Pre-service Teachers’ Choice of Physical versus Electronic Instructional Materials

Abstract

The main goal of the current study was to analyze early childhood and elementary pre-service teachers’ choices of participant-designed materials and the reasons for their selection. To this end, 57 elementary and 39 early childhood teacher candidates were asked to design one physical material and one electronic material for instruction. Then, they were asked which type of material they would prefer if they were teaching and what their rationale was for this selection. The results revealed several dissimilarities between early childhood and elementary teacher candidates in terms of their choices and the reasons for their choices. In their rationale, elementary pre-service teachers more referred their limited technological knowledge while early childhood pre-service teachers took attention to the need for hands-on activities for their instruction. In general, participants raised critical questions related to teachers’ technological knowledge, and teacher preparation programs as well as professional development programs regarding how to integrate such instructional technologies effectively into course activities to enhance learning.

Keywords

• Instructional material, Instructional material design, Pre-service teachers, Early childhood education, Elementary education, Teacher education programs

Kaynakça

1. Bai, H. & Ertmer, P. (2008) Teacher educators’ beliefs and technology uses as predictors of preservice teachers’ beliefs and technology attitudes. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 16(1), 93-112.
2. Bijou, S.W., Peterson, R.F., & Ault, M.H. (1968). A method to integrate descriptive and experimental field studies at the level of data and empirical concepts. Journal of Applied
3. Behavior Analysis, 1(2), 175-191. Glaser, B. & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies in qualitative research.
4. London: Wiedenfeld and Nicholson. Gulbahar, Y. (2008) Improving the technology integration skills of prospective teachers through practice: A case study. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 7(4), 71-81.
5. Hammond, M., Reynolds, L., & Ingram, J. (2011), How and why do student teachers use ICT?
6. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 27, 191–203. HEC-Higher Education Council. (2010). Guide for pre-service teachers. Retrieved 20 August 2010 from http://www.yok.gov.tr/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_download&gid=70
7. International Society for Technology in Education. (2000). National educational technology standards for students: Connecting curriculum and technology. Eugene, OR: Author.
8. Jaakkola, T. & Nurmi, S. (2004). Academic impact of learning objects: The case of electric circuits.

9. Paper presented at the BERA (British Educational Research Association) 2004 Conference.
10. Manchester, UK, 16-18.9.2004 (ERIC database document ED489898).
11. Joyes, G. & Chen, Z (2007). Researching a participatory design for learning process in an intercultural context. International Journal of Education and Development using Information and Communication Technology (IJEDICT), 3(3), 78-88.
12. Klahr, D., Triona, L.M., & Williams, C. (2007). Hands on what? The relative effectiveness of physical versus virtual materials in an engineering design project by middle school children. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44, 183–203.
13. Lee, J. (2010). Exploring kindergarten teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge of mathematics.
14. International Journal of Early Childhood, 42(1), 27-41. Leinhardt, G. (1986). Expertise in mathematics teaching. Educational Leadership, 43(7), 28–33.
15. Maches, A., O’Malley, C., & Benford, S. (2010). The role of physical representations in solving number problems: A comparison of young children’s use of physical and virtual materials.
16. Computers & Education, 54(3), 622-640. Mayer, R. E. (2003). The promise of multimedia learning: Using the same instructional design methods across different media. Learning and Instruction,13, 125-139.
17. Niederhauser, D.S. & Stoddart, T. (2001). Teachers’ instructional perspectives and use of educational software. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 15-31.
18. Niess, M.L. (2005). Preparing teachers to teach science and mathematics with technology:
19. Developing a technology pedagogical content knowledge. Teaching and Teacher Education, , 509-523. Prenksy, M. (2001). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5). Available online at: http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky%20-%20Digital%20Natives,%20Digital% Immigrants%20-%20Part1.pdf
20. Royer, R. (2002). Supporting technology integration through action research. The Clearing House, , 233-237.
21. Seels, B. B. & Richey, R. C. (1994). Instructional technology: The definition and domains of the field.
22. Washington, DC: Associations for Educational Communications and Technology. Strudler, N. & Wetzel, K . (1999). Lessons from exemplary colleges of education: Factors affecting technology integration in preservice programs. Educational Technology Research & Development, 47(4), 63-81.
23. Triona, L.M. & Klahr, D. (2003). Point and click or grab and heft: Comparing the influence of physical and virtual instructional materials on elementary school students’ ability to design experiments. Cognition & Instruction, 21, 149–173.
24. Ulas, A. H. & Ozan, C. (2010). The qualification level of primary school teachers’ use of educational technology. Journal of Graduate School of Social Sciences, 14(1), 63-84.
25. Varol, F. & Farran, D. C. (2006). Early mathematical growth: How to support young children’s mathematical development. Early Childhood Education Journal, 33(6), 381-387.
26. Walker-Tileston D. (2004). What every teacher should know about media and technology.
27. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Yalin, H. I. (2004) Ogretim teknolojileri ve materyal gelistirme (12th ed.). Ankara: Nobel.
28. Zacharia, Z.C. (2007). Comparing and combining real and virtual experimentation: An effort to enhance students’ conceptual understanding of electric circuits. Journal of Computer