal of Evaluation 27(2): 237-246. DOI: 10.1177/1098214005283748
Yilmaz, O., & Bayraktar, D. M. (2014). Teachers’ attitudes towards the use of educational technologies and their individual innovativeness categories. Procedia-social and behavioral sciences, 116, 3458-3461. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.783
10. Teacher Education Research
Paper
Integration of Educational Technologies into Teaching: A Systematic Review of Intervention Studies
Kirsten Gronau, Karen Vogelpohl, Laura N. Peters, Annika Zarrath, Annegret Jansen, Ulrike-Marie Krause
Carl von Ossietzky University Oldenburg, Germany
Presenting Author: Gronau, Kirsten
Educational technologies play an important role in teaching and learning in the 21st century (Redecker, 2017). To foster learning related to educational technologies, teachers need not only knowledge about the content they will be teaching but also pedagogical and technological knowledge, in short TPACK (Koehler & Mishra, 2014). Yet, knowledge about technology is not the main factor in deciding what and how educational technologies are used in the classroom. There are studies that found pre-service teachers’ beliefs regarding the usefulness of a digital tool for students’ learning to be the best predictor of their intentions to use software, not their self-reported knowledge about the tool (Anderson et al., 2011). Yet, integrating technologies in teaching is a complex task (Nelson et al., 2019; Tondeur et al., 2019) that requires teachers to identify the right way of integrating educational technologies for the lesson objectives and for students’ learning needs (Djoub, 2019). This ability is referred to as technological pedagogical reasoning based on Shulman’s (1986) concept of pedagogical reasoning. When preparing their lessons, teachers need to integrate the three knowledge bases of TPACK to identify the possibilities of integrating educational technologies in their classroom and to be able to justify their decisions regarding technology integration (Niess & Gillow-Wiles, 2017; Voogt et al., 2016). In the past ten years, there has been an increasing number of empirical studies on teacher education and educational technologies. Røkenes and Krumsvik (2014) classified pedagogical approaches to pre-service teacher training with ICT in their review but neither the format and content of the trainings nor the measurement of success were looked at more closely. In Starkey’s (2020) review, under the term of professional digital competence, three types of pre-service teachers’ competencies in the digital age were classified: Generic digital competence, digital teaching competence, and professional digital competence. In addition to teachers’ generic digital competence, digital teaching competence is necessary to integrate digital technology into teaching. The present review focusses on pre- and in-service teacher trainings for digital teaching competence.
Our aim is to find out how (pre-service) teachers can be prepared for integrating educational technologies in their teaching and how learning for technology integration can be measured. In the present systematic review we therefore investigate the following research questions:
1) How is (pre-service) teachers’ integration of educational technologies into teaching fostered in intervention studies?
2) How is (pre-service) teacher’s integration of educational technologies into teaching measured in intervention studies?
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThis review follows a systematic approach to investigate how (pre-service) teachers’ integration of educational technologies into teaching is fostered and measured in intervention studies. Articles were searched using an explicit and replicable search strategy. Inclusion and exclusion of articles was decided based on pre-determined criteria and following the PRISMA guidelines (Shamseer et al., 2015). The systematic review was pre-registered on Open Science Framework Registries (https://osf.io/tcdn4/).
Two data bases (Web of Science, ERIC) were searched using the search string ("technolog*" OR "ICT" OR "computer" OR "digital" OR "TPACK") AND ("initial teach*" OR "pre-service teach*" OR "in-service teach*" OR "student teach*" OR "teacher") AND ("program" OR "education" OR "training") AND ("intervention"). The search has been narrowed down to peer reviewed articles dating from 01/2012 to 04/2022. The initial search was undertaken in May 2022 resulting in 1698 articles from the databases. After screening title and abstract in a team of four reviewers, 1089 articles were excluded based on the following inclusion and exclusion criteria: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods intervention studies were included. Articles were excluded if the participants were neither pre- nor in-service teachers, if the study was not an intervention study and if integration of educational technology into teaching was not fostered or measured. The four reviewers reached a substantial agreement on inclusions and exclusions in the abstract screening (Fleiss’ Kappa: 0.76). Of the remaining articles, 99 full texts were retrieved via the institution’s resources. 29 of these articles were excluded in the full text screening as they did not meet the inclusion criteria. This resulted in 70 articles included in the systematic review. There was an almost perfect agreement between raters in the full text screening (Fleiss’ Kappa: 0.93). The articles were then assessed for quality using a coding system based on the appraisal tool for reporting quality in systematic reviews “Quality assessment with diverse studies” (QuADS) by Harrison et al. (2021). To extract the data from the remaining articles a coding system was developed based on the guidelines presented by Büchter et al. (2020) which includes categories on participants, intervention methods and treatment as well as outcomes of the studies. Because the data extracted from the included studies was heterogenous, a narrative synthesis of the qualitative and quantitative data was undertaken.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe synthesis will be completed by April 2023. First results show a research focus on the integration of specific tools in educational practice as well as (pre-service) teachers’ knowledge, beliefs, and self-efficacy. Most studies have a mixed methods design with a slight preference for quantitative results. Surveys with questionnaires (self-report items) were used most often followed by interviews. Technologies used in the treatment included traditional options like interactive whiteboards and MS Office as well as trending technologies like social media, machine learning and augmented reality. The prevalent theoretical and conceptual backgrounds of the treatments are TPACK, blended learning, community of practice, and project-based learning. Most interventions aimed at integrating educational technologies in lesson planning. Integration of educational technologies into actual teaching practice was less common. Reflective practice regarding the integration of educational technologies into teaching is seldomly addressed. The results can be discussed in terms of the status quo regarding teacher education in the context of educational technologies. Furthermore, the implications for the practice of teacher education are interesting, especially the question, what skills teachers need to integrate technologies into teaching.
ReferencesAnderson, S. E., Groulx, J. G., & Maninger, R. M. (2011). Relationships among preservice teachers’ technology-related abilities, beliefs, and intentions to use technology in their future classrooms. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 45(3).
Büchter, R. B., Weise, A., & Pieper, D. (2020). Development, testing and use of data extraction forms in systematic reviews: A review of methodological guidance. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 20(1), 259.
Djoub, Z. (2019). Teachers’ attitudes towards technology integration: Implications for pre-service teachers. In Information Resources Management Association (Ed.), TPACK. Breakthroughs in research and practice (pp. 32–65).
Harrison, R., Jones, B., Gardner, P., & Lawton, R. (2021). Quality assessment with diverse studies (QuADS): An appraisal tool for methodological and reporting quality in systematic reviews of mixed- or multi-method studies. BMC Health Services Research, 21(1), 144.
Koehler, M., & Mishra, P. (2014). Introducing TPCK. In M. Herring, P. Mishra, & M. Koehler (Ed.), Handbook of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK) for Educators (pp. 3–31).
Nelson, M. J., Voithofer, R., & Cheng, S.-L. (2019). Mediating factors that influence the technology integration practices of teacher educators. Computers & Education, 128, 330–344.
Niess, M. L., & Gillow-Wiles, H. (2017). Expanding teachers’ technological pedagogical reasoning with a systems pedagogical approach. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 33(3).
Redecker, C. (2017). European Framework for the Digital Competence of Educators. JRC Science for Policy Report, 93.
Røkenes, F. M., & Krumsvik, R. J. (2014). Development of student teachers’ digital competence in teacher education—A literature review. Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy, 9(04), 250–280.
Shamseer, L., Moher, D., Clarke, M., Ghersi, D., Liberati, A., Petticrew, M., Shekelle, P., Stewart, L. A., & the PRISMA-P Group. (2015). Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P): Elaboration and explanation. BMJ, 349.
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those Who Understand. Educational Researcher, 15(2).
Starkey, L. (2020). A review of research exploring teacher preparation for the digital age. Cambridge Journal of Education, 50(1), 37–56.
Tondeur, J., Scherer, R., Baran, E., Siddiq, F., Valtonen, T., & Sointu, E. (2019). Teacher educators as gatekeepers: Preparing the next generation of teachers for technology integration in education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(3), 1189–1209.
Voogt, J., Fisser, P., Tondeur, J., & van Braak, J. (2016). Using theoretical perspectives in developing an understanding of TPACK. In M. C. Herring, M. J. Koehler, & P. Mishra (Ed.), Handbook of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) for educators (pp. 33–53).
10. Teacher Education Research
Paper
From TPACK to TAPACK: A Case for Foregrounding Affect in Teaching and Learning with Technology in Teacher Education
Katherine McLay1, Vicente Reyes Jr2
1The University of Queensland, Australia; 2University of Nottingham
Presenting Author: McLay, Katherine
TPACK (Technological Pedagogical and Content Knowledge) is a widely used framework in K - 12 and tertiary education across the globe, supporting preservice and in-service teachers plan for and reflect on teaching and learning with technology. However, the framework has been criticised as inadequate for learning areas that involve substantial engagement with the affective domain, such as Music and Drama. This paper further argues that affect is not only relevant to specific learning areas, but that there is an affective dimension to all user engagement with technology. However, there is currently no framework that engages holistically with cultivating both technological knowledge and skills as well as productive attitudes and affective orientations. As such, this paper contents that TPACK should be reconceptualized as TAPACK (Technological Affect Pedagogical and Content Knowledge) to explicitly foreground, engage with, and value the affective domain of teaching and learning with technology.
To make this case, this paper draws on contemporary scholarship that demonstrates the important role of affective orientations to technology in shaping the extent to which preservice and in-service teachers deploy and embed technology meaningfully into teaching and learning. Data generated from student feedback on an educational technology course is also used to demonstrate the impact and benefits of supporting preservice teachers to grapple with their technology-related attitudes and orientations by placing these affective dimensions alongside practical matters, such as technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge. While embedding technology into teaching and learning is an expected practice in contemporary education across the globe, teacher attitudes towards and beliefs about technology remain powerful 'second order barriers' to technology integration. This paper argues that deliberately turning toward these affective orientations and explicitly engaging with the human dimension of teaching and learning with and about technology offers a way to empower preservice and in-service teachers to make informed, agential decisions about deploying technology to expand learning opportunities for students.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedBy synthesising scholarship that argues for more nuanced approaches to learning technology research with our own experience teaching into initial teacher education - including student feedback on an educational technology course - we draw on inductively coded data and reflexive inquiry to propose that TPACK should be reconceptualised as TAPACK to explicitly foreground, engage with, and value both practical and affective dimensions of deploying technology meaningfully into teaching and learning.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsProviders of ITE (initial teacher education) must ensure preservice teachers (PSTs) are equipped to prepare the next generation of twenty-first century workers to compete in a global economy. However, research has found that PSTs are often anxious about and resistant to technology for teaching and learning. Further, it is well established that teacher beliefs about technology for teaching and learning are directly related to their technological practices. Specifically, beliefs and attitudes towards technology are known as ‘second order barriers’ (Makki et al., 2018). Despite overwhelming evidence of the importance and impact of teacher attitudes towards incorporating technology into learning, (e.g., Makki et al., 2018; Vongkulluksn et al., 2018), including the significant influence of teacher educators’ practice and role-modelling on preservice teacher attitudes towards technology (e.g., Tondeur et al., 2019), the dominant technology integration frameworks, among which TPACK is chief, engage only implicitly – if at all – with this vitally important domain. We argue for a more holistic and problematised approach to engaging PSTs with technology for teaching and learning, and for actively engagement not only with technological knowledge and skills but also with PSTs’ technology-related attitudes, orientations, and beliefs because learning – including with technology – is not unproblematic and mechanistic but complex and more-than-cognitive.
ReferencesMakki, T. W., O'Neal, L. J., Cotten, S. R., & Rikard, R. V. (2018). When first-order barriers are high: A comparison of second-and third-order barriers to classroom computing integration. Computers & Education, 120, 90-97.
Mishra, P. & Koehler, M. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: a framework for integrating technology in teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054.
Parr, G., Bulfin, S., Diamond, F., Wood, N., & Owen, C. (2020). The becoming of English teacher educators in Australia: A cross-generational reflexive inquiry. Oxford Review of Education, 46(2), 238-256.
Tondeur, J., Scherer, R., Baran, E., Siddiq, F., Valtonen, T., & Sointu, E. (2019). Teacher educators as gatekeepers: Preparing the next generation of teachers for technology integration in education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(3), 1189-1209.
Vongkulluksn, V. W., Xie, K., & Bowman, M. A. (2018). The role of value on teachers' internalization of external barriers and externalization of personal beliefs for classroom technology integration. Computers & Education, 118, 70-81.
|
