Preservice and inservice teachers' pedagogical reasoning underlying their most‐valued technology‐supported instructional activities

Abstract

We examined teachers' pedagogical reasoning for and the technological knowledge underlying their most‐valued technology‐supported activities for teaching and learning. Data from 140 preservice and 100 inservice teachers included open‐ended, narrative responses to survey questions. Qualitative research methods guided analysis of the data that identified (a) the technology‐supported activities and (b) the technical tools, target users, types of uses, rationales for use, and the TPACK underlying each activity. Preservice teachers described mostly teacher‐focused and fewer student‐focused techno‐activities, and their reasoning for use focused on the technology's presentational and engagement effects. A majority of inservice teachers' techno‐activities were student‐focused, and their reasoning highlighted the technology's support for knowledge acquisition of higher‐order cognitive skills and collaborative learning. The knowledge underlying all teachers' techno‐activities was predominantly technological pedagogical knowledge (TPK), but inservice teachers also evidenced technological content knowledge (TCK). These results may reveal differences in the teachers' respective learning experiences in teacher education and professional development or reflect a professional maturation process in that it takes teachers time in the field as professionals to broaden their techno‐activity repertoires to prioritize student‐focus. Sharing the reasoning patterns in this study with teachers may assist them in developing deeper justifications for their technological work in the classroom.

An Investigation of the Teaching Needs of Faculty Members with regard to Technology

“…Finding from the study also show that Faculty members are interested in learning how to incorporate technology in their teaching and their comments suggest their need to combine technology with principles of pedagogy, andragogy, and constructivism. The findings of this study are consistent with prior studies (Alenezi, 2017;Blanchette et al, 1999;Hughes et al, 2020;Schwarzer, 2019) which established that technology has a great impact in teaching and this has progressively improved delivery of instruction, and facilitated development of knowledge, skills, abilities, including problem solving and critical thinking.…”

Evolution and diffusion of information literacy topics

“…In many studies, technology is used only as the background for exploring the influencing factors of technology acceptance (Ketikidis et al, 2012 ; Scherer et al, 2019 ), integration (Farjon et al, 2019 ) or use (Hughes et al, 2020 ) for specified people. Fewer information literacy studies focus on the impact of information technology.…”

Pre-service teachers’ beliefs about English Language Teaching and Learning in EFL classroom: A review of literature

“…The result found that if PSTs believed in their competence in TPACK, they would be more encouraged to integrate technology into their instruction effectively. Similarly, Hughes et al (2020) found that PSTs believed in technology's ability for presenting materials, supporting visual needs, or engaging students. Therefore, PSTs positively view the benefits of technology in language teaching and learning.…”

“…They also have to cope up all of the barriers and support for technology use in classrooms (Hutchison, 2012). Several studies investigated the PSTs' beliefs about the technology for conducting effective language teaching and learning (Yerdelen-Damar et al, 2017;Nariyati et al, 2020;Hughes et al, 2020). Yerdelen-Damar et al (2017), for instance, identified how PSTs' beliefs about technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) by interviewing 65 participants.…”

“…Chaaban et al, (2019) confirms that most studies in accordance with teachers' beliefs were conducted on inservice teachers (novice teachers or experienced teachers) and their teaching practices. Moreover, studies of PSTs' research have been conducted for different purposes, e.g., tracking the changes in PSTs' beliefs of learning and teaching language components (Bangou et al, 2011;Debreli, 2012;MacAlister, 2012;Özmen, 2012;Altan, 2012;Çapan, 2014;Saputra et al, 2020), identifying PSTs' beliefs of learning and teaching language skills (Gürsoy, 2013;Dinçer & Yeşilyurt, 2013;Tagle et al, 2017;Turnbull, 2017;Radwan, 2019), exploring PSTs' beliefs of language learning and teaching attributed to ELT methods and strategies (Seymen, 2012;Woodcock & Reupert, 2013;Chan, 2014;Simsek, 2014;Kelly, 2018;Chaaban et al, 2019), and identifying PSTs' beliefs about language learning and teaching toward technology (Yerdelen-Damar et al, 2017;Nariyati et al, 2020;Hughes et al, 2020). These differences need to compile to disclose a clear picture of how PSTs' beliefs of language teaching and learning are reflected in EFL classroom teaching practices, why their beliefs change, how they change, and what constraints need to be aware.…”