Interactive multimedia problem-based learning for enhancing pre-service teachers' self-efficacy beliefs about teaching with computers: design, development and evaluation

Interactive multimedia problem-based learning for

enhancing pre-service teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs

about teaching with computers: Design, development

and evaluation

A Dissertation submitted by

Abstract

Research has suggested that, despite support through policy and resource provision, information and communications technologies (ICTs) have made little impact on the practice of education and that limited teacher preparation for the use of ICTs represents a partial explanation. The purpose of this study was to investigate what form of professional education might be effective in preparing pre-service teachers to integrate ICTs into their teaching. Self-efficacy beliefs about teaching with computers were identified as a potentially significant source of influence on teachers’ use of ICTs for teaching. It was proposed that interactive multimedia using a problem-based learning design (IMM-PBL) should be an effective tool for increasing self-efficacy. Principles for the design of IMM-PBL were derived from the relevant literature.

An IMM-PBL package was designed and developed for delivery in a web browser format using content relevant to the integration of ICTs into teaching. Interviews with and sample responses prepared by computer-using teachers provided the basis for ensuring the relevance of content.

The completed materials were evaluated in use with a group of 24 final year pre-service teachers in a Queensland university. Participants in the trials reported that the materials were engaging and assisted their learning about integrating computers in their teaching. A statistically significant increase in self-efficacy for teaching with computers was found for users who had initially low self-efficacy for teaching with computers.

Certification of Dissertation

I certify that the ideas, experimental work, results, analyses, software and conclusions reported in this dissertation are entirely my own effort, except where otherwise acknowledged. I also certify that the work is original and has not been previously submitted for any other award, except where otherwise acknowledged.

______________________________ Signature of Candidate

_________________ Date

Endorsement

______________________________ Signature of Supervisors

_________________ Date

Acknowledgments

My sincere thanks go to my principal supervisor Professor Perc Marland who provided advice and encouragement from the inception of the study. Despite setbacks and changes in direction, Perc seemed never to doubt that it could be successfully completed. His expansive knowledge and experience of teacher education and associated research provided inspiration at many stages of the journey.

I am grateful also to my associate supervisors. Professor Jeff Bailey first aroused my interest in self-efficacy theory and provided invaluable assistance in the formative first two years of the study. Following Jeff’s appointment elsewhere, Professor David Ross provided practical advice and support during the design and development of the multimedia package and in the final stages of evaluation.

Multimedia development demands a diverse range of talents as is evident in the acknowledgments printed on the cover of the Integrating Information Technology into Teaching CD-ROM. The names listed therein are too numerous to repeat here, except to acknowledge the contribution of my colleague, Dr Ian Gibson. Ian was instrumental in the success of our joint application for funding from the National Priority (Reserve) Fund Teacher Education Initiative, without which the multimedia might never have been developed. It was his experience with problem-based learning that led to its adoption as a design framework and he shared responsibility for the educational design of the materials. His advice and encouragement, although at a distance for the final stages of development, contributed substantially to the shape of the final product.

Thanks also to Dr Tony Rickards who adjusted the teaching of his classes to accommodate the evaluation of the multimedia materials and to the students in his and other classes who, whether they worked with the materials or not, willingly completed questionnaires and other instruments.

I acknowledge also the encouragement and occasional assistance of numerous other colleagues at USQ and elsewhere. I am especially grateful to Dr Ashley Plank, Dr Don Rice and Dr Andrew Sturman who provided advice about statistical procedures.

Dedication

To my grandchildren Emily, Joel and Samuel,

who have no memory of life without computers and the Internet.

Table of Contents

A

...

L

F

...

L

T

...

C

1: B

... 1

1.1 Clarification of terminology and context ... 2

1.1.1 Terminology...2

1.1.1.1 Computer, information technology and related terms ...2

1.1.1.2 (Interactive) multimedia, hypermedia and hypertext...3

1.1.2 Context ...4

1.2 Possible barriers to teaching with computers... 5

1.2.1 The policy environment for teaching with computers ...5

1.2.2 Resources for teaching with computers...7

1.2.3 Are teachers teaching with computers?...9

1.2.4 Teaching with computers – the next generation...12

1.3 Professional education for teaching with computers: The problem to be investigated ... 15

C

2: L

... 17

2.1 Investigations of computer-using teachers ... 18

2.1.1 Describing teachers’ computer use...18

2.1.1.1 Surveys of exemplary computer-using teachers ...19

2.1.1.2 Teachers in ICT-rich classrooms...22

2.1.1.3 Other studies of computer-using teachers...23

2.1.1.4 Pre-service and beginning teachers’ computer use ...26

2.1.2 Predicting teachers’ computer use...28

2.1.2.1 The work of Marcinkiewicz...28

2.1.2.2 Other predictive studies of teachers’ computer use ...30

2.1.3 Making sense of teachers’ computer use...31

2.1.4 Does the use of ICTs change teachers? ...33

2.1.5 Educating computer-using teachers: Summary of directions from the research ...35

2.2 Teachers’ beliefs about teaching with ICTs... 38

2.2.1 The nature of teachers’ beliefs ...39

2.2.2 Beliefs and teacher behaviour...40

2.2.3 The construct of self-efficacy beliefs...41

2.2.3.1 Self-efficacy beliefs for teaching ...42

2.2.3.2 Self-efficacy beliefs for computer use ...44

2.2.3.3 Self-efficacy for teaching with computers ...47

2.2.4 Changing teachers’ beliefs...49

2.2.4.1 Changing self-efficacy beliefs...51

2.2.4.2 Changes in self-efficacy for teaching ...52

2.2.4.3 Changing self-efficacy for computer use ...53

2.2.4.4 Changing self-efficacy for teaching with computers...54

2.2.5 Education for changing self-efficacy beliefs: Summary of theory and research findings...55

2.3 Case methods in teacher education ... 57

2.3.1 The case for case methods in teacher education ...57

2.3.2 Relationship of cases to teacher expertise and beliefs...59

2.3.2.1 Cases and expertise ...59

2.3.2.2 Cases and beliefs...61

2.3.3 Presenting cases with media...62

2.3.3.1 Interactive video cases...63

2.3.3.2 CD-ROM cases ...66

2.3.3.3 Networked cases...67

2.3.4 The potential of multimedia cases ...68

2.5 Designing educational multimedia... 79

2.5.1 PBL as a constructivist methodology ...80

2.5.2 Interactive multimedia and learning...81

2.5.3 Design of constructivist learning environments ...82

2.5.4 Interactivity in multimedia ...86

2.5.5 Narrative form in multimedia ...89

2.6 Principles for the design of IMM-PBL: A synthesis of the research... 92

C

3: R

&

... 96

3.1 Research focus... 96

3.2 Research questions... 97

3.3 Research plan for the study ... 98

3.3.1 Proposed schedule of research ...100

3.4 Design and content validation ... 102

3.4.1 PBL validation ...102

3.4.2 Content validation ...103

3.5 Prototype trial ... 103

3.5.1 Microcomputer Utilisation in Teaching Efficacy Beliefs Instrument...105

3.5.2 Attitudes to computers and self-efficacy for computer use...106

3.5.3 Pupil control ideology...107

3.5.4 Teacher efficacy ...108

3.5.5 Innovativeness...108

3.5.6 User evaluation questionnaire...108

3.6 Beta evaluation ... 109

3.7 Evaluation trial ... 113

3.7.1 ACT and SCT ...115

3.7.2 MUTEBI, PCI, teacher efficacy and innovativeness ...115

3.7.3 Open questions about teaching with computers ...116

3.7.4 User evaluation questionnaire...116

3.7.5 Participant journals...117

3.7.6 Participant interviews ...118

C

4: IMM-PBL

&

... 119

4.1 Funding and personnel ... 119

4.2 Software development environment ... 121

4.3 Overview of the development process ... 123

4.4 Conceptualising scenario development and structure... 125

4.5 Representing the IMM-PBL design... 128

4.6 Content selection and preparation ... 134

4.6.1 Stimulus materials ...135

4.6.2 Reference materials...136

4.6.3 Classroom Computing video...137

4.6.4 Consultant interviews ...138

4.6.5 Consultant responses ...139

4.7 User interface design ... 140

4.7.1 General screen and interface design...141

4.7.2 The desk ...143

4.7.3 The laptop computer ...144

4.7.4 The folders...146

4.7.5 Displaying video clips...147

4.7.6 Displaying consultant responses ...148

4.7.7 The help system...149

4.7.8 Use of intertitles...150

4.8 Materials assembly and programming ... 151

4.8.1 Creating the web site...151

4.8.2 JavaScript programming...153

5.2.2.3 Purpose...161

5.2.2.4 Development ...162

5.2.2.5 Method...165

5.2.2.6 Impact ...168

5.2.2.7 Issues...171

5.2.2.8 Internet ...173

5.3 Prototype trial ... 175

5.3.1 Multi-instrument questionnaire...175

5.3.1.1 The respondents...175

5.3.1.2 Scale reliabilities and results ...175

5.3.1.3 Relationships among the variables ...178

5.3.2 User evaluation questionnaire...179

5.4 Beta evaluation ... 182

5.5 Evaluation trial ... 186

5.5.1 Data from the large group...186

5.5.1.1 The respondents...186

5.5.1.2 Scale reliabilities and results ...187

5.5.1.3 Relationships among the variables ...189

5.5.2 Pretest-posttest comparison...190

5.5.2.1 Likert scale instruments ...191

5.5.2.2 Open-ended questions...193

5.5.3 Additional evaluative data...195

5.5.3.1 User evaluation questionnaire ...195

5.5.3.2 Participant journals ...200

5.5.3.3 Participant interviews...203

5.6 Summary of the data... 205

C

6: D

... 206

6.1 Applying the IMM-PBL design principles... 206

6.2 Answering the research questions ... 212

6.2.1 Research question 1 ...212

6.2.2 Research question 2 ...215

6.2.3 Research question 3 ...216

6.2.4 Research question 4 ...219

6.2.5 Research question 5 ...222

6.2.6 Research question 6 ...224

6.3 Conclusions ... 226

6.3.1 Design and development of IMM-PBL...226

6.3.2 Effects of IMM-PBL...227

6.4 Recommendations for further development & research... 229

6.4.1 Development...229

6.4.2 Research ...230

R

... 232

A

A – PBL

... 251

A

B – P

-

... 253

A

C – P

... 257

A

D – B

... 260

A

E – M

-

... 268

A

F – U

... 274

List of Figures

Figure 2.1: Taxonomy of PBL compared to sources of efficacy information...70

Figure 4.1: Overview of the development process ...124

Figure 4.2: IMM-PBL scenario development ...126

Figure 4.3: IMM-PBL scenario structure...126

Figure 4.4: Opening screen of the pre-prototype...128

Figure 4.5: Printed representation of the pre-prototype...129

Figure 4.6: An early "storyboard" for the first scenario ...130

Figure 4.7: An intermediate planning stage for the first scenario ...131

Figure 4.8: Portion of the assets register for scenario two...132

Figure 4.9: Screen specification form used in the prototype review...132

Figure 4.10: Flowchart for the web version of the first scenario...133

Figure 4.11: Storyboard for the web version of the first scenario...134

Figure 4.12: Conceptual arrangement of resources in the IMM-PBL materials...135

Figure 4.13: Typical screen layout in the prototype ...141

Figure 4.14: Typical screen layout in the completed version ...142

Figure 4.15: Typical view of the "computer" window ...145

Figure 4.16: Typical display in the folders window...147

Figure 4.17: Display format for video interviews...148

Figure 4.18: Format for display of consultant responses...149

Figure 4.19: Typical display of help for a task...150

List of Tables

Table 3.1: Research questions and proposed methods of data collection ...99

Table 3.2: Anticipated project schedule...100

Table 3.3: Actual project schedule after prototype testing (see * in Table 3.2)...100

Table 3.4: Schedule of data collection ...101

Table 3.5: Instruments used in the prototype trial ...104

Table 3.6: Structure of prototype evaluation questionnaire ...109

Table 3.7: Open ended questions on prototype evaluation ...109

Table 3.8: Interface design heuristics – after Nielsen (1994) ...110

Table 3.9: Educational design heuristics – after Quinn (1996) ...111

Table 3.10: Content heuristics...112

Table 3.11: Instruments used in the evaluation trial ...114

Table 3.12: Open questions as used in the evaluation trials ...116

Table 3.13: Questions used in the participant journal...117

Table 3.14: Schedule of questions for participant interviews...118

Table 4.1: Schedule of questions for teacher interviews...138

Table 4.2: Navigational functions of standard items on the desk...144

Table 4.3: Number of files by type and source...151

Table 5.1: Experience cited by PBL practitioners panel...155

Table 5.2: Responses to PBL practitioners questionnaire...156

Table 5.3: Characteristics of the teachers and their workplaces...158

Table 5.4: Descriptions of major categories from interview analysis...160

Table 5.5: Distribution of statements by category and teacher ...161

Table 5.6: Descriptions of sub-categories of purpose...161

Table 5.7: Distribution of statements coded as purpose...161

Table 5.8: Descriptions of sub-categories of development...162

Table 5.9: Distribution of statements coded as development...163

Table 5.10: Description of sub-categories of method ...165

Table 5.11: Distribution of statements coded as method...166

Table 5.12: Descriptions of sub-categories of impact ...168

Table 5.13: Distribution of statements coded as impact ...168

Table 5.14: Descriptions of sub-categories of issues...171

Table 5.15: Distribution of statements coded as issues...171

Table 5.16: Descriptions of sub-categories of internet ...174

Table 5.17: Distribution of statements coded as internet ...174

Table 5.18: Reliability (alpha), mean and SD of scores (N = 31) ...176

Table 5.19: Correlation coefficients for pairs of scales (N = 31) ...178

Table 5.20: User evaluation data for the prototype trial (N= 15)...179

Table 5.21: Desirability of content elements in the prototype (N = 15) ...181

Table 5.22: Nomination of aspects of teaching in the prototype (N=15)...181

Table 5.23: Characteristics of the beta evaluators ...182

Table 5.24: Ratings on interface design heuristics ...183

Table 5.25: Ratings on educational design heuristics...184

Table 5.26: Ratings on content design heuristics ...185

Table 5.27: Alpha reliability, mean and SD for large group (N = 178) ...187

Table 5.28: Comparison of 1997 and 2000 scores for the multi-instrument questionnaire ...188

Table 5.29: Correlation coefficients for pairs of scales (N = 178) ...189

Table 5.30: Final regression model for SE sub-scale of MUTEBI ...190

Table 5.31: Mean scores on pretest and posttest ...192

Table 5.32: Frequencies of response categories for open-ended questions...194

Table 5.33: User evaluation data for the completed IMM-PBL (N= 24) ...195

Table 5.34: Desirability of content elements in the completed IMM-PBL (N = 24) ...197

Table 5.35: Nomination of aspects of teaching in the completed IMM-PBL (N = 24)...198