10. Teacher Education Research
Paper
Student Teachers’ Digital Self-Regulated Learning – A Systematic Review
Laura N. Peters1,3, Judit Martínez Moreno2, Kirsten Gronau1, Berrin Cefa Sari1,3, Olaf Zawacki-Richter1,3
1Carl von Ossietzky Universität Oldenburg, Germany; 2PH Zürch & University of Zürich, Switzerland; 3Centre for Open Education Research (COER)
Presenting Author: Peters, Laura N.
Digitally native” (Kirschner & De Bruyckere, 2017) and “technically proficient student teachers” (Almås et al., 2021) do not necessarily know how to use those technologies effectively for their own learning, and digital readiness does not per sé result in learning and target-aimed teaching with digital technologies. Due to the emergence of computers in schools, significant research interest has been invested in teachers’ knowledge of technology integration into teaching (Baier & Kunter, 2020; Scherer et al., 2018), cf. TPACK (Koehler et al., 2014; Koehler & Mishra, 2009). Conversely, less attention has been given to the self-regulated learning knowledge (Karlen et al., 2021) that student teachers build, nor the beliefs (Darmawan et al., 2020; Scherer et al., 2018; Vosniadou et al., 2020) that they hold towards digital self-regulated learning (Greene, 2021; Karlen et al., 2021). “Online Self-Regulated Learning” has been coined to describe the mode of e-learning in structured online learning scenarios, such as MOOCs and Learning Management Systems (LMS) of higher education institutions. However, the technological affordance in distance teaching and learning, as demonstrated by *emergency remote teaching* during the Covid19 pandemic, puts the emphasis on technologies rather than learning. Therefore, this project aims to explore the fundamentals of learning in, with, about, and even despite digital technologies. With “Digital Self-Regulated Learning” (DSRL), I aim to explore the intersection of self-regulated learning (Karlen et al., 2021; Panadero, 2017; Vosniadou et al., 2021) and digital technologies in the teaching profession, which is the domain-general and purposeful use for the teachers’ professional- learning and development. This idea links with Professional Digital Competence (Karlen et al., 2020), defined as a universal set of competences and knowledge that fosters digitality-related learning across all domains in the teaching profession and across the professional lifespan, beyond the integration of technologies into teaching. Additionally, because teachers have communicative obligations in school development processes that are also undergoing digitization, it is important to understand the principal functions of technologies in the context of sustainable school development (e.g., digital device decisions instead of simply tool application). Research on teacher professional development suggests that teachers must be capable of self-regulating their own learning with digital technologies as a prerequisite for fostering SRL skills in their students (Greene, 2021; Karlen et al., 2021; Almås et al., 2021). This is framed from a perspective of a teachers’ professional role and identity (Zimmer et al., 2021). Setting the term “digital” semantically apart from “online/e-learning” - wherein digital technologies function as a medium of transfer (i.e., utility) - opens the aim of the project to define digitality as a condition and digital technologies as learning objects (Knox, 2019; Stalder, 2021). This configurative systematic review (Zawacki-Richter et al., 2020) evaluates and synthesizes the current empirical results on student teachers’ knowledge of self- regulated learning with, and about, digital technologies, as well as their attitudes towards digital self-regulated professional learning (Darmawan et al., 2020; Scherer et al., 2018; Tondeur et al., 2016; Vosniadou et al., 2020) and answers the following two research questions:
1. What is the current empirical evidence on student teachers’ knowledge and attitudes towards digital self-regulated learning?
2. How are knowledge and attitudes measured and operationalized in the context of digital self-regulated learning?
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedFor data retrieval this systematic review has taken the databases _SCOPUS_, _Education Source_ and _Web of Science_ into account. The decision against PsychInfo and Wiley is within the scope of the configurative nature of the review as the combination of self-regulated learning is an umbrella term itself and entails a significant amount of variables and constructs that are measured. Digital self-regulated learning, as elaborated above, puts the omnipresence of digital technologies into perspective as an all-encompassing condition (Knox, 2019).
In the current systematic review specific inclusion and exclusion criteria have been put into place for the first phase of data retrieval and narrowing the corpus in an abstract screening.
Regarding the database settings the search string targeted the following main concepts ((Student Teachers)), ((self-regulated learning)), ((knowledge)), ((attitudes)) and ((digital technologies)). The construction of the search string underwent 7 major and 11 minor iterations and besides synonyms that play an important role in discourse construction around such semantically rich composita and terms, the proximity operator has been made productive. Additionally, the databases were all set to capture the time frame of ten years between 2012 and 2022. Another pre-requisite taken within the database browser interface, was the publication in the English language as well as the fact that the articles had the criterion of being quality assessed contributions which had undergone peer-review before publication. Therefore, only articles from peer-reviewed academic journals were taken into consideration (Zawacki-Richter et al., 2020). The total corpus that could be derived via this method from the above mentioned databases contained a total number of 4.250 articles (N=4.250). For the abstract screening the software Rayyan was used via the browser interface. The software detected 30 more duplicates that were resolved by deletion of one of the two occurrences per entry.
The abstract screening was facilitated by 4 raters and followed the tight agenda inclusion- and exclusion criteria, that were accompanied by interrater-reliability testing (Fleiss Kappa, 0.64, Belur et al. 2021). From 4.250 articles, 169 could be taken into considerations after the abstract screening, loading full-texts facilitated to exclude additional articles, so that the final corpus of this study contains 63, after six titles could not be retrieved as full-texts (cf. PRISMA, Moher et al., 2015) . The qualitative, descriptive and corpus-linguistic data extraction is facilitated with a form in LimeSurvey that follows an if-statement structure which combines descriptive data scales with open-ended qualitative data questions.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsFirst preliminary results suggest that the following list of scales answers research question (2), concerning the scales and instruments to measure digital self-regulated learning attitudes: general attitudes towards technology (GATT), educational attitudes towards technology (EDATT), general ICT efficacy, pedagogical beliefs (student centered / transmissive), Teachers’ Emphasis on Developing Students Digital Information and Communication Skills (TEDDICS), Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT), values.
The modellation of the digital self-regulated knowledge scales is more complex it contains as well the meta-learning strategy knowledge (cf. SRL knowledge) as also the digital principal knowledge (cf. technological knowledge, TK, Mishra & Koehler, 2009). Additionally, the synthesis of the empirical results answering the first research question suggests, that the complexity of variables measured will derive a puzzle of components to prioritize from, and DSRL as the theoretical compositum I have argued in the rationale above is not represented in the dataset adequately. A lot of the discourse about teachers' technological knowledge and attitudes has been shaped around the theoritical frame of TPACK, which shifts the knowledge and attitudes always into the context of teaching in the classroom.
ReferencesAlmås, A. G., Bueie, A. A., & Aagaard, T. (2021). From digital competence to Professional Digital Competence: Student teachers’ experiences of and reflections on how teacher education prepares them for working life. Nordic Journal of Comparative and International Education (NJCIE), 5(4), Art. 4. https://doi.org/10.7577/njcie.4233
Belur, J., Tompson, L., Thornton, A., & Simon, M. (2021). Interrater Reliability in Systematic Review Methodology: Exploring Variation in Coder Decision Making. Sociological Methods & Research, 50(2), 837–865. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124118799372
Darmawan, I., Vosniadou, S., Lawson, M. J., Deur, P. V., & Wyra, M. (2020). The development of an instrument to test pre-service teachers’ beliefs consistent and inconsistent with self-regulation theory. The British Journal of Educational Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12345
Greene, J. A. (2021). Teacher support for metacognition and self-regulated learning: A compelling story and a prototypical model. Metacognition and Learning, 16(3), 651–666. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-021-09283-7
Karlen, Y., Hirt, C., Liska, A., & Stebner, F. (2021). Mindsets and Self-Concepts About Self-Regulated Learning: Their Relationships With Emotions, StrategyKnowledge,and Academic Achievement.Frontiers in Psychology,12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.661142
Kirschner, P. A., & De Bruyckere, P. (2017). The myths of the digital native and the multitasker. Teaching and Teacher Education, 67, 135–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.06.001
Panadero, E. (2017). A Review of Self-regulated Learning: Six Models and Four Directions for Research. Frontiers in Psychology, 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00422
Scherer, R., Tondeur, J., Siddiq, F., & Baran, E. (2018). The importance of attitudes toward technology for pre-service teachers’ technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge: Comparing structural equation modelling approaches. Computers in Human Behavior. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.11.003
Vosniadou, S., Lawson, M. J., Wyra, M., Deur, P., Jeffries, D., & Ngurah, D. I. G. (2020). Pre-service teachers’ beliefs about learning and teaching and about the self-regulation of learning: A conceptual change perspective. International Journal of Educational Research, 99.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2019.101495
Zawacki-Richter, O., Kerres, M., Bedenlier, S., Bond, M., & Buntins, K. (2020). Systematic Reviews in Educational Research: Methodology,Perspectives and Application. Springer VS.
Zimmer, W. K., McTigue, E. M., & Matsuda, N. (2021). Development and validation of the teachers’ digital learning identity survey. International Journal of Educational Research, 105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2020.101717
10. Teacher Education Research
Paper
The Impact of a Digital-Literacy Based Placement Programme on Student Teachers’ Teaching Experience and Practices
Zerrin Doganca Kucuk, Majella Dempsey, Thomas Delahunty, Keith Young
Maynooth University, Ireland
Presenting Author: Dempsey, Majella;
Young, Keith
Digitalization brings both benefits and challenges in almost every aspect of our lives. Though the benefits seem apparent, the challenges are mostly related to the gaps it creates between advantaged and disadvantaged communities. The term ‘digital divide’ is frequently used for comparisons of access to digital tools and internet, the value and need for a digital world, and corresponding skills needed in such a technologically rich life (Burns, 2022). These identified gaps call for changes in classroom practices.
In OECD’s recent report (2021), there were some highlights about diverse and innovative pedagogies to integrate technology in classrooms and some implications to teacher education. In Ireland, digital skills are identified as the core elements of initial teacher education in the policy document called ‘Ceim: Standards for Initial Teacher Education’ (Teaching Council, 2020).
Considering the diverse and innovative pedagogies that could be introduced into teacher education programmes, this research aims to explore the impact of a ‘Digital Leaders’ Placement Programme’ (DLPP) on Year 2 and Year 3 students’ teaching practices in an undergraduate programme in Ireland. Impact is determined through the development of students’ knowledge and skills as they relate to digital literacy and their intention to continue using digital technologies in teaching their STEM subjects following completion of the programme. The programme was designed as a second-year placement module, and it is independent of any subject specific methodologies. The Technological Pedagogical and Content Knowledge Framework (TPACK) by Koehler and Mishra (2005) will be used as the theoretical model to study the integration of technology as part of a teachers’ professional practices. The framework is rooted in Schulman’s (1986) Pedagogical Content Knowledge concept that represents the full body of knowledge including pedagogy and subject matter required for a teacher. Concerning the increasing use and importance of technology in learning and teaching, the extension of technology is inevitable in the current full body of teacher knowledge (De Rossi & Trevisan, 2018).
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Usedhe design of the research was a case study where the impact of the ‘Digital Leaders’ Placement Programme’ (DLPP) would be explored. The case study took place in an Initial Teacher Program at an Irish university. To assess the longer-term impact of the DLPP, Year 2 (n= 38) and Year 3 students (n=40) participated in the study. During the course of the study, both cohorts continue their teaching practice and teach 2-3 hours every week. Year 2 students taught extra-curricular lessons with various digital tools while Year 3 students taught their regular classes in their two teaching subjects with combinations of science (physics, chemistry and biology), mathematics, and computer science.
The format for the case study synthesised the use of pre/post surveys and focus groups to provide richness of data. Initially, the modified ICT-TPACK-Science Scale (Kadioglu-Akbulut et al, 2020) was administrated to the participants at the beginning of the second semester of 2022/23 Academic Year. The same scale was administrated to only Year 2 students at the end of the program to monitor the changes in TPACK of student teachers as they completed their placement. There were three focus groups; two with seven Year 2 student teachers and one focus group with three Year 3 student teachers.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsBased on student feedback and our observations in modules and school placement, the student teachers had diverse placement experiences. School context including resources, cooperating teachers, student profile could be an important factor in incorporating TPACK in their teaching. The school context related issues can all be enablers or inhibitors for student teachers. While these external issues were vital for student teachers, we concentrated on their individual practice and whether they used their TPACK in the classroom. There was significant variety in the levels of TPACK among the cohort of students across each of the five sub-scales; namely designing, ethics, implementing, planning, and proficiency in the modified ICT-TPACK-Science Scale prior to engaging with the programme. Upon completion of the programme there was improvement across each of the sub-scales with the exception of planning. The focus groups identified significant value in the programme itself, though participants felt more workshops would have been beneficial. This is reflective of the observed changes in levels of TPACK pre and post programme. The findings offer some relevant insights into considerations programme designers may wish to undertake as they develop approaches to build students’ digital literacy skills.
ReferencesBurns, T. (2022). United We Stand, Digitally Divided We Fall: Gold-standard digital literacy ensures access to technology regardless of age, gender and background. Retrieved from the Forum Network: https://www.oecd-forum.org/posts/united-we-stand-digitally-divided-we-fall-gold-standard-digital-literacy-ensures-access-to-technology-regardless-of-age-gender-and-background
De Rossi, M., & Trevisan, O. (2018). Technological pedagogical content knowledge in the literature: how TPCK is defined and implemented in initial teacher education. Italian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(1),7-23.
Kadıoğlu-Akbulut, C., Çetin-Dindar, A., Küçük, S., Acar-Sesen, B. (2020). Development and Validation of the ICT-TPACK-Science Scale. Journal of Science Education Technology. 29, 355–368.
Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2005). Teachers learning technology by design. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 21(3), 94-101.
OECD (2021). 21st-Century Readers: Developing Literacy Skills ina Digital World, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/a83d84cb-en.
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Paradigms and research programs for the study of teaching. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Teaching (3rd ed.) (pp. 3-36). New York, NY: Macmillan
The Teaching Council (2020). Céim: Standards for Initial Teacher Education. Retrieved from: https://www.teachingcouncil.ie/en/news-events/latest-news/ceim-standards-for-initial-teacher-education.pdf
10. Teacher Education Research
Paper
Investigating Teacher Educators Professional Digital Competence Through Epistemic Cultures
Erik Straume Bussesund
OsloMet - Oslo Metropolitan University, Norway
Presenting Author: Bussesund, Erik Straume
The use of technology in education has been a topic of interest for policymakers for many years, as is alleged to have significantly benefits for the learning experience for pupils. With the rapid implementation of digital technology in education in recent years, there has been a focus on the role of teacher qualifications in preparing students for a digital society and utilise the potential of a datafyed and digitised education system. In this regard teacher educators is commonly portrayed to play a critical role in preparing teacher students and in-service teacher use digital technology in classroom and ensuring that pupils can effectively digital technology to enhance their learn and acquire new skills.
In a relatively short period of time, the role of the teacher and concurrently teacher educator has undergone a dramatic change. The expectation placed on schools have increased, because concerns of digitalisation of society and the emphasis of the knowledge economy (Ball, 2017). In In Norway, the public debate have for a long time focused on impact of new digital technologies have had on all aspects of civil and professional society, and how schools must be able to prepare students for the digital professional lives (Engen, 2019). Teacher education is considered to have a duale role. Firstly, teacher education is expected to focus on the (pedagogical) use of digital tools. Secondly, teacher educators are supposed to teach student teachers how to foster pupils’ digital skills and digital responsibility while addressing digitalisation’s influences on society and culture, subjects’ contents, and educational practices (Nagel, 2021). The digitalisation of society and schools have been classified as transformation of epistemic and educational practices (Lund & Aagaard, 2020), and the need for teacher education to adapt and integrate digital competence in study programmes has been emphasised by several actors, including policymakers, researchers, school leaders, and teachers
The European Commission mapped out the education systems in Europe to identify the necessary competences regarding what digital competency teacher should know and be able to do (Bourgeois et al., 2019), and the Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training published a qualification framework for the Professional Digital Competence (PDC) teacher (Kelentrić et al., 2017). These frameworks can be seen as declarations of political intentions for what ought to be taught in teacher education. However, although political and professional discussions have begun, there is no clear description of what teacher educators are expected to know and be able to do (Goodwin et al., 2014; Kelchtermans et al., 2018; Loughran & Hamilton, 2016) .
In this paper we explore structure and experience, mobilising the notion of dispositif as a heuristic device, as a permeable and fluid, strategic and technical. Over the course of this paper, we want to start piecing together a new way of conceptualising Professional Digital Competency for teacher education. By utilising Bailey (2013) conception of policy dispositif to conceive both Performative and dispositional ontology at different material sites, and across and between different scales of policy practice. These methodological and conceptual framework foregrounds analytics which understands policy as a contingent formation of diverse discursive and extra discursive elements, and policy institutions, practices and micro-settings as constituted by and enmeshed within multiple relations of power. In this way, institutional objects and micro-settings forming part of what Bailey (2013) describe as a macro-dispositif of policy. In the following we will fist develop how we understand the concept dispositif. Following this we will present Norwegian teacher education in respect reform and digitalisation. This will serve as a backdrop for the analysis and orient our use educational policy dispositif.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedDispositif is a central concept in Foucault scholarship and is often translated as "apparatus" or deployment. A dispositif is a heterogeneous ensemble that includes discourses, institutions, laws, and other elements that shape how knowledge is produced and used (Foucault, 1980). In this study, the dispositif serves as a heuristic device for analysing how different elements of, such as policies and discourses, shape the understanding and practice of digital competency in teacher education.
Bailey (2013) suggests that the dispositif is a useful lens for understanding how policies and other elements of the dispositif work together to shape educational practices. Using the concept of micro-dispositifs, Bailey (2013) argues that it is possible to analyse the specific characteristics and functions of particular elements of the dispositif, such as the beliefs and practices of teacher educators. In this study, the focus is on analysing how teacher educators' understanding of PDC shapes their views on technology and digital competency in their professional development.
To analyse teacher educators understanding of PDC I will use the concept epistemic cultures (Knorr Cetina, 1999). An epistemic cultures refer to the shared practices, beliefs, and values that shape how knowledge is produced, validated, and disseminated within a particular community or field of inquiry (Knorr Cetina, 1999). I use epistemic cultures to understand the shared beliefs, practices, and values that shape how knowledge about PDC is produced, validated, and disseminated within teacher education.
This paper uses group interviews conducted in the autumn of 2022 as its starting point. The interviews were conducted with four to seven educators from four Norwegian teacher education programs. These programs were selected based on their efforts to implement and develop PDC within their teacher educators and students. The interviews aimed to explore the educators' perspectives on PDC and its integration into teacher education epistemic culture.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsInitial analysis show how that Teacher educators use different augmentative strategies to legitimise their work with PDC in their teacher education program. Firstly, there is a strategy that of boundary work. The participants described a process of deifying, maintaining and challenging boundaries between fields of knowledge in their work as teacher educators. There is a desire to establish new conception of teacher educators as professional, and frustration about this work . They are accommodating how the content of the subject according to the ‘affordances’ of different technologies. Secondly, there is a strategy of reordering of digital technology in accordance with ‘taxonomy’ of the teaching profession, critically scrutinising ‘promises made’ by governments and edtech of the possibilities of digital technology in education. Primarily there is a concern of how teachers traditional professional knowledge is being undermined, and a need to take bake control. Thirdly, there is described a resistance in the general staff to implementing PDC teacher education, these are often described in cultural terms. Building on this, the participants of the study highlight how discussion with other teacher educators and teachers’ students created changes to teaching practise at their teacher education programs.
The initial finding suggest that the participants of the study highlight PDC can be understood as a policy dispositif. Teacher educators as a profession is grappling with how to accommodate and resist digitalisations practises in their teacher education program, and in so doing are reshaping PDC for their program. There are themes such as digital infrastructure, edtech influence and conception of professional compliance are while be pursued moving forward with the study.
ReferencesBailey, P. L. J. (2013). The policy dispositif: Historical formation and method. Journal of Education Policy, 28(6), 807–827. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2013.782512
Ball, S. J. (2017). The Education Debate (In series: Policy and Politics in the Twenty-First Century) (3rd ed., p. 62). Policy Press.
Bourgeois, A., Birch, P., & Davydovskaia, O. (2019). Digital Education at School in Europe. Eurydice Report. ERIC.
Engen, B. K. (2019). Understanding Social and Cultural Aspects of Teachers’ Digital Competencies. Comunicar: Media Education Research Journal, 27(61), 9–18.
Goodwin, A. L., Smith, L., Souto-Manning, M., Cheruvu, R., Tan, M. Y., Reed, R., & Taveras, L. (2014). What should teacher educators know and be able to do? Perspectives from practicing teacher educators. Journal of Teacher Education, 65(4), 284–302.
Kelchtermans, G., Smith, K., & Vanderlinde, R. (2018). Towards an ‘international forum for teacher educator development’: An agenda for research and action. European Journal of Teacher Education, 41(1), 120–134.
Kelentrić, M., Helland, K., & Arstorp, A.-T. (2017). Professional digital competence framework for teachers. The Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training. https://www.udir.no/globalassets/filer/in-english/pfdk_framework_en_low2.pdf
Knorr Cetina, K. (1999). Epistemic cultures: How the sciences make knowledge. harvard university press.
Loughran, J., & Hamilton, M. L. (Eds.). (2016). International Handbook of Teacher Education. Springer Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-0366-0
Lund, A., & Aagaard, T. (2020). Digitalization of teacher education: Are we prepared for epistemic change? openarchive.usn.no.
Nagel, I. (2021). Digital Competence in Teacher Education Curricula: What Should Teacher Educators Know, Be Aware of and Prepare Students for? Nordic Journal of Comparative and International Education (NJCIE), 5(4), 104–122. https://doi.org/10.7577/njcie.4228
|
