Pre-service teachers’ approaches to designing technology-based activities in anchored instruction framework

Abstract

Teachers’ beliefs and skills in, and attitudes towards technology are the factors shaping their technology use in education. However, teacher preparation programs don’t sufficiently support pre-service teachers in this regard. One way to improve their technology beliefs and skills in, and attitudes towards technology is to have them design theory-based technology learning environments. In this study, pre-service mathematics teachers designed anchored instruction-based mathematics learning environments and their approaches for the process were revealed. 52 pre-service teachers went through a 14-week learning period and then asked to build technology-based mathematics learning materials. Their materials were designed based on three design principles of anchored instruction. Upon the completion, projects applying all the necessary requirements in good, average, or poor level were selected with a purposive sampling method. The requirements were specified as workability, interactivity, narration, completeness and representing anchored instruction’s three design principles. The designers of these selected projects were interviewed with semi-structured interview questions. Results indicated that their design approaches are in line with anchored instruction theory’s suggested benefits. Their technology beliefs are positively affected and their judgments about technology-based instructional material design are supported by related literature in favor of students’ learning. Implications for teacher education programs are discussed.

Keywords

• Anchored Instruction
• Design-based Research
• Mathematics activities
• Instructional design
• Pre-service teachers

References

1. Abbas, N. (2008, December). Using anchored instruction to teach pre-service teachers to integrate technology into primary science education. World Association of Lesson Studies Conference, Hong Kong. https://repository.nie.edu.sg/bitstream/10497/15448/1/WALS-2008_Noraini_a.pdf
2. AL-Ayash, A., Kane, R. T., Smith, D., & Green-Armytage, P. (2016). The influence of color on student emotion, heart rate, and performance in learning environments. Color Research & Application, 41(2), 196-205. https://doi.org/10.1002/col.21949
3. Alexandron, G., Keinan, G., Levy, B., & Hershkovitz, S. (2018). Evaluating the effectiveness of animated cartoons in an intelligent math tutoring system using educational data mining. Edmedia +Innovative Learning, 2018, 719-730. Waynesville, NC, USA.
4. Anderson, J. R., Reder, L. M., & Simon, H. A. (1996). Situated learning and education. Educational Researcher, 25(4), 5-11.
5. Arah, A. S., Umar, I. Y., Rufai, A., Idris, A. M., Saidu, H. A, Elmahmud, M., & Mohammed, A. U. (2017). Effect of video based anchored instruction on students’ achievement and retention in motor vehicle mechanics work in Abuja and Niger States, Nigeria. ATBU Journal of Science, Technology and Education, 5(2), 91-99. http://repository.futminna.edu.ng:8080/jspui/handle/123456789/4353
6. Agyei, D. D., & Voogt, J. M. (2011). Exploring the potential of the will, skill, tool model in Ghana: Predicting prospective and practicing teachers’ use of technology. Computers & Education, 56(1), 91-100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.08.017
7. Baker, J. P., Goodboy, A. K., Bowman, N. D., & Wright, A. A. (2018). Does teaching with PowerPoint increase students' learning? A meta-analysis. Computers & Education, 126, 376-387. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.08.003
8. Bottge, B. A., Toland, M. D., Gassaway, L., Butler, M., Choo, S., Griffen, A. K., & Ma, X. (2015). Impact of enhanced anchored instruction in inclusive math classrooms. Exceptional Children, 81(2), 158-175. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402914551742

9. Bringula, R., De Leon, J. S., Rayala, K. J., Pascual, B. A., & Sendino, K. (2017). Effects of different types of feedback of a mobile-assisted learning application and motivation towards mathematics learning on students’ mathematics performance. International Journal of Web Information Systems, 13(3), 241-259. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJWIS-03-2017-0017
10. Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18 (1), 32-42.
11. Cam, E. & Kiyici, M. (2022). The impact of robotics assisted programming education on academic success, problem solving skills and motivation. Journal of Educational Technology & Online Learning, 5(1), 47-65. https://doi.org/10.31681/jetol.1028825
12. Castillo, Wi L. (2020). Supporting mathematic achievement for students with learning disabilities through enhanced anchored instruction. The STEAM Journal, 4(2). https://doi.org/10.5642/steam.20200402.18
13. Chen, M. (2019). The use of anchored instruction for Chinese speaking skills: A case study of travel agency staff. The 14th UTCC national graduate research conference. (pp. 92-99). Bangkok, Thailand: University of the Thai Chamber of Commerce.
14. Chiang, E. P., & Vazquez, J. J. (2017). The power of a simple verbal explanation: Evaluating the efficacy of narrated feedback. International Review of Economics Education, 25, 25-34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iree.2017.04.002
15. Chien, Y. T., Chang, C. Y., Yeh, T. K., & Chang, K. E. (2012). Engaging pre-service science teachers to act as active designers of technology integration: A MAGDAIRE framework. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(4), 578-588. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2011.12.005
16. Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (1990). Anchored instruction and its relationship to situated cognition. Educational Researcher, 19 (6), 2-10.
17. Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (1997). The jasper project: Lessons in curriculum, instruction, assessment, and professional development. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
18. Dalacosta, K., Kamariotaki-Paparrigopoulou, M., Palyvos, J. A., & Spyrellis, N. (2009). Multimedia application with animated cartoons for teaching science in elementary education. Computers & Education, 52(4), 741-748. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2008.11.018
19. Dalacosta, K., & Pavlatou, E. A. (2020). Using cartoons agents and 3D visualizations based on HTML5 for improving learning in crystal structures in engineers. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 28(1), 5-16. https://doi.org/10.1002/cae.22169
20. Design-Based Research Collective (2003). Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32 (1), 5-8. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X032001005
21. Dewolf, T., Van Dooren, W., Hermens, F., & Verschaffel, L. (2015). Do students attend to representational illustrations of non-standard mathematical word problems, and, if so, how helpful are they? Instructional Science, 43(1), 147-171. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-014-9332-7
22. Ely, D. P. (1999). Conditions that facilitate the implementation of educational technology innovations. Educational Technology, 39(6), 23-27.
23. Erol, O., & Kurt, A. A. (2017). The effects of teaching programming with scratch on pre-service information technology teachers' motivation and achievement. Computers in Human Behavior, 77, 11-18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.08.017
24. Ertmer, P.A., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A.T., Sadik, O., Sendurur, E. & Sendurur, P. (2012). Teacher beliefs and technology integration practices: A critical relationship. Computers & Education, 59(2), 423-435. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.02.001
25. Erümit, A. K. (2020). Effects of different teaching approaches on programming skills. Education and Information Technologies, 25(2), 1013-1037. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-019-10010-8
26. Fyfe, E. R., & Rittle-Johnson, B. (2016). The benefits of computer-generated feedback for mathematics problem solving. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 147, 140-151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2016.03.009
27. Hautala, J., Baker, D. L., Keurulainen, A., Ronimus, M., Richardson, U., & Cole, R. (2018). Early science learning with a virtual tutor through multimedia explanations and feedback on spoken questions. Educational Technology Research and Development, 66(2), 403-428. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-017-9558-6
28. Hou, H. T., & Lin, Y. C. (2017). The development and evaluation of and educational game integrated with augmented reality and virtual laboratory for chemistry experiment learning. In Advanced Applied Informatics (IIAI-AAI), 6th IIAI International Congress, 1005-1006.
29. Hwang, J., Riccomini, P. J., Hwang, S. Y., & Morano, S. (2019). A systematic analysis of experimental studies targeting fractions for students with mathematics difficulties. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 34(1), 47-61. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12187
30. Indriani, R. Y. (2020). Teaching reading narrative text through anchored instruction strategy to the eighth grade students of state junior high school 46 of palembang. Esteem Journal of English Education Study Programme, 3(2), 128-139. https://doi.org/10.31851/esteem.v3i2.4815
31. Instefjord, E. J., & Munthe, E. (2017). Educating digitally competent teachers: A study of integration of professional digital competence in teacher education. Teaching and teacher education, 67, 37-45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.05.016
32. International Society for Technology Integration in Education (ISTE, 2008). National Educational Technology Standards for Teachers. Eugene, OR: ISTEs.
33. Kennedy, M. J., Hirsch, S. E., Rodgers, W. J., Bruce, A., & Lloyd, J. W. (2017). Supporting high school teachers' implementation of evidence-based classroom management practices. Teaching and Teacher Education, 63, 47-57. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.12.009
34. Kıyıcı, O. D. & Dikkartın Övez, F. T. (2021). Examination of technology acceptance and TPACK competencies of mathematics teachers who are involved in distance education practices during the pandemic process. Journal of Educational Technology & Online Learning, 4(4), 805-821. https://doi.org/10.31681/jetol.1012204
35. Kinnunen, P., & Malmi, L. (2008). CS minors in a CS1 course. In Proceedings of the fourth international workshop on computing education research, ICER. 79-90. New York, USA.
36. Koehler, M., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK)?. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 60-70.
37. León, S. P., & García-Martínez, I. (2021). Impact of the provision of PowerPoint slides on learning. Computers & Education, 173, 104283. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104283
38. Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, USA: Cambridge University Press.
39. Lee, Y., & Lee, J. (2014). Enhancing pre-service teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs for technology integration through lesson planning practice. Computers & Education, 73, 121-128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.01.001
40. Leonard, J., Davis, J. E., & Sidler, J. L. (2005). Cultural relevance and computer-assisted instruction. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 37 (3), 263-284. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2005.10782437
41. Lockwood, P. (2006). “Someone like me can be successful”: Do college students need same-gender role models? Psychology of Women Quarterly, 30(1), 36-46. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2006.00260.x
42. Lowrie, T., & Kay, R. (2001). Relationship between visual and nonvisual solution methods and difficulty in elementary mathematics. The Journal of Educational Research, 94(4), 248-255. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220670109598758
43. Lubis, R. (2018). The progress of students reading comprehension through wordless picture books. Advances in Language and Literary Studies, 9(1), 48-52. https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.alls.v.9n.1p.48
44. Lux, N., & Lux, C. (2015). The influence of technology-rich early childhood field experiences on pre-service teachers. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 23(2), 213-240.
45. Magana, A. J., Falk, M. L., Vieira, C., & Reese, M. J. (2016). A case study of undergraduate engineering students' computational literacy and self-beliefs about computing in the context of authentic practices. Computers in Human Behavior, 61, 427-442. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.03.025
46. Malik, A., Dirgantara, Y., & Muhammad, N. (2021). The effect of anchored instruction models to enhance understanding of students related concept of vector. Perspective, 65(80), 95. https://doi.org/10.5220/0010025205900594
47. Maloney, J., Resnick, M., Rusk, N., Silverman, B., & Eastmond, E. (2010). The scratch programming language and environment. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 10(4), 16. http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1868358.1868363.
48. Marcelino, M. J., Pessoa, T., Vieria, C., Salvador, T., & Mendes, A.J. (2018). Learning computational thinking and scratch at distance. Computers in Human Behavior. 80(2018), 470-477. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.09.025
49. Martin, B. (2018). Faculty technology beliefs and practices in teacher preparation through a TPaCK lens. Education and Information Technologies, 23(5), 1775-1788. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-017-9680-4
50. Mayer, R. E. (2007). Multimedia learning (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511811678
51. Mayer, R. E. (2017). Using multimedia for e‐learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 33(5), 403-423. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12197
52. Mayer, R. E., & Anderson, R. B. (1991). Animations need narrations: An experimental test of a dual-coding hypothesis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(4), 484. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.83.4.484
53. Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (1995). Designing qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
54. Ministry of National Education (2018). Matematik dersi öğretim programı (İlkokul ve Ortaokul 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ve 8. Sınıflar): Ankara, Turkey. Retrieved from http://mufredat.meb.gov.tr/Programlar.aspx
55. Miranda, H. P., & Russell, M. (2012). Understanding factors associated with teacher‐directed student use of technology in elementary classrooms: A structural equation modeling approach. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(4), 652-666. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2011.01228.x
56. Mouza, C., & Karchmer-Klein, R. (2013). Promoting and assessing pre-service teachers' technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) in the context of case development. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 48(2), 127-152. https://doi.org/10.2190/EC.48.2.b
57. Munday, R., Windham, R., & Stamper, J. (1991). Technology for learning: Are teachers being prepared? Educational Technology, 31(3), 29–31. https://www.jstor.org/stable/44425762
58. Nikou, S. A., & Economides, A. A. (2014). Transition in student motivation during a scratch and an app inventor course. In Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON), 2014 IEEE, 1042-1045.
59. Nurhayati, S., Suryani, N. & Suharno. (2020). Need Analysis of Audio-Visual Media Development to Teach Science Materials for Young Learners. Journal of Educational Technology & Online Learning, 3(2), 152-167. https://doi.org/10.31681/jetol.672104
60. Noone, M., & Mooney, A. (2018). Visual and textual programming languages: a systematic review of the literature. Journal of Computers in Education, 5(2), 149-174. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-018-0101-5
61. Oktavianingtyas, E., Salama, F. S., Fatahillah, A., Monalisa, L. A., & Setiawan, T. B. (2018, November). Development 3D animated story as interactive learning media with lectora inspire and plotagon on direct and inverse proportion subject. In Journal of Physics: Conference Series. (Vol. 1108, No. 1, pp. 012111). IOP Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1108/1/012111
62. Onyia, C. R., & Onyia, M. (2011). Faculty perception for technology integration in Nigeria university system: Implication for faculty quality curriculum design. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 2(12), 81-92.
63. Ouahbi, I., Kaddari, F., Darhmaoui, H., Elachqar, A., & Lahmine, S. (2015). Learning basic programming concepts by creating games with scratch programming environment. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 191, 1479-1482. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.04.224
64. Paratore, J. R., O’Brien, L. M., Jiménez, L., Salinas, A., & Ly, C. (2016). Engaging preservice teachers in integrated study and use of educational media and technology in teaching reading. Teaching and Teacher Education, 59, 247-260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.06.003
65. Park, S. (2015). The effects of social cue principles on cognitive load, situational interest, motivation, and achievement in pedagogical agent multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 18(4), 211-229. https://www.jstor.org/stable/jeductechsoci.18.4.211
66. Pinto, A., & Escudeiro, P. (2014). The use of Scratch for the development of 21st century learning skills in ICT. In Information Systems and Technologies (CISTI), 2014 9th Iberian Conference on IEEE, 1-4.
67. Resnick, M., Maloney, J., Monroy-Hernández, A., Rusk, N., Eastmond, E., Brennan, K., Millner, A., Rosenbaum, E., Silver, J., Silverman, B. and Kafai, Y. (2009). Scratch: Programming for all. Communications of the ACM, 52(11), 60-67. https://doi.org/10.1145/1592761.1592779
68. Sangsawang, T. (2015). Instructional design framework for educational media. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 176, 65-80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.445
69. Saputra, E., Ulya, K., Wahyuni, S., Rahmadhani, E., & Hakim, H. (2020). Media application in anchored instruction to support mathematics teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge. In Journal of Physics: Conference Series (Vol. 1460, No. 1, p. 012042). IOP Publishing.
70. Sato, T. (2016). Could a multimodal dictionary serve as a learning tool? An examination of the impact of technologically enhanced visual glosses on L2 text comprehension. The EuroCALL Review, 24(2), 3-12. https://doi.org/10.4995/eurocall.2016.5236
71. Saubern, R., Urbach, D., Koehler, M., & Phillips, M. (2020). Describing increasing proficiency in teachers’ knowledge of the effective use of digital technology. Computers & Education, 147, 103784.
72. Sprague, D. (2004). Technology and teacher education: Are we talking to ourselves? Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 3(4), 353-361.
73. Shin, S., & Park, P. (2014). A study on the effect affecting problem solving ability of primary students through the scratch programming. Advanced Science and Technology Letters. 59,117-120. https://doi.org/10.14257/astl.2014.59.27
74. Susanto, R., & Lestari, E., S. (2020). The effect of flipbook-based field teaching materials with anchored instruction model to improve students’ critical thinking skills. European Journal of Education Studies, 7(12), 642-652.
75. Susanto, R., & Riyanto. (2020). Development of Teaching Material of Sony Vegas Media Based with Anchored Instruction Models for Tennis Course in IKIP Budi Utomo Malang. Proceeding International Conference on Science and Engineering, 3, 623-627. https://doi.org/10.14421/icse.v3.576
76. Tufte, E. (2003). PowerPoint is Evil. Wired Magazine, September 10(11), 9-11. Retrieved from https://www.wired.com/2003/09/ppt2 on June 17th, 2020.
77. Tondeur, J., Scherer, R., Siddiq, F., & Baran, E. (2020). Enhancing pre-service teachers’ technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK): A mixed-method study. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(1), 319-343. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-019-09692-1
78. Uerz, D., Volman, M., & Kral, M. (2018). Teacher educators' competences in fostering student teachers’ proficiency in teaching and learning with technology: An overview of relevant research literature. Teaching and Teacher Education, 70, 12-23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.11.005
79. Van Garderen, D. (2006). Spatial visualization, visual imagery, and mathematical problem solving of students with varying abilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39(6), 496-506. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194060390060201
80. Voogt, J., & McKenney, S. (2017). TPACK in teacher education: Are we preparing teachers to use technology for early literacy? Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 26(1), 69-83. https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2016.1174730
81. Williams, S. M. (1992). Putting case-based instruction into context: Examples from legal and medical education. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(4), 367- 427. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls0204_2
82. Yildirim, K., Yildiz, M., Ates, S., & Rasinski, T. (2010). Fifth-grade Turkish elementary school students' listening and reading comprehension levels with regard to text types. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 10(2), 1879-1891.