1. Self-efficacy & Technology Integration Courses
Jeremy M. Browne, PhD - State University of New York College at Brockport
Charles R. Graham, PhD - Brigham Young University

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

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

4. Technology Integration Courses
Research Questions
What is the effect of preservice technology integration courses on self-efficacy?
What is the effect of pre-course self-efficacy on in-course performance?
Technology Integration Courses
Self-efficacy
Self-efficacy

5. Method Two course structures Quasi-experimental Design
No random assignment
Measured NETS-T self-efficacy pre- and post-course with the TICS
Repeated measures ANOVA
Linear regression analysis

6. Course Structure IP&T 286 NETS-T Curriculum One credit hour
Secondary Education majors
Very little “hand-holding”

7. Course Structure IP&T 287 NETS-T Curriculum Two credit hours
Elementary, Early Childhood, and Special Education
A lot of “hand-holding”

8. TICS Technology Integration Confidence Scale
Measures self-efficacy as defined by Bandura (1977, 2006)
Aligned with (pre-refreshed) NETS-T
Six subscales (one for each NETS-T)
Freely available at

9. 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)

10. Participants Course Male Female Total 286 13 76 89 287 1 121 122 14
197
211
Note: 286 is restricted to Secondary Education majors. 287 is restricted to Elementary, Early Childhood, and Special Education majors

11. Results (1)
What is the effect of preservice technology integration courses on self-efficacy?

12. Repeated Measures
Significant increase in self-efficacy for each NETS-T between pre- and post-course
Except NETS-T IB
No significant course effect

13. ANOVA Details p-values NETS-T Pre-post effect Course effect IA <.01
.80 IB
.19
.33 II
.30
III
.96 IV
.44 V VI
.73

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

15. NETS-T IB Paired t-tests (pre-post NETS-T IB)
Notice the discrepancy between courses
Course
Mean diff. SD t df p
286
-.15
.63
-2.2 81
.03
287
-.05
.65
-.97 95
.43

16. Conclusion (1)
What is the effect of preservice technology integration courses on self-efficacy?
Generally, there is a significant increase in NETS-T self-efficacy pre-/post-course.
CAUTION: Course structure may affect the outcome.

17. Result (2)
What is the effect of pre-course self-efficacy on in-course performance?

18. Pre-course TICS scores
Linear Regression
What percentage of variance (R2) in technology integration assignment scores can be explained by pre-course self-efficacy?
Course
Pre-course TICS scores
Demographics
286
11% 6%
287 8%
Note: Demographics included gender, computer ownership, self-rated computer expertise, and other relevant attitudes.

19. Conclusion (2)
What is the effect of pre-course self-efficacy on in-course performance?
It may be highly influential in that it explained up to 11% of variance in assignment scores.
CAUTION: Course structure may affect the outcome.

20. Discussion
Performance in the course with more “hand-holding” (287) was less predicted by pre-course self-efficacy.
The course with less “hand holding” (286) resulted in significant increases in self-efficacy related to “continual growth in technology knowledge” (NETS-T IB).

21. Self-efficacy Paradox
Self-efficacy is gained through “mastery experiences” (Bandura, 2006).
As “hand holding” increases, opportunities for mastery experiences decrease. Ergo, there is less effect on self-efficacy.
As “hand holding” decreases, pre-course self-efficacy’s influence grows.

22. Limitations Making mountains out of molehills?
Differences between courses are small.
Barking up the wrong tree?
Students in each major may be more different than their courses.
Your mileage may vary.
Data from only one teacher education program

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

24. Comments Welcomed charles_graham@byu.edu jbrowne@brockport.edu