=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-3076/paper04
|storemode=property
|title=Where change begins: Teacher-students’ professional development during internships in media and computer science education
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3076/ECTEL2021_DC_paper04.pdf
|volume=Vol-3076
|authors=Judit Martínez-Moreno
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/ectel/Martinez-Moreno21
}}
==Where change begins: Teacher-students’ professional development during internships in media and computer science education==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3076/ECTEL2021_DC_paper04.pdf
Where change begins: Teacher-students’ professional
development during internships in media and computer science
education
Judit Martínez-Morenoa,b
a
Zurich University of Teacher Education, Lagerstrasse 2, 8090 Zurich, Switzerland
b
University of Zurich, Institute of Education, Kantonsschulstrasse 3, 8001 Zurich, Switzerland
Abstract
New curricula are being introduced to foster the integration of media and computer science in
education. Therefore, it is of high importance to understand how to train teachers to adapt their
teaching practices to these new curricula. In this direction, three models are of high importance:
COACTIV, TPACK, and the SQD Model. The COACTIV model gives insights into the
competences that teachers need to acquire to teach effectively. The TPACK model poses the
types of knowledge needed to teach effectively with technology. The SQD Model presents the
key strategies to teach teacher-students on the effective integration of technology. However,
these models still present some limitations. First, the expression of TPACK in action and the
relevance of its components is not clear. Second, the transversal development of these models
has not been sufficiently studied. And third, the relationship between these three models is also
under-researched. The present doctorate will address these three limitations by studying the
professional development of primary education teacher-students during internships in media
and computer science. Three main aspects will be analysed: teacher-student-related variables,
internship projects, and training settings. A mixed-method approach will be followed,
embracing content and thematic analysis, as well as correlation and predictive analysis.
Keywords 1
Teacher education, teacher-students, internships, media and computer science education,
TPACK, COACTIV, SQD Model
teaching practices to provide students with the
1. Introduction best opportunities to acquire the competencies
needed and set by the curriculum. To do so, it is
of high importance to offer teacher training
Specific educational frameworks have been opportunities that aim at acquiring the required
developed to collect the competencies and knowledge and competencies. 2
skills that children need to learn to succeed in
the 21st century [1, 2]. In Switzerland, the new
Curriculum 21 has been introduced in the 1.1. Teacher competence
German-speaking cantons to foster the
development of these competences, including a Teacher competence is a difficult topic to
media and computer science module to be treat since it is challenging to define what
taught in elementary education. However, competences are, as well as to identify the
introducing new curricula is not enough. competences that teachers have and need to
Teachers should be prepared to adapt their develop, to successfully perform their practice.
Proceedings of the Doctoral Consortium of Sixteenth European
Conference on Technology Enhanced Learning, September 20–21,
2021, Bolzano, Italy (online).
EMAIL: judit.martinezmoreno@phzh.ch
ORCID: 0000-0001-9234-8220
© 2021 Copyright for this paper by its authors. Use permitted under Creative
Commons License Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).
CEUR Workshop Proceedings (CEUR-WS.org)
Figure 1: Competence as a continuum taken from Blömeke et al. [3]
After analysing several conceptual teaching). From this perspective, professional
frameworks and definitions of “competence” in teaching practice is an interplay between
higher education, the “Competence as a cognitive and motivational/self-regulatory
continuum model” was developed [3] (see characteristics. Concretely, it contemplates the
Figure 1). This model is constituted of 3 parts: following aspects: knowledge; values, beliefs
the left side includes cognitive, affective, and and goals; motivational orientations; and
motivational competences for specific contexts; professional self-regulation skills. In the case of
the right side is the behaviour that can be knowledge, the COACTIV model adopts
observed; and this is mediated by the part in the Shulman’s construct of pedagogical content
middle, which includes the processes done by knowledge or PCK and broadens this definition
the actor, such as perception, interpretation, and adding organizational and counselling
decision-making processes. knowledge.
In the field of teaching, one model that Other personal variables of teacher-students
systematically identifies the competencies that have been seen to be related to the decision of
teachers need to have to perform a good using technology in their teaching practice,
professional practice is the COACTIV (or such as positive attitudes toward technology
Cognitive Activation in the Classroom) model and personal control over the decision to use
of teachers’ professional competence [4] (see technology [5]; or to the real use of technology,
Figure 2, which presents the COACTIV model such as perceived competence using ICT for
specified for the context of mathematics teaching, availability of computers, beliefs
Figure 2: COACTIV model taken from Baumert and Kunter [4]
about the effect of computers, constructivist
forms of teaching and learning [6], self-efficacy
and value beliefs [7, 8], or intentions to use
Meaningful Learning approaches [9].
About the knowledge that teacher-students
should have for teaching with technology, one
of the most cited models is the technological,
pedagogical and content knowledge, or
TPACK, developed by Koehler and Mishra
[10]. The TPACK model was built also from
Shulman’s construct of pedagogical content
knowledge or PCK. Their authors aimed to
explain the three key components of teacher
knowledge that teachers need to develop and
consider when integrating technology in their
practice to produce effective teaching with
technology. According to this model, the types Figure 4: TPACK model taken from Koehler and
of knowledge that need to be considered are
Mishra [10]
technology, pedagogy, and content knowledge,
as well as the interactions between all types of In an attempt to unite the Competence
knowledge, and knowledge about the context Viewed as a Continuum model, COACTIV and
(see Figure 3). The TPACK model has shown TPACK, [13] developed the Developmental
to be useful to increase teacher-students’ Model of Teacher Professional Competence
confidence and understanding of digital (DevTPC). Although the author developed it as
pedagogies [11]. Furthermore, it has been seen a framework for teaching foreign language
that it can be developed through active online, it still offers potential uses in other
involvement in teaching using technology [12]. fields (see Figure 4).
Figure 3: DevTPC model taken from Stadler-Heer [13]
Regarding teaching quality, three basic These are role models, reflection,
dimensions have been defined to analyse instructional design, collaboration, authentic
teaching quality: instructional, organizational experiences, and feedback at the micro-level;
and emotional support [14, 15]. These three and technology planning and leadership,
dimensions are linked to variables that are cooperation within/between institutions,
involved in the learning process. The training staff and access to resources at the
instructional dimension refers to the institutional level. Systematic and systemic
instructional support given by the teacher to change efforts, and aligning theory and
cognitively activate and engage students; the practice, are related to both levels. Furthermore,
organizational dimension is related to the in the field of teacher education, it has been
classroom management and organizational seen that field experiences have positive impact
support provided by the teacher to promote on beliefs and intentions to use technology,
academic and social-emotional learning; and especially when teacher-students see
the emotional dimension refers to the support technology being used by skilled teachers [9,
that the teacher gives to his/her students to 17].
provide a supporting and positive interactions
and learning climate. 1.3. Challenges
1.2. Teacher education Many attempts are being done to set good
theoretical backgrounds that foster effective
Regarding the way that teachers should be teacher higher education in the field of
trained, different strategies have been technology-enabled learning. However, most of
implemented to prepare pre-service teachers to the proposed models lack a solid scientific
integrate technology into their teaching basis, as it is challenging to develop scientific
practice. Tondeur et al. [16] carried out a studies whose findings are generalizable and
synthesis of qualitative evidence and extracted consistent with previous research.
the key strategies that have been explicitly In the case of TPACK, despite it is already
related to the preparation of pre-service one of the most used models in research, it is
teachers as well as the necessary conditions at currently entering a new phase of development
the institutional level. With these aspects, the as an empirical theory. As indicated by Petko
authors built the SQD Model which includes [18] this could be a consolidation phase before
the aspects that should be provided at the micro a new invigoration, or a period of stagnation
and institutional level to prepare pre-service and decline. In any case, there are still some
teachers (see Figure 5). open questions about this model that would be
interesting to investigate.
In the first place, there is no clear agreement
whether the three circles of knowledge
contribute equally to TPACK or if these types
of knowledge can be different in different
situations or levels of technology integration
[18]. The specific definition of the different
factors is not clear, nor is it the relationship
between them. As Brantley-Dias and Ertmer
note [19], we are also still missing a detailed
description of how does TPACK or its
components look like in action. Furthermore,
an ongoing debate is whether the TPACK
model should be considered an integrative or a
transformative model. The integrative vision
assumes that all components directly contribute
to the final TPACK, whereas the transformative
vision assumes that only TCK, TPK and PCK
Figure 5: SQD Model taken from Tondeur et al. contribute to the final TPACK. It is highly
[16] important to understand how the components
interact between them to provide learning of teacher education for media and computer
opportunities in teacher training that foster the science teaching, especially regarding the
acquisition of TPACK, meaning that if the theoretical grounds that support specific
model is transformative, activities that focus didactic actions. Therefore, the main aim of this
solely on TK will not contribute to improving research will be to contribute to the
TPACK, but TCK and TPK will need to be development of theoretical models using
fostered [20]. teacher-students’ internships on media and
Many extensions and combinations of the computer science education as the object of
model have been done, such as ICT-TPCK [21], study, proving the validity of these theories.
TPACK-XL [22], or GPACK [23], increasing The theoretical models that will be used for
its complexity while remaining unclear whether research purposes will be TPACK and the
they offer better theoretical ground. For this, the COACTIV model for teacher competence, and
DevTPC model [13] offers a new approach for SQD Model for teaching settings.
combining different complementary models
rather than extensions of TPACK, including 2.2. Research objectives and
personal variables originally part of the
COACTIV model [4], and an explanation of research questions
how to evaluate competences originally from
the Competence as a continuum model [3]. The objectives that are expected to be
About measuring TPACK, there aren’t achieved during this research and the specific
many valid and reliable tools for doing so, since research questions that will be addressed are:
most of them are self-reports that don’t evaluate 1. Objective 1: To describe the expression of
factual knowledge but self-efficacy beliefs and teacher-students’ TPACK in action and
can be easily biased. Another method that has analyse the relevance of its components.
been used are rubric-based ratings based on 1.1. Is self-reported teacher-students’
lesson plans. Furthermore, TPACK has not
TPACK coherent with observed
been studied in international large-scale,
longitudinal nor experimental settings [18]. TPACK?
Furthermore, while it has been stated that 1.2. Do all TPACK components relate to
TPACK is constituted by what teachers know, the general TPACK?
what teachers do and their reasons for doing so, 1.3. Are all TPACK components related to
in the field of education and technology, very a good internship project for media
little research has investigated the instructional and computer science education?
decisions that teacher-students make, focusing
on how and why [24]. 2. Objective 2: To analyse the professional
A part of knowledge, it is difficult to development of teacher-students during an
conclude what other teacher-student-related internship in media and computer science.
variables are important to teaching competence. 2.1. Do teacher-student-related variables
This is why the COACTIV model [4] refers to change after participating in an
an interplay between cognitive and internship on media and computer
motivational/self-regulatory characteristics.
science?
And not only personal aspects are needed, but
also those at an institutional level for teacher 2.2. Is there any factor (latent variable) that
training. Here is where the SQD Model [16] moderates professional development?
poses several variables, but further research 3. Objective 3: Investigate the relationships
into these aspects is still needed to know the between models (COACTIV, TPACK,
role that these variables play as a mediator of SQD Model) and their influence on
teacher competence. teaching quality (Three Basic Dimensions
model).
2. Current research 3.1. Is there any relationship between
2.1. Research aim teacher-student-related variables
based on the COACTIV and TPACK
As it has been presented in the previous models?
section, there are some challenges in the field
3.2. Is there any relationship between a. Teacher-student-related variables
teacher-student-related variables, b. Internship projects
internship projects, teaching quality, c. Training settings
and training settings?
For the evaluation of teacher-student-related
variables (a), self-reported questionnaires will
3. Research methodology be distributed before and after the internships.
3.1. Research settings These self-reports will evaluate their
professional competence based on the
COACTIV model, which includes knowledge;
This research will follow a mixed-methods professional values, beliefs, and
approach, since qualitative and quantitative goals; motivational orientations and rationales;
data will be collected throughout the study in an and professional self-regulation skills. The
embedded manner. Confirmatory and specific questionnaire to be used for this aim is
exploratory correlation analysis will be still to be confirmed. For evaluating
followed depending on the research question. knowledge, the TPACK.xs questionnaire [20]
This research will be conducted in the will be distributed before and after the
context of the module “Media and IT participation in the internship. It consists of 28
education” at the University of Teacher items, four per each subscale, and has shown a
Education of Zurich (PHZH – Pädagogische good validity and reliability for assessing
Höchschule Zürich). The students that teacher-students’ TPACK. However, since self-
participate in this module are teacher-students reports involve certain limitations such as
being trained for teaching in the primary biases due to social desirability and Dunning-
education level. The module includes a Kruger effects, or measuring teachers’ self-
practical part of 1 ECTS (30 working hours) efficacy beliefs instead of factual knowledge
where students participate in an internship. For [18], performance-based measures to collect
this internship, students conceptualize a media more factual knowledge will also be used.
or computer science project based on the Concretely, teacher-students’ internship
Lehrplan 21 [25] and implement it in a school. reports, grades, and reports from teachers from
They do this internship in pairs, and work in a the PHZH and the school where the teacher-
class where they have already been doing students did the internship. Other variables such
internships in the past, therefore, they already as beliefs about technology or previous
know the students and the teacher. After the experience with technology will also be
internship, students submit the project analysed to allow further exploration.
documentation and written observations, and Regarding the evaluation of their internship
they make a presentation. They are graded projects (b), the related documentation will be
based on their performance. treated as qualitative data and will be analysed
The data will be collected on the Autumn making use of categories and codes following
Semester 2022 and Autumn Semester 2023. content and thematic analysis [26]. From this
About the sample, 300 students participate in documentation, their knowledge will be
this module each semester, although not all of analysed using the TPACK model, and teaching
them are expected to participate in the study. quality using the framework of Three Basic
It is still to be confirmed whether it would Dimensions. To evaluate the level of
be possible to create an experimental condition competency that students acquire, the
where a group of students goes through an evaluation grid that teachers already use may be
intervention different than those in the control considered. This grid is KoRa
group. It is also pending of confirmation (Kompetenzraster) and it measures 12
whether it would be possible to have access to competence standards required for an optimal
a control group consisting of teacher-students teaching competence [27]. Finally, other
who take part in an internship that is not related variables such as technology used, or topics
to media and computer science education. treated will also be analysed to allow further
exploration.
3.2. Measurements For the evaluation of training settings (c),
the SQD Model [16] will be used to analyse the
The main aspects that will be evaluated are: conditions provided to pre-service teachers to
prepare them for technology use. This will be 5. Planning
done asking teacher-students through a self-
reported questionnaire. Furthermore, the
This thesis will be conducted during
TPACK.xs questionnaire will be distributed
September 2021 and September 2025. A
among their teachers to evaluate the level of
general overview of the project schedule is as
TPACK among teacher-student’s role models.
follows.
Year 2021/22:
3.3. Data analyses − Tasks: Literature review and data
collection tools selection.
Qualitative and quantitative methods will be
− Output: Paper “The more you know, the
used to analyse the data indicated above. For
the qualitative analysis, thematic and content more you believe: Examining the influence
analysis will be performed. These analysis will of self-reported TPACK on teacher's
be used to identify the different TPACK technology-related beliefs” (data already
categories in students’ projects, similar to [24], collected at the University of Zurich)
and to analyse their teaching quality.
For the quantitative analysis, correlational Year 2022/23:
and predictive relationship analysis will be used − Tasks: Data collection and data analysis.
depending on the specific research question − Output: Paper “TPACK: reported vs
being addressed. observed; paper COACTIV and TPACK:
The correlational analysis will be: internal structure of the COACTIV model
− Analysis of Variance, ANOVA (qualitative
in media and computer science education”
and quantitative variables) for RQ 1.1 and
RQ 1.3. Year 2023/24:
− Independent t-test (quantitative variables, − Tasks: Data collection and data analysis.
independent measures) for RQ 1.2 and RQ − Output: Paper “Relationships between
3.1. TPACK and teaching quality; paper
− Dependent t-test (quantitative variables, Teacher-students’ professional
repeated measures) for RQ 2.1. development and moderating factors”
− Factor analysis (latent variables) for RQ Year 2024/25:
2.2. − Tasks: Final thesis elaboration.
− (optional) Chi-square independence test − Output: Cumulative dissertation.
(qualitative variables)
On the other hand, the predictive 6. References
relationship analysis will be:
− Structural equation modelling (multiple [1] European Commission, European
regression analysis) for RQ 3.2. framework for the digital competence of
educators: DigCompEdu, Publications
Office of the European Union, Website,
4. Ethical considerations 2017. Accessed: Apr. 21, 2021. [Online].
Available:
Since this research involves the collection http://op.europa.eu/en/publication-
and evaluation of personal data, an informed detail/-/publication/fcc33b68-d581-11e7-
consent form will be created to be signed by all a5b9-01aa75ed71a1/language-en
participants. The consent form will include [2] E. van Laar, A. J. A. M. van Deursen, J.
information about the research and about the A. G. M. van Dijk, and J. de Haan, The
participant’s rights, such as opting-out or relation between 21st-century skills and
eliminating their data. The data collected will digital skills: A systematic literature
be coded and pseudonymously treated during review, Comput. Hum. Behav., vol. 72,
the whole research process. pp. 577–588, Jul. 2017, doi:
10.1016/j.chb.2017.03.010.
[3] S. Blömeke, J.-E. Gustafsson, and R. J. experience, J. Comput. Educ., vol. 4, Mar.
Shavelson, Beyond Dichotomies: 2016, doi: 10.1007/s40692-016-0055-4.
Competence Viewed as a Continuum, Z. [12] J. Voogt, P. Fisser, N. P. Roblin, J.
Für Psychol., vol. 223, no. 1, pp. 3–13, Tondeur, and J. van Braak, Technological
2015. pedagogical content knowledge – a
[4] J. Baumert and M. Kunter, The review of the literature, J. Comput. Assist.
COACTIV Model of Teachers’ Learn., vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 109–121, 2013,
Professional Competence, in Cognitive doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2012.00487.x.
Activation in the Mathematics Classroom [13] S. Stadler-Heer, Introducing German pre-
and Professional Competence of service teachers to remote teaching:
Teachers: Results from the COACTIV Policy, preparation and perceptions of
Project, M. Kunter, J. Baumert, W. Blum, competence development of future
U. Klusmann, S. Krauss, and M. foreign language teachers, Train. Lang.
Neubrand, Eds. Boston, MA: Springer Cult., vol. 5, pp. 68–85, Mar. 2021, doi:
US, 2013, pp. 25–48. doi: 10.1007/978-1- 10.22363/2521-442X-2021-5-1-68-85.
4614-5149-5_2. [14] D. Holzberger, A.-K. Praetorius, T.
[5] J. H. Watson and A. Rockinson-Szapkiw, Seidel, and M. Kunter, Identifying
Predicting preservice teachers’ intention effective teachers: The relation between
to use technology-enabled learning, teaching profiles and students’
Comput. Educ., vol. 168, Jul. 2021, doi: development in achievement and
10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104207. enjoyment, Eur. J. Psychol. Educ., no. 34,
[6] D. Petko, Teachers’ pedagogical beliefs pp. 801–823, 2019.
and their use of digital media in [15] A.-K. Praetorius, E. Klieme, B. Herbert,
classrooms: Sharpening the focus of the and P. Pinger, Generic dimensions of
‘will, skill, tool’ model and integrating teaching quality: the German framework
teachers’ constructivist orientations, of Three Basic Dimensions, ZDM, vol.
Comput. Educ., vol. 58, no. 4, pp. 1351– 50, no. 3, pp. 407–426, Jun. 2018, doi:
1359, May 2012, doi: 10.1007/s11858-018-0918-4.
10.1016/j.compedu.2011.12.013. [16] J. Tondeur, J. van Braak, G. Sang, J.
[7] I. Backfisch, R. Scherer, F. Siddiq, A. Voogt, P. Fisser, and A. Ottenbreit-
Lachner, and K. Scheiter, Teachers’ Leftwich, Preparing pre-service teachers
technology use for teaching: Comparing to integrate technology in education: A
two explanatory mechanisms, Teach. synthesis of qualitative evidence,
Teach. Educ., vol. 104, p. 103390, Aug. Comput. Educ., vol. 59, no. 1, pp. 134–
2021, doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2021.103390. 144, Aug. 2012, doi:
[8] S.-L. Cheng, L. Lu, K. Xie, and V. W. 10.1016/j.compedu.2011.10.009.
Vongkulluksn, Understanding teacher [17] İ. Reisoğlu and A. Çebi, How can the
technology integration from expectancy- digital competences of pre-service
value perspectives, Teach. Teach. Educ., teachers be developed? Examining a case
vol. 91, May 2020, doi: study through the lens of DigComp and
10.1016/j.tate.2020.103062. DigCompEdu, Comput. Educ., vol. 156,
[9] M. J. Nelson and N. A. Hawk, The impact Oct. 2020, doi:
of field experiences on prospective 10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103940.
preservice teachers’ technology [18] D. Petko, Quo vadis TPACK? Scouting
integration beliefs and intentions, Teach. the road ahead, Jun. 2020, pp. 1349–1358.
Teach. Educ., vol. 89, Mar. 2020, doi: Accessed: Nov. 14, 2020. [Online].
10.1016/j.tate.2019.103006. Available:
[10] M. Koehler and P. Mishra, What is https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/2
Technological Pedagogical Content 17445/
Knowledge (TPACK)?, Contemp. Issues [19] L. Brantley-Dias and P. A. Ertmer,
Technol. Teach. Educ., vol. 9, no. 1, pp. Goldilocks and TPACK: Is the Construct
60–70, Mar. 2009. ‘Just Right?,’ J. Res. Technol. Educ., vol.
[11] D. Maor, Using TPACK to develop 46, no. 2, pp. 103–128, Dec. 2013, doi:
digital pedagogues: a higher education 10.1080/15391523.2013.10782615.
[20] M. Schmid, E. Brianza, and D. Petko,
Developing a short assessment instrument
for Technological Pedagogical Content
Knowledge (TPACK.xs) and comparing
the factor structure of an integrative and a
transformative model, Comput. Educ.,
vol. 157, Nov. 2020, doi:
10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103967.
[21] C. Angeli and N. Valanides,
Epistemological and methodological
issues for the conceptualization,
development, and assessment of ICT–
TPCK: Advances in technological
pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK),
Comput. Educ., vol. 52, no. 1, pp. 154–
168, Jan. 2009, doi:
10.1016/j.compedu.2008.07.006.
[22] M. M. Saad, A. M. Barbar, and S. A. R.
Abourjeili, TPACK-XL Framework for
Educators and Scholars: A theoretical
Grounding for Building Preservice
Teachers ICT Knowledge Base, p. 21,
2020.
[23] E. R. Urban, M. Navarro, and A. Borron,
TPACK to GPACK? The examination of
the technological pedagogical content
knowledge framework as a model for
global integration into college of
agriculture classrooms, Teach. Teach.
Educ., vol. 73, pp. 81–89, Jul. 2018, doi:
10.1016/j.tate.2018.03.013.
[24] C. R. Graham, J. Borup, and N. B. Smith,
Using TPACK as a framework to
understand teacher candidates’
technology integration decisions, J.
Comput. Assist. Learn., vol. 28, no. 6, pp.
530–546, 2012, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-
2729.2011.00472.x.
[25] Lehrplan 21.
https://zh.lehrplan.ch/index.php?code=b|
10|0&la=yes (accessed Apr. 20, 2021).
[26] M. Vaismoradi, H. Turunen, and T.
Bondas, Content analysis and thematic
analysis: Implications for conducting a
qualitative descriptive study, Nurs.
Health Sci., vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 398–405,
Sep. 2013, doi: 10.1111/nhs.12048.
[27] S. Biaggi, H. Andreas, and M. Kramer-
Länger, Kompetenzraster
Berufspraktische Ausbildung PH Zürich:
Primar-stufe Quest-3. Version 2.0.,
Zürich: Pädagogische Hochschule
Zürich, 2021.