The purpose of this chapter is to report the findings of the data based on the six stated hypotheses. This study was conducted to assess the effect of technology integration strategies in an elementary mathematics methods course on preservice teachers’ computer self-efficacy, software integration confidence, and lesson planning in their student teaching semester. Reliability analysis was run on the Self-Efficacy with Computer Technologies Scale pretest and posttest. The same reliability analysis was run on the posttest-only Preservice Teacher Software Integration Confidence Scale and the Lesson Plan Technology Infusion/Integration Scale. The reliability analysis, described previously in chapter 3, was used to determine the number of constructs present in the data. The reliability scores were very high measuring one construct. Descriptive statistical analysis was used for data analysis of Hypotheses 1, 2 and 3. Null Hypotheses 1, 2, and 3 were then analyzed using inferential statistics.
The participants in the study were from two intact, non-randomly-formed classrooms. They were 27 preservice teachers enrolled in an elementary mathematics methods course in a college of education in a metropolitan state university. The two classrooms received different instructional treatments. The experimental group experienced novel instruction with specialized computer technology integration techniques, experiences, and requirements provided them by the regular course instructor and a guest instructor from the Technology Leadership Institute (TLI). The control group experienced the same content delivered in a more traditional instructional format without computer technology integration techniques, experiences, or
requirements. Thus, use or non-use of computer technology integration techniques in an elementary mathematics methods course was the independent variable manipulated in this study. The dependent variables included the self-efficacy of preservice teachers with computer integration techniques as measured by the Self-Efficacy with Computer Technologies Scale, the confidence of preservice teachers with computer software integration as measured by the Preservice Teacher Software Integration Confidence Scale, and the use of computer technology integration techniques by preservice teachers during their student teaching experience in a mathematics class as measured by the Lesson Plan Technology Infusion/Integration Scale. The Windows SPSS 10.07™ statistical program was used to run the data analysis.
Descriptive and Inferential Statistics
The six hypotheses restated below were tested at the .05 level of statistical significance for all participants in the two groups. Hypothesis 1 stated that preservice elementary teachers who received mathematics methods instruction with computer integration techniques would have higher scores on a Self-Efficacy with Computer Technologies Scale than preservice elementary teachers who received traditional mathematics methods instruction without computer integration techniques. Null Hypothesis 1 stated that there would be no statistically significant difference in scores on a Self-Efficacy with Computer Technologies Scale between preservice elementary teachers who received mathematics methods instruction with computer integration techniques versus preservice elementary teachers who received traditional mathematics methods instruction without computer integration techniques.
Table 3 presents the descriptive statistics for the control group and the
experimental group from the Self-Efficacy with Computer Technology Scale (SECTS) used in this study. It is interesting to note that the mean scores for the control group, the experimental group, and the total participants rose from pretest to posttest. Also note that the standard deviation of the scores grew smaller from pretest to posttest.
As described in Table 3 below, the pretest mean for the control group was 227.70 with a standard deviation of 14.39, and the posttest mean for the control group was 236.80 with a standard deviation of 8.74. The pretest mean for the experimental group was 233.06 with a standard deviation of 15.60, and the posttest mean for the experimental group was 240.06 with a standard deviation of 14.08. There was observable improvement in the means of both the experimental and control groups from pretest to posttest, and the standard deviations of both groups improved or narrowed. The control group’s mean score improved 5.36 points, while the experimental group’s mean score improved 3.26 points. The control group’s standard deviation narrowed more than the experimental group’s standard deviation.
Table 3
Group Means and Standard Deviations on the SECTS Pretest and Posttest
Group Mean Standard Deviation N
Pretest Control 227.70 14.39 10
Pretest Experimental 233.06 15.60 17
Pretest Total 231.07 15.11 27
Posttest Control 236.80 8.74 10
Posttest Total 238.85 12.29 27 Two-way repeated measures ANOVA was used to analyze the mean score difference between the control group and the experimental group from pretest to posttest. As shown in Table 4, the difference was not statistically significant (p < .05). There was a low effect (.029) , and power was also low (.132) as shown in Table 4. Table 4
Two-Way Repeated Measures ANOVA Summary Table (SECTS)
Source SS df Mean Square F p Eta² Power
Intercept 2767621.571 1 2767621.571 8792.652 .000 .997 1.000 Exp * Con 233.794 1 233.794 .743 .397 .029 .132
Error 7869.132 25 314.765
Hypothesis 2 stated that preservice elementary teachers who received mathematics methods instruction with computer integration techniques would have higher scores on a Preservice Teacher Software Integration Confidence Scale than preservice elementary teachers who received traditional mathematics methods instruction without computer integration techniques. Null Hypothesis 2 stated that there would be no statistically significant difference in scores on a Preservice Teacher Software Integration Confidence Scale (PTSICS) between preservice elementary teachers who received mathematics methods instruction with computer integration techniques versus preservice elementary teachers who received traditional mathematics methods instruction without computer integration techniques.
Table 5 presents the descriptive statistics for the posttest–only Preservice Teacher Software Integration Confidence Scale (PTSICS). The data describe the
performance of the control group, the experimental group, and the total population. As described below in Table 5 experimental group mean on the PTSICS was 39.65, and the control group mean on the PTSICS was 32.90. The standard deviation for the
experimental group was 7.42, and the standard deviation for the control group was 6.37. The means were in the expected direction to support hypothesis 2 of this study, and the standard deviations were low enough for drawing conclusions with some confidence. Table 5
Group Means and Standard Deviations on the PTSICS Posttest
Group Mean Standard Deviation N
Control Group 32.90 6.37 10
Experimental Group 39.65 7.42 17
Total 37.15 7.68 27
One-way ANOVA for mean differences was used to analyze the difference in PTSICS posttest means between the control group and the experimental group. Table 6 demonstrates the difference was statistically significant (p < .05). It is notable that R squared was equal to .187, and the adjusted R squared was equal to .154. Thus, 15.4% of the variance between groups is explainable by the independent variable (i.e. use/non- use of computer technology integration techniques within an undergraduate elementary mathematics methods course).
Table 6
One-Way ANOVA Summary Table (PTSICS)
Source SS df Mean Square F p Eta² Power
Exp * Con 286.625 1 286.625 5.747 .024 .187 .635 Error 1246.782 25 49.871
Total 38793.000 27
Hypothesis 3 stated that preservice elementary teachers who received mathematics methods instruction with computer integration techniques would generate lesson plans in their student teaching internship experience that scored higher on a Lesson Plan Technology Infusion/Integration Scale than preservice elementary teachers who received traditional mathematics methods instruction without computer integration techniques. Null Hypothesis 3 stated that there would be no statistically significant difference in scores on a Lesson Plan Technology Infusion/Integration Scale between preservice elementary teachers who received mathematics methods instruction with computer integration techniques versus preservice elementary teachers who received traditional mathematics methods instruction without computer integration techniques.
Table 7 presents the descriptive statistics for the posttest-only Lesson Plan Technology Infusion/Integration Scale (LPTIS). The data represent the control group, the experimental group, and the total population. As described below in Table 7 the experimental group mean on the LPTIS was 13.33, and the control group mean on the LPTIS was 1.67. The standard deviation for the experimental group was 10.41, and the standard deviation for the control group was 2.89. The mean score difference between the experimental group and the control group was certainly reflective of the direction that was expected.
Table 7
Group Means and Standard Deviations on the LPTIS Posttest
Group Mean Standard Deviation N
Control Group 1.67 2.89 3
Experimental Group 13.33 10.41 3
Total 7.50 9.35 6
One-way ANOVA for mean differences was used to analyze the difference in LPTIS posttest means between the control group and the experimental group. Table 8 demonstrates that the difference was not statistically significant (p. < 05).
Table 8
One-Way ANOVA Summary Table (LPTIS)
Source SS df Mean Square F p Eta² Power
Intercept 337.500 1 337.500 5.786 .074 .591 .450 Exp * Con 204.167 1 204.167 3.500 .135 .467 .302 Error 233.333 4 58.333
Total 775.000 6 Summary
There was no statistical significance (p < .05) between experimental and control groups on the Self-Efficacy with Computer Technology Scale at pretest and posttest. However, the results were in the expected direction that indicated growth by both groups and a higher mean score by the experimental group. There was statistical significance (p = .024) between groups on the posttest-only Preservice Teacher Software Integration Confidence Scale. There was no statistical significance (p < .05)
between groups on the Lesson Plan Technology Infusion/Integration Scale. However, the results were in the expected direction in that the mean score for the experimental group was much higher than the control group.
CHAPTER 5