Teacher candidates perceive their preparation to integrate technology as comparable to general program preparation but lower than their teaching efficacy and TAP indicator preparation¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associational r? · q3
Currency · newest study 2017 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? In a repeated measures ANOVA, scores differed across the five preparation constructs, F(4, 748) = 31.57, p < .001, η2 = .144, with Technology Integration not different from Program Preparation Factor 1 but significantly lower than Teaching Efficacy and TAP Indicators. → Buss 2017

Evidence¶

Buss 2017¶

Buss, R. R., Lindsey, L., Foulger, T. S., Wetzel, K., & Pasquel, S. (2017). Assessing a technology infusion approach in a teacher preparation program. International Journal of Technology in Teaching and Learning, 13(1), 33-44. https://eric.ed.gov/?q=Assessing+a+technology+infusion+approach+in+a+teacher+preparation+program

q3 · i? · associational · r?

Survey of 237 finishing teacher candidates using a repeated measures ANOVA across five Likert constructs. The article reports "F(4, 748) = 31.57, p < .001, η 2 = .144, which was a large effect size"; post hoc tests showed Technology Integration (M = 3.84) did not differ from Program Preparation Factor 1 (M = 3.90) but was lower than Teaching Efficacy (M = 4.06) and TAP Indicators (M = 4.01).

"The repeated measures ANOVA showed there were differences in scores among the five constructs, F(4, 748) = 31.57, p < .001, η 2 = .144, which was a large effect size"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Faculty report high self-perceived knowledge in traditional TPACK domains but substantially lower self-perceived knowledge in technology-integrated GenAI domains — related
• Integrated instructional hours correlate more positively with technology integration ability than stand-alone technology courses — related