Preservice Teachers’ TPACK Beliefs and Attitudes Toward Simulations

Preservice teachers’ beliefs have an outsized influence on their option to use technology in their teaching (Chen, 2010). In science teaching, one among the foremost widely used sorts of technology is computer simulations. the training effects of simulations in secondary level science education are extensively documented (Rutten, van Joolingen, & van der Veen, 2012). Less research is out there on primary-age learners and simulations (Zacharia, Loizou, & Papaevripidou, 2012). At the first level the simplest learning effects are achieved by combining learning with computer simulations and learning with laboratory experiments, compared to both methods on their own (Jaakkola & Nurmi, 2008).

When watching the utilization of simulations at a curricular level, subsequent Generation Science Standards (NGSS; NGSS Lead States, 2013) within the US are supported the Framework for K-12 Science Education (Schweingruber, Keller, & Quinn, 2012). This framework identifies eight scientific and engineering practices that ought to be promoted in science classrooms. of these eight practices, two are closely associated with learning with simulations: “developing and using models” and “using mathematics and computational thinking.”

This study reports an intervention administered with preservice primary teachers regarding the utilization of simulations in science teaching. The aims of the study were (a) to review the preservice teachers’ beliefs about their technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge (TPACK), measured through self-assessment before and after the intervention and (b) to seek out out the possible connections between preservice teachers’ beliefs regarding the various domains of data and their attitudes toward simulations in science teaching.

First to be considered during this paper are the role of beliefs, generally , in technology integration, which is followed by discussion of the TPACK framework. Last may be a n argument that self-assessing TPACK is a thanks to study beliefs.

Background

Defining Beliefs and Attitudes

In a study of beliefs and attitudes, the concepts got to be defined. Koballa (1989) stated that beliefs link objects and attributes together. An example of a belief would be “Using computers (object) is tough (attribute).” We define attitudes similarly to Zacharia (2003), as mental concepts that depict favorable or unfavorable feelings toward an individual , group, policy, instructional strategy, or particular discipline. An example of an attitude is, “I don’t like computers.” consistent with Koballa, an individual has more beliefs than attitudes.

In this paper, the preservice teachers’ views on the usefulness of simulations in science teaching and their dispositions toward integrating simulations in their teaching are seen as different domains of their attitude toward simulations, because both of those constructs reflect their favorable or unfavorable feelings toward simulations.

Teacher Beliefs, Attitudes and Technology Integration

Moving from defining beliefs into research on teacher beliefs, the role of them in technology integration in teaching has been under research during the last decade. Regarding preservice teachers, their self-assessed technological skills, teacher educational program experiences, and beliefs about the usefulness of technology in teaching and learning influence their option to use technology in teaching (Chen, 2010).

Abbitt (2011) studied the connection between preservice teachers’ self-assessed knowledge associated with teaching with technology and their beliefs in their ability to use technology in their teaching. His results suggested that improving preservice teachers’ knowledge regarding teaching with technology may end in increased beliefs in their ability to show efficiently using technology. With in-service teachers, those teachers who had successfully integrated technology in their teaching reported internal factors, like having a passion for technology and having a drag solving mentality, as important factors in shaping their practices for using technology (Ertmer, Ottenbreit-Leftwich, Sadik, Sendurur, & Sendurur, 2012).

Concerning beliefs and attitudes concerning teaching science with simulations, Zacharia (2003) studied both preservice and in-service teachers’ beliefs about the benefits and drawbacks regarding the utilization of computer simulations in science education. His results showed that teachers’ attitudes toward using simulations in science teaching were associated with their beliefs about the positive learning outcomes of using simulations.

Zacharia, Rotsaka, and Hovardas (2011) came to an equivalent conclusion in their study with in-service teachers, but they also found a possible reference to beliefs about the usefulness of simulations in teaching and therefore the attitude toward using simulations. Kriek and Stols (2010) listed the perceived usefulness and compatibility of simulations, expectations of colleagues, and teachers’ general technological proficiency as being connected with simulation usage.

Overall, teacher beliefs are seen as important factors when watching technology integration, both with in-service (Ertmer et al., 2012) and preservice teachers (Chen, 2010). Teacher beliefs are even seen as more influential in teaching than is teacher knowledge (Pajares, 1992). additionally , professional development programs that don’t take under consideration teacher beliefs and attitudes are unsuccessful (Ryan, 2004; Stipek & Byler, 1997).

This study aimed to feature to the literature about ways in which preservice teachers’ beliefs in several domains measured through self-assessed knowledge are connected with their attitudes toward simulations. The TPACK framework was wont to study the preservice teachers’ beliefs on technology in science teaching.

The TPACK Framework

The TPACK framework was introduced by Koehler and Mishra (2005), who originally used the term “technological pedagogical content knowledge,” or “TPCK.” The TPACK framework aims to integrate technology into an equivalent framework as pedagogy and content (Mishra & Koehler, 2006). This integration is supported by research suggesting that learning only technological skills don’t prepare teachers and educators to integrating technology in their content-specific teaching (Lawless & Pellegrino, 2007). a method for instance the TPACK framework is by employing a Venn diagram (see Figure 1).
Here, pedagogical knowledge (PK), content knowledge (CK), and technological knowledge (TK) are presented as three circles. within the intersections of the circles are pedagogical content knowledge (PCK), technological content knowledge (TCK) and technological pedagogical knowledge (TPK). within the middle, where all three circles intersect, is that the technological pedagogical content knowledge. during this paper, these sorts of teacher knowledge are referred because the domains of the TPACK framework.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *