Search results1 – 10 of 24
This article aims to present an examination of the first six months of a national college-level iPad implementation project involving 14,000 new students based on faculty…
This article aims to present an examination of the first six months of a national college-level iPad implementation project involving 14,000 new students based on faculty shift from substituting their teaching methods with mobile technology to augmentation of teaching methods with new affordances of mobile technology.
A χ2 analysis of descriptions of teaching practices at a baseline sharing event among teachers (called iCelebrate) and a second similar event (iCelebrate2) was used to compare the abstracts for the events using an alpha of 0.05. The parameters examined were five indicators from the technological pedagogical and content knowledge (TPACK) model including the substitution, augmentation, modification and redefinition (SAMR) levels of technology integration.
No significant difference (p=0.069) was found in the technology focus of abstracts, although there was a significant (p=0.0015) difference in the content focus. There was no significant difference (p=0.129) for the pedagogical focus. For technology integration into content teaching, there was no significant difference (p=0.379) in level of substitution versus other levels (augmentation, modification or redefinition), although substitution increased to higher levels; with a corresponding decrease in abstracts that focused merely on substitution. For the level of technology adoption, there was a significant difference (p=0.0083) in levels, with a shift to higher levels of integration.
A limitation of the study is that it relies on volunteer faculty who were motivated to adopt the mobile learning tools and to share their approaches with colleagues. Thus, the findings show the development and potential of this self-selected group and may not generalize to non-volunteers. Indeed, the findings may generalize in very specific ways at different campuses. In seeking to understand why these faculty volunteered and why specific campuses were represented differently from others, the paper refers to the varying influences of the school context proposed by Clarke and Hollingsworth. The campus context may support or impede professional growth by influencing a faculty member's access to professional development opportunities, by offering incentives to participation, by creating a culture that values experimentation, and by providing supports for applying learning in the classroom. More data are needed in order to document linkages among campus factors and faculty TPACK.
This study is entirely original and has not been published elsewhere in whole or in part. Its intent is to guide education organizations in planning faculty development for mobile education programs.