Investigating Science Student Teachers’ Use of Instructional Technologies

Abstract

The aim of this study is to investigate science student teachers’ technology preferences and how they value technology in their teaching practices. This study employs the instrumental case study design which is one of the types of case study strategies. The study was carried out with the participation of eight volunteer science student teachers (3 males and 5 females) in the science education department of a state university in the spring term of the 2018-2019 academic year. Data were gathered by observing student teachers’ actual teaching during teaching practice and collecting their documents from reflective journals and lesson plans. Data were analyzed inductively, using thematic analysis. The results showed that science student teachers used some technological tools categorized as instructional hardware, instructional media and instructional software during their teaching practice. The values that participating student teachers attributed to the tools used were two-fold: ‘supporting the teaching process’ and ‘surviving in the classroom environment’. However, the study also showed that the participants mainly used technological tools in their teacher-centered activities.

Keywords

• science student teacher
• technology use
• student teachers' value of technology

References

1. Akyüz, H. İ., Pektaş, M., Kurnaz, M. A., & Memiş, E. K. (2014). Akıllı tahta kullanımlı mikro öğretim uygulamalarının fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının TBAP’larına ve akıllı tahta kullanıma yönelik algılarına etkisi. Cumhuriyet Uluslararası Eğitim Dergisi, 3(1), 1-14.
2. Aslan, A., & Zhu, C. (2017). Investigating variables predicting Turkish pre‐service teachers’ integration of ICT into teaching practices. British Journal of Educational Technology, 48(2), 552-570.
3. Baek, Y., Jung, J., & Kim, B. (2008). What makes teachers use technology in the classroom? Exploring the factors affecting facilitation of technology with a Korean sample. Computers & Education, 50(1), 224-234.
4. Bashan B., & Holsblat R. (2017) Reflective journals as a research tool: The case of student teachers’ development of teamwork, Cogent Education, 4:1, 1374234.
5. Batane, T., & Ngwako, A. (2017). Technology use by pre-service teachers during teaching practice: Are new teachers embracing technology right away in their first teaching experience? Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 33(1), 48-61.
6. Bıçak, F. (2019). Investigation of the views of teachers toward the use of smart boards in the teaching and learning process. Journal of Pedagogical Research, 3(1), 15-23.
7. Bilir, S., & Uyanık, G. (2019). İlkokul dördüncü sınıf fen bilimleri dersi basit elektrik devreleri ünitesinde laboratuvar destekli öğretimin akademik başarı ve tutuma etkisi. Eğitim ve Teknoloji, 1(2), 122-136.
8. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101.

9. Cengiz, C. (2020). The Effect of Structured Journals on Reflection Levels: With or Without Question Prompts? Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 45(2), 23-43.
10. Clarke, M. (2004). Reflection: Journals and Reflective Questions: A Strategy for Professional Learning. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 29(2). 11-23.
11. Creswell, J. W., Hanson, W. E., Clark Plano, V. L., & Morales, A. (2007). Qualitative research designs: Selection and implementation. The Counseling Psychologist, 35(2), 236-264.
12. Çelik, H., & Karamustafaoğlu, O. (2016). Fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının fizik kavramları öğretiminde bilişim teknolojilerinin kullanımına yönelik öz-yeterlik ve görüşleri. Necatibey Eğitim Fakültesi Elektronik Fen ve Matematik Eğitimi Dergisi, 10(1), 182-208.
13. Dağdalan, G., & Taş, E. (2017). Simülasyon destekli fen öğretiminin öğrencilerin başarısına ve bilgisayar destekli fen öğretimine yönelik tutumlarına etkisi. Fen Bilimleri Öğretimi Dergisi, 5(2), 160-172.
14. Denscombe, M. (2007). The Good Research Guide for Small-scale Social Research Projects, Third Edition, Open University Press, Berkshire.
15. Gökal, H., Sönmez, A., & Ercan, O. (2020). Fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının eğitsel internet kullanımına yönelik öz yeterlik düzeyi ile bilgisayar destekli eğitime ilişkin tutumlarının farklı değişkenler açısından incelenmesi. Folklor/Edebiyat, 25(97), 47-63.
16. Güven, G., & Sülün, Y. (2012). Bilgisayar destekli öğretimin 8. sınıf fen ve teknoloji dersindeki akademik başarıya ve öğrencilerin derse karşı tutumlarına etkisi. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 9(1), 68-79.
17. Hammond, M., Reynolds, L., & Ingram, J. (2011). How and why do student teachers use ICT? Journal of Computer assisted learning, 27(3), 191-203.
18. Harris, J. & Phillips, M. (2018). If there's TPACK, is there technological pedagogical reasoning and action? In E. Langran & J. Borup (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 2051–2061). Washington, D.C., United States: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).
19. Hofer, M., & Harris, J. (2019). Topics and sequences in experienced teachers' instructional planning: Addressing a ~30-year literature gap. In D. C. Gibson & M. N. Ochoa (Eds.), Research highlights in technology and teacher education 2019 (pp. 35–43). Waynesville, NC: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).
20. Hu, X., & Yelland, N. (2017). An investigation of preservice early childhood teachers’ adoption of ICT in a teaching practicum context in Hong Kong. Journal of early childhood teacher education, 38(3), 259-274.
21. Hughes, J. E., Cheah, Y. H., Shi, Y., & Hsiao, K. H. (2020). Preservice and inservice teachers' pedagogical reasoning underlying their most‐valued technology‐supported instructional activities. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 36(4), 549-568.
22. İpek Akbulut, H. (2016). Fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının bilgisayar destekli öğretim ile ilgili görüşlerinin belirlenmesi. Eğitim Bilim ve Teknoloji Araştırmaları Dergisi, 1(1), 45-55.
23. Jang, S. J. (2008). The effects of integrating technology, observation and writing into a teacher education method course. Computers & Education, 50(3), 853–865
24. Jang, S. J., & Tsai, M. F. (2012). Exploring the TPACK of Taiwanese elementary mathematics and science teachers with respect to use of interactive whiteboards. Computers & Education, 59(2), 327-338.
25. Johnston, C., & Suh, J. (2009). Pre-service elementary teachers planning for math instruction: Use of technology tools. In I. Gibson, R. Weber, K. McFerrin, R. Carlsen, & D. Willis (Eds), Proceedings of SITE 2009 – Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 3561–3566). Charleston, SC: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).
26. Kayaduman, H., Sırakaya, M., & Seferoğlu, S. S. (2011). Eğitimde FATİH projesinin öğretmenlerin yeterlik durumları açısından incelenmesi. Akademik bilişim, 11, 123-129.
27. Kocasaraç, H. (2003). Bilgisayarların öğretim alanında kullanımına ilişkin öğretmen yeterlilikleri. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 2(3), 77-85.
28. Kubilinskiene, S. & Dagiene, V. (2010). Technology–based lesson plans: Preparation and description, Informatics in Education, 9(2), 217-228.
29. Liem, G. A. D., Martin, A. J., Anderson, M., Gibson, R., & Sudmalis, D. (2014). The role of arts-related information and communication technology use in problem solving and achievement: Findings from the programme for international student assessment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106(2), 348.
30. Lincoln, Y.S., Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry, Sage, London.
31. Miles, M.B., Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis, Second Edition, Sage, London.
32. M.N.E. (2018). Ministry of National Education. Science course curriculum (Primary and secondary school 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8th grades). Ankara, Turkey.
33. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods, Third Edition, London: Sage Publications, Inc.
34. Phelps, R. (2005). The potential of reflective journals in studying complexity ‘in action’. Complicity: An International Journal of Complexity and Education, 2(10), 37–54.
35. Polly, D. (2014). Elementary school teachers’ use of technology during mathematics teaching. Computers in the Schools, 31(4), 271-292.
36. Roblyer, M., & Doering, A. H. (2007). Integrating educational technology into teaching. USA: Pearson, 2007.
37. Stake, R.E. (1995). The Art of Case Study Research, London: Sage Publications, Inc.
38. Starkey, L. (2020). A review of research exploring teacher preparation for the digital age. Cambridge Journal of Education, 50(1), 37-56.
39. Şahin, M. C., & Namlı, N. A. (2019). Öğretmen Adaylarinin Eğitimde Teknoloji Kullanma Tutumlarinin İncelenmesi. Türkiye Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 23(1), 95-112.
40. Şimsek, O., & Yazar, T. (2019). Examining the self-efficacy of prospective teachers in technology integration according to their subject areas: The case of Turkey. Contemporary Educational Technology, 10(3), 289-308.
41. Tanık Önal, N. (2017). Bilgi ve iletişim teknolojileri kullanımı: Fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının görüşleri. International Journal of Active Learning, 2(1), 1-21.
42. Tatli, Z., Akbulut, H. İ., & Altinisik, D. (2019). Changing Attitudes towards Educational Technology Usage in Classroom: Web 2.0 Tools. Malaysian Online Journal of Educational Technology, 7(2), 1-19.
43. Tekdal, M., & Ilhan, T. (2021). Dinamik ve etkileşimli bilgisayar destekli fen ve teknoloji öğretiminin akademik başarıya etkisi. Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 30(2), 101-112.
44. Timur, B., & Özdemir, M. (2018). Fen eğitiminde artırılmış gerçeklik ortamlarının kullanımına ilişkin öğretmen görüşleri. Uluslararası Türk Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, (10), 62-75.
45. Tondeur, J., Van Braak, J., Sang, G., Voogt, J., Fisser, P., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. (2012). Preparing pre-service teachers to integrate technology in education: A synthesis of qualitative evidence. Computers & Education, 59(1), 134-144.
46. Tsai, C.C., & Chai, C.S. (2012). The "third"-order barrier for technology-integration instruction: Implications for teacher education. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 28(6), 1057-1060.
47. Voet, M., & De Wever, B. (2017). Towards a differentiated and domain specific view of educational technology: An exploratory study of history teachers' technology use. British Journal of Educational Technology, 48, (6), 1402–1413.
48. Wojciechowski, R., & Cellary, W. (2013). Evaluation of learners’ attitude toward learning in ARIES augmented reality environments. Computers & Education, 68, 570-585.
49. Yenice, N., Candarlı Arıkoz, F., Yavaşoğlu, N., & Alpak Tunç, G. (2019). Fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının bilimsel süreçte bilgi iletişim teknolojileri kullanımı. Sakarya University Journal of Education, 9(1), 33-46.
50. Yılmaz, Z. A. (2020). Fen bilimleri öğretmenlerinin FATİH projesi ve akıllı tahta hakkındaki görüşleri. International Journal of Scholars in Education, 3(1), 71-83.
51. Zulfikar, T., & Mujiburrahman. (2018). Understanding own teaching: becoming reflective teachers through reflective journals. Reflective Practice, 19(1), 1-13.
52. Zyad, H. (2016). Integrating computers in the classroom: Barriers and teachers' attitudes. International Journal of Instruction, 9(1), 65-78.