Measuring preservice teacher self-efficacy of technology integration

1. Measuring preservice teacher self-efficacy of technology integration Jeremy Browne Department of Instructional Psychology & Technology Brigham Young University United States browne@byu.edu

2. IP&T 286 / 287 • Technology Integration • Not a computer course • Required for all preservice teachers • 286: Secondary education • 287: Elementary, Early Childhood, Special Education • Aligned with ISTE’s NETS-T

3. Fostering Technology Integration Skills & Knowledge National EducationalTechnology Standards Can / Can’t EffectiveIn-PracticeTechnologyIntegration Will / Won’t Dispositions Confidence Perceived Value

4. Why Self-Efficacy? • More clearly defined than “Confidence” • Well established measurement methodology • Significant predictor of many in-practice behaviors

5. 1. Self-Efficacy Defined • Self-efficacy is a personal belief about one’s own ability to perform a given action. (Bandura, 1997; Denzine et al., 2005) • Not to be confused with “Teacher Efficacy” (Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998)

6. 2. Self-Efficacy Measures • Bandura (2006):

7. 3. Predictive Power • Job-search “self-efficacy was a significant predictor of interviews, offers, employment status, and PJ [Person-Job] fit perceptions” (Saks, 2006). • Perceived math self-efficacy predicted interest in the subject (Özyürek, 2005). • “Data analysis indicated that perceived self-efficacy was a significant predictor of [new in-practice teacher] performance” (Jablonski, 1995).

8. 3. Predictive Power • “Among the six subscales of empowerment, professional growth, status and self-efficacy were significant predictors of organizational and PC [professional commitment]” (Bogler & Somech, 2004). • The perceived self-efficacy and context beliefs of teachers regarding the use of computer technology correlated significantly with reported hours of in-class use of technology (Whitehead, 2002).

9. Self-efficacy Mediated • It does mediate distressing events. • Chwalisz et al., 1992 • High self-efficacy = Problem-focused coping • Low self-efficacy = Emotion-focused coping • “EFC, not PFC, was associated with higher levels of burnout [of in-practice teachers].”

10. Literature Review • Don’t reinvent the wheel. • (Find an existing measure.) • Don’t reuse a flat tire. • MUTEBI (Enoch et al., 1993) • Findings: We needed to create our own measure. • The Technology Integration Confidence Scale (TICS).

11. TICS Item Development • Begin with NETS-T • Write 4-7 tasks for each • Review by faculty & students • Pen & paper comments • Return to step 2

12. Important Deviations

13. TICS v1 • 28-item TICS • Web-based • 52 Spring-term preservice teachers • Administered at end of term • Described in proceedings

14. TICS v2 • 33 Items • Expanded coverage of specific NETS-T • Targeted item revision (e.g. Item 13) • Larger sample (200+)Pre- and post-course administration • “New General Self-efficacy Scale” (NGSE; Chen et al., 2001) administered concurrently

15. Results: Item Analysis (pretest) • Improvement from TICS v1 • Lower means (10 items > 4.0) • Higher variances (0 items < .5) • Well represented NETS-T

16. Results: Reliability Analysis (Pretest)

17. Results: Factor Analysis (pretest)

18. RSM (Functional) Stronglyagree Stronglydisagree Disagree Agree Neutral

19. RSM (Functional) Stronglyagree Stronglydisagree Disagree Agree Neutral

20. RSM (Functioning) Stronglyagree Stronglydisagree Disagree Agree Neutral

21. RSM (Malfunctioning) Stronglyagree Stronglydisagree Disagree Neutral Agree

22. NGSE

23. NETS-T I.A (pre & post)

24. NETS-T I.B (pre & post)

25. NETS-T II (pre & post)

26. NETS-T III (pre & post)

27. NETS-T IV (pre & post)

28. NETS-T V (pre & post)

29. NETS-T VI (pre & post)

30. Evidence of Validity

31. TICS v1: Construct Validity Results of Item-Domain Congruence Survey.

32. TICS v1: Content Validity Item Relevancy Sores (Aiken’s V index).

33. Anachronistic View of Validity • “The Holy Trinity” (Guion, 1980) • Content Validity • Construct Validity • Criterion Validity • Convergent Validity • Discriminate Validity • Others • Consequential Validities • Face Validity • Etc.

34. Modern View of Validity • There is no validity but construct validity. • Messick 1995; AERA, APA, NCME, 1999 • “Validities” reassigned as “sources of validity-supporting evidence.”

35. Validity… • …is a property of your interpretation of the test data (not of the test or the data). • …is an evaluative judgment of the “soundness of your interpretations and uses of students’ assessment results”(Nitko & Brookhart, 2006) • … changes based on purpose.

36. Applying Modern Validity Theoryto the TICS • Intended Purposes • Establish a baseline preservice teacher profile • Monitor the effects of curricular adjustments • Identify preservice teachers in most need of intervention • Predict in-practice technology integration

37. 1. Establish a baseline preservice teacher profile Assumes the TICS functions well psychometrically. • Internal structure analysis • Expert reviews • Low of correlation with NGSE ( < .28 or 8% variance explained)

38. 2. Monitor the effects of curricular adjustments Assumes the TICS is sensitive to changes in self-efficacy. • Pre-Post analysis • Comparisons of scores between IP&T 286 and 287

39. 3. Identify preservice teachers in most need of intervention Assumes TICS can predict in-classperformance. • RSM information analysis • Regression analysis • X Pre-course TICS scores Relevant demographics • Y In-class performance indicators (assignment / assessment scores)

40. 4. Predict in-practice technology integration • 5-year longitudinal, mixed methods study

41. 4. Predict in-practice technology integration • Review of self-efficacy literature

42. Future Directions • TICS v2 showing promise • Expanded use • Inform NETS-T “refreshing” • Modern validity theory can be applied systematically.