International Journal of Arts & Sciences, CD-ROM. ISSN: 1944-6934 :: 5(5):323–330 (2012)

INTEGRATING ELECTRONIC INSTRUCTIONAL AND ASSESSMENT TOOLS INTO TEACHER PROGRAMS

Izabella Petriashvili

Northeastern Illinois University, USA, & Tbilisi State University, Georgia

This study focuses on the necessity of preparing qualified teachers, who will be able to face technological challenges. Issues of integrating electronic technologies into programs at higher education institutions (HEIs) are discussed in the paper, along with the students’ and teachers’ attitudes towards using diverse electronic instructional and assessment tools in the teaching and learning process.

Keywords: electronic instructional and assessment tools, teacher education, efficiency.

Introduction

“Our future educators must be equipped with the knowledge, attitudes, skills and experiences which they can use in the classrooms of future. We must give our new teachers the benefit of what research tells us and embark on teacher training programs which include educational computing1” (Friedman, 1983). The world has witnessed an unprecedentedly high rate of development of the electronic/digital technology since those words were written around three decades ago. The issue of integrating technology into education in general, and into teacher education programs in particular, is still pressing and much debatable worldwide. Why a special emphasis is placed on teacher education programs? The answer is simple: because the success of any educational system greatly depends on the degree of qualification of future teachers. However, the question of how to prepare qualified teachers who will be able to face technological challenges of today is a complex one. Why the focus is on integrating electronic instructional and assessment tools? - Because these are the main aspects constituting the teaching and learning process in any sphere of education. The research objectives are: x To identify the most effectively used electronic instructional and assessment tools; x To study students’ and teachers’ attitudes to using e-tools in terms of their efficiency, appropriateness and reliability; x To identify the reasons for effective or unsuccessful uses of e-tools in teaching and learning process; x To explore the degree of employment of e-tools in learning and teaching practices.  1 By educational computing Friedman most likely meant what we today call .



323 324 Izabella Petriashvili

Literature Review

As a theoretical basis for the study, I mainly reviewed the publications for the last decade which focused on introducing technology to pre-service teachers (i.e. clinical or student teachers). My aim was to observe in what directions the scholars from different geographical areas and at different levels in terms of using advanced technologies, approached the integration of various electronic instructional and assessment tools into the teaching and learning practices, and what was its impact on enhancing teaching and learning. Kay in his article (2006) summarizes the review of literature (68 refereed journal articles) on this particular topic. According to Kay, ‘assuming that thoughtful use of technology in certain contexts can have a significant and positive effect on student learning, pre-service teacher education programs are a natural place to start with respect to integrating technology into education, particularly when there exists a strong infrastructure that supports computer use. Yet the evidence suggests that these programs have not been successful in preparing new teachers to use technology effectively’ (Kay 2006). Listing a number of obstacles that prevent successful implementation of technology, the author concludes that pre-service teachers are perceived as unprepared to use technology. A number of researchers worldwide have explored technology integration projects, as well as issues connected with on-line teaching and learning in higher education institutions (HEIs), and reported positive impact on teaching and learning for teachers using technology (Almekhlafi, & Almeqdadi, 2010; Topcu & Ubuz 2008; Soffer, et al. 2010; Topp 1996; Neo&Neo 2009; Gao, et al. 2009; Jolly, 1999). However, some of the authors question the positive impact on learner achievements: they argue, that educational technology has not significantly transformed and improved learning, and that human beings continue to learn in about the same ways they did forty years ago (Bush & Mott 2009; Cuban, 2001). Another point of view regarding innovations in online teaching and learning in higher education is their being resource intensive, prone to breakdown and often failing to live up to their promises ( Hannon 2009). Among the authors exploring diverse tools the vast majority dedicate their research to using e-portfolios/webfolios in pre-service teacher education (Kirkham et al. 2009; Heinrich et al. 2009; Strudler & Wetzel 2008; Adsit 2007). Swan (2009) examines barriers in faculty adoption of e- portfolio system; Gathercoal et al. (2007) view the use of webfolios in teacher education from the point of view of Teacher Performance Expectations (TPE) and Teacher Performance Assessments (TPA); Bull (2006) discusses a range of advantages and disadvantages to using CAA(Computer Assisted Assessment), depending on the type of technology and the type of assessment (whether the assessment is formative, summative or diagnostic). The results of evaluating the integration of electronic instructional and assessment tools in the teacher education programs in HEIs from the material I have explored reveal that the interest to these issues does not depend on the level of development of high technology in any particular country or institution, and that issues connected with the integration of new technological tools, particularly in teacher education programs, remain diverse, contradictory and yet unresolved. Hence is my interest to explore in depth efficiency and ‘workability’ of e-tools in one of the US universities which has already had a long established practice of incorporating electronic/digital tools in teacher education programs.

Research Methods

As a research methodology, both quantitative and qualitative methods have been employed: (a) The survey method (quantitative) blended with a heuristic enquiry method to identify the most effectively used electronic instructional and assessment tools, and to explore the degree of employment of e-tools in learning and teaching practices; Integrating Electronic Instructional and Assessment... 325

(b) The qualitative research method – one-on-one in-depth interviews with the faculty to gain insights into their perception of /attitudes to e-tools in terms of their efficiency, appropriateness and reliability, as well as to identify the reasons for effective or unsuccessful use of e-tools in their teaching and learning practices.

Data Analysis and Results

The study was conducted at the College of Education, NEIU. 103 people participated in an online survey (85 students and 18 professors/instructors), which was taken anonymously. One-on-one in-depth interviews with 9 faculty members were audio recorded. The survey questions were almost similar, but posed from different viewpoints – from faculty’s and students’. However, the questions for students focused on the use of technology in learning, as well as in teaching process (clinical students/student teachers), while the faculty was asked to respond only about their teaching practices. The demographic data show that among student survey participants 26 (31%) were male, and 58 (68%) – female. As for the age range, the majority – 49 % (42 students) were between 18-25, 35% (30 students) were from 26 to 35 and 14% (12 students) – above 36 years old. The demographics of the faculty is the following: 5 (28%) male and 13 (72%) female participants, out of which 50 % (9) were between the age range of 61-80, 33% (6) – between 41-60, and 17% (3) – between 30-40. The faculty members were also asked to indicate the years of teaching at higher education institutions. The survey shows, that the majority of the participants -10 professors (56 %) have been teaching at HEIs more than 10 years, 5 of them (28%) – for 6-10 years, and 3 (17%) – for 1 to 5 years. 1. Most effectively used electronic instructional and assessment tools One of the most important issues within this research is to identify the most effectively used instructional and assessment tools. According to the survey data (Table 1.), most favored electronic instructional tools among faculty are: e-mail (100%), interactive PowerPoint presentations (78%), forums/discussion boards (56%). The first three most important instructional e-tools are the same among students too: e-mail (95%), interactive PowerPoint presentations (73%), forums/discussion boards (56%).

Table 1. Use of electronic instructional tools2 # Electronic instructional tools Faculty Students N % N % 1 E-mail 18 100% 77 95% 2 Blogs/journals 9 50% 30 37% 3 WebQuests 9 50% 8 10% 4 Wikis 4 22% 28 35% 5 Forums/discussion boards 10 56% 45 56% 6 Video recording 6 33% 16 20% 7 Interactive PowerPoint presentations 14 78% 59 73% 8 Video conferences 1 6% 4 5% 9 Surveys 5 28% 24 30% 10 Quizzes 2 11% 37 46% 11 Podcasts 0 0% 3 4% 12 Webinars 3 17% 6 7% 13 Other 1 6% 5 6%

 2 For some questions people could select more than one checkbox, so percentages added up to more than 100%. 326 Izabella Petriashvili

The survey results regarding the use of electronic assessment tools were almost similar among faculty and students (Table 2.): Assignments: faculty - 81%, students – 91%; Rubrics: faculty – 56%, students – 41%; Interactive PowerPoint presentations: faculty – 38%, students – 47%.

Table 2. Use of electronic assessment tools # Electronic instructional tools Faculty Students N % N % 1 Quizzes 2 13% 41 51% 2 E-portfolios 5 31% 31 38% 3 Assignments 13 81% 74 91% 4 Blogs/journals 6 38% 22 27% 5 WebQuests 2 13% 3 4% 6 Wikis 1 6% 7 9% 7 Forums/discussion boards 7 44% 42 52% 8 Video recordings 2 13% 4 5% 9 Interactive PowerPoint presentations 6 38% 38 47% 10 Video conferences 1 6% 2 2% 11 Surveys 0 0% 14 17% 12 Rubrics 10 56% 33 41% 13 Other 2 13% 2 2%

The Faculty’s responses regarding the best practices of using technology in their teaching are grouped under the following categories: issues relating to pedagogical objectives, communication/ interaction, and course management.

Pedagogical objectives: for faculty members the following are mentioned as best practices of using technology in teaching: • to offer variety in methods of instruction and assessment • to be able to address more learning styles • to manifest the concept in the real world • to model the use of technology to students to facilitate students' learning. • to enrich students’ pedagogical knowledge as well as the content knowledge. Communication/interaction issues: according to their responses, the faculty mostly uses technology for communication purposes: • to establish and maintain relationships/communication • to enable maximized student-student, student-instructor, and student-content interactions • to use technology as a support or method of sharing, using different LMS3 platforms, such as Blackboard and LiveText • chats, student interactions Course management issues: the main points noted in this respect are the following: • using technology as additional, supportive, and not as substitution means • being able to comment on students' drafts before they submit them electronically/via e-mail • using technology as a tool with which to build the course content For students the best practices for the use of technology in learning are: submitting assignments online, accessing supplementary materials, using technology as a visual aid (via YouTube videos), using  3 Learning Management System Integrating Electronic Instructional and Assessment... 327 technology for research and fact-checking, communication, sharing information, collaborating with group members, assessment and getting feedback. In their responses students emphasized authentic and meaningful use of technology, and using it as a resource, not as the main aid. 2. Students’ and teachers’ attitudes to using e-tools Another objective of my study is to find out students’ and teachers’ attitudes to using electronic tools in teaching and learning. The main research question is whether they find using electronic tools more efficient compared with traditional/face-to-face methods of instructions/assessment. The majority of students (61%) answered negatively to this question; 34% consider e-tools more efficient than traditional methods of instructions and assessments. Students were also asked to indicate their preferred mode of instructions and assessments separately. The survey results are the following (Charts 1, 2): 55% prefer traditional/face-to-face mode of instructions and 36% - Blended/Hybrid mode. Regarding preferred assessment mode –majority (42%) prefer traditional assessment, 32% - blended/hybrid, and 10% - online assessment.

Chart 1. Preferred mode of instructions for students.

Chart 2. Preferred mode of assessment for students.

The survey revealed the following results for teachers’ attitudes to using e-tools: they were asked to indicate the degree to which they agreed with the statement: “Electronic tools are more efficient than traditional methods of giving instructions“. The majority’s (39%) answer was neutral, 17% - strongly 328 Izabella Petriashvili

agree, 22% - agree, 17% - disagree. As for assessment, 50% feel that e-tools are more efficient, 17% is neutral and 33% - disagree. Overall attitude of both students and teachers to using electronic instructional and assessment tools are positive: the majority (44%) of faculty state their attitudes are positive, 39% are very positive, 17% - neutral, and none of them has a negative attitude. Statistical data for students’ responses are the following: very positive – 26%, positive – 38%, neutral – 26%, and negative – 4%. 3. Reasons for effective or unsuccessful uses of e-tools in teaching and learning process Understanding reasons for any problem is essential to solve this or that problem and make a correct choice or decision. Therefore, one of the core issues of the study is to identify the reasons for effective or unsuccessful use of e-tools in teaching and learning. Among the favorable reasons the majority of students (94%) and teachers (72%) name flexibility of working time; individual learning style is the second most common reason mentioned by 73% of students and 61% of faculty. 61% of students also name the ease of accessibility to the instructor/teacher, while 63% of faculty members think that immediate response to students’ needs is one of the main reasons for successful use of technology. Findings of the survey are displayed in Table 3:

Table 3. Reasons for effective use of electronic tools Students Faculty N % N % Flexibility of working time 76 94% 13 72% Individual learning style 59 73% 11 61% Immediate response to students’ 51 63% 10 56% needs Immediate grading option 46 57% 6 33% Ease of accessibility to the 49 60% 11 61% instructor/teacher Other 3 4% 4 22%

Table 4. Reasons for unsuccessful use of electronic tools. Students Faculty N % N % Lack of technological skills/Difficulty in 56 71% 14 78% navigating online resources Inappropriate learning environment 22 28% 9 50% Lack of training available/ improper 45 57% 9 50% tutorials Individual learning style 20 25% 3 17% Lack of concentration 26 33% 5 28% Cumbersome electronic platforms 19 24% 13 72% Abundance of information 19 24% A lot of distracters (advertisements, 32 41% casual chats, etc.) Other 4 5% 3 17%

As for the reasons for unsuccessful use of e-tools the majority of students (71%) and teachers (78%) name lack of technological skills/difficulty in navigating online resources in the first place. Lack of available trainings or improper tutorials is the next among the reasons in 57% of students’ and 50% of Integrating Electronic Instructional and Assessment... 329 teachers’ responses. 72% of teachers find their institutional electronic platforms cumbersome, and 50% of teachers also think that inappropriate learning environment4 is one of the main reasons for unsuccessful use of technology (Table 4). 4. Degree of employment of e-tools in learning and teaching practices The research also deals with the issue of identifying the degree of integrating electronic instructional and assessment tools into teacher education courses. Survey participants were asked to respond to what extent they use e-tools in teaching and learning practices. The data for faculty responses are the following: 44% (8 professors) use e-tools fairly well, 28% (5) use them very well (71-100%), and another 28% (5) - very little (10-30%). In learning the majority of students (44%) use electronic instructional and assessment tools fairly well (31-70%), 34% use them very well (71-100%), 16% - very little (10-30%), and 2% - not at all. As for the integration of e-tools in their (observed) teaching practice, the survey showed a slightly different results: the majority of students (45%) use electronic instructional and assessment tools fairly well (31- 70%), 20% use them very well (71-100%), 28% - very little (10-30%), and 4% - not at all.

Conclusions and Recommendations

The findings of the results have been analyzed based on theoretical and empirical data, and the following general conclusions have been drawn: x Most favored electronic instructional tools among faculty and students are e-mail, interactive PowerPoint and forums/discussion boards; most effective electronic assessment tools used by students and faculty are assignments, rubrics, interactive PowerPoint presentations, e-portfolios and quizzes. x Overall attitudes toward using technology in teaching and learning of both students and faculty are positive: most favored mode of instructions and assessment are hybrid courses x Main reasons for effective use of e-tools stated by both students and faculty are: flexibility of working time; individual learning style, the ease of accessibility to the instructor/teacher (for students), and the immediate response to students’ needs (for teachers). x As for the reasons for unsuccessful use of e-tools, mainly technological issues have been mentioned, such as lack of technological skills/difficulty in navigating online resources, cumbersome electronic platforms and lack of available trainings or improper tutorials. x On average, the percentage of integration electronic instructional and assessment tools into teacher education courses both by faculty and by students is 71-100% (fairly good). Recommendations given by students and faculty regarding technology integration into their courses: x Both teachers and students emphasize the need for more trainings and workshops for integrating technology into their courses: they find it necessary to give a tutorial on using e-tools, provide more training and step by step help for those who have difficulty with technology, provide hands on assistance. x To have a meaningful and balanced use of e-tools, not to overuse them – to use e-tools in combination and collaboration with other, more traditional methods; to provide a balance of teacher-student interaction and online tasks. x To expose students to required computer programs at an early grade level x To have electronic portfolios for each class to help students better assess their learning The practical value of the research is to translate the research findings into efficient use of electronic instructional and assessment tools in teaching practices both at the tertiary level (by teachers of pre- service teachers), and further, in their own teaching practices (by newly qualified teachers).  4 Under this they mostly mean technological problems and existing infrastructure. 330 Izabella Petriashvili

To sum up, I would like to cite an excerpt from the interview with Dr. G. Moreno, Associate Professor at NEIU: “If we are in teacher education, we should be extremely proficient in instructional technology; we should have a founded understanding of how to integrate technology into instruction. And we ourselves should have minimal technology skills; the methodology of instruction should include technology, and those expectations to be a teacher requires technology requirements, or having an understanding of technology”.

References

1. Adsit, J, (April, 2007). The Transition from Linear to Integrated Digital Portfolios: Implications for Assessment of Teacher Candidates, Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Association, Chicago, IL. 2. Almekhlafi, A. G., Almeqdadi, F. A. (2010). Teachers' Perceptions of Technology Integration in the United Arab Emirates School Classrooms. Educational Technology & Society, 13 (1), 165–175. 3. Bull, J. (1999). Computer-Assisted Assessment: Impact on Higher Education Institutions. Educational Technology & Society 2(3),123–126. 4. Bush, M.D., Mott, J.D. (2009). The Transformation of Learning with Technology: Learner-Centricity, Content and Tool Malleability, and Network Effects. Educational Technology, 49 (2), 3–20. 5. Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 6. Friedman, D. (1983). The impact of Educational Computing on Teacher Education. Journal of Teacher Education, vol. 34 no. 5, 14–18. 7. Gao, P., Choy, D., Wong, A.F.L., Wu, J. (2009). Developping a better understanding of technology based pedagogy. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 25(5), 714–730. 8. Gathercoal, P., Love, D. O. & McKean, G. (April, 2007).Webfolios in Teacher Education: Teacher Performance Expectations and Teaching Performance Assessments - Present and Future. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL. 9. Hannon, J. (2009). Breaking down online teaching: Innovation and resistance. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 25(1), 14–29. 10. Heinrich, E., Milne, J., & Moore, M. (2009). An Investigation into E-Tool Use for Formative Assignment Assessment – Status and Recommendations. Educational Technology & Society, 12 (4), 176–192. 11. Jolly, D.V., Davis, T., Strader, A., Denton, J.(1999)Issues Related to Technology in Teacher Education Programs and K-12 Public Schools in Texas Educational Technology & Society, 2(3),91–96. 12. Kay, R. H. (2006). Evaluating strategies used to incorporate technology into preservice education: A review of the literature. Journal of Research on Technology in Education 38(4), 383–408. 13. Kirkham, T., Winfield, S., Smallwood, A., Coolin, K., Wood, S., & Searchwell, L. (2009). Introducing Live ePortfolios to Support Self Organised Learning. Educational Technology & Society, 12 (3), 107–114. 14. Neo, M., & Neo, T.-K. (2009). Engaging students in multimedia-mediated Constructivist learning – Students’ perceptions. Educational Technology & Society, 12 (2), 254–266. 15. Soffer, T., Nachmias, R., & Ram, J. (2010). Diffusion of Web Supported Instruction in Higher Education - The Case of Tel-Aviv University. Educational Technology & Society, 13 (3), 212–223. 16. Strudler, N. & Wetzel, K. (2008). Costs and benefits of electronic portfolios in teacher education: Faculty perspectives. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 24(4), 135–142. 17. Swan, G. (2009). Examining barriers in faculty adoption of an e-portfolio system. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 25(5), 627–644. 18. Topcu, A., & Ubuz, B. (2008). Effects of the Asynchronous Web-Based Course: Preservice Teachers’ Achievement, Metacognition, and Attitudes towards the Course. Educational Technology & Society, 11 (3), 181–197. 19. Topp, N. W., Mortenson, R.,& Grandgenett, N.(1996) 'Six Objectives for Technology Infusion into Teacher Education: a model in action', Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 5: 1, 57–69.