Unpacking Preservice Elementary Education Majors’ Pre-Covid Experiences with Instructional Technology: Implications for Post-Covid Technology Use

Technology embeddedness and standards

Technology use, access, implementation, and standards vary from state to state and across school districts. Some state standards encourage embeddedness, such as the District of Columbia’s Office of State Superintendent of Education’s (OSSE) “Embedded Technology Standards” [3]. However, there are differences in what this “embeddedness” means and looks like. OSSE’s standards showed embedded technology in Reading/English Language Arts with categories such as “Research,” “Writing,” “Media,” in Science such as “Science and Technology,” and in other subject areas such as Physical Education, Art, Music, and Health [3].

The 2017 International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) standards for educators identified seven areas for development in technology—educator as learner, leader, citizen, collaborator, designer, facilitator, and analyst [4]. For example, educators “collaborate and co-learn with students to discover and use new digital resources and diagnose and troubleshoot technology issues” [4]. There were seven learning categories for students—empowered learner, digital citizen, knowledge constructor, innovative designer, computational thinker, creative communicator, and global collaborator. As innovative designer, “students develop, test and refine prototypes as part of a cyclical design process” [5]. However, how instructional technology standards is translated into classroom practice has always been teacher specific. Though, there is now more emphasis on what these best practices are during the virtual post-Covid pandemic era.

In the 2017 National Education Technology Plan (NETP) Update by the Office of Educational Technology (OET) titled “Reimagining the Role of Technology in Education,” [6] the learning goals were: “All learners will have engaging and empowering learning experiences in both formal and informal settings that prepare them to be active, creative, knowledgeable, and ethical participants in our globally connected society” [6]. The plan stated: “Mindful of the learning objectives, educators might design learning experiences that allow students in a class to choose from a menu of learning experiences—writing essays, producing media, building websites, collaborating with experts across the globe in data collection …” [6]. All in all, the report encourages the use of technology to develop critical thinking skills and other twenty first century skills. Thus, there is a role for including activities such as coding into the instructional technology course for elementary teachers to give them an opportunity to engage with software that might carry over into informal settings or help students develop critical skills.

Using technology to support spatial learning

Even though elementary teachers generally do not teach science, integrating technology such as Geographical Information Systems (GIS) could facilitate the development of skills required for science at an early age. Newcombe [7] noted that scientists and engineers have good spatial skills and that people with good spatial skills do well in science [7]. The National Research Council [8] found that GIS could help students develop the spatial skills important for success in science and engineering, and defined spatial thinking as follows:

Spatial thinking is based on a constructive amalgam of three elements: concepts of space, tools of representation, and processes of reasoning. It depends on understanding the meaning of space and using the properties of space as a vehicle for structuring problems, for finding answers, and for expressing solutions [8].

ArcGIS (Aeronautical Reconnaissance Coverage GIS) online was one example of a GIS mapping software that used various kinds of data, and that could be used to practice spatial thinking. Kerr [9] found that the use of ArcGIS online in a middle and secondary social studies teacher educator program promoted critical thinking and interdisciplinarity in the course content. Likewise, Jo [10] explored the beliefs and dispositions of students using ArcGIS online and found that students displayed positive attitudes, that using ArcGIS online was an “eye-opening experience,” and that GIS could promote high level thinking in students [10].

Research with preservice and in-service teachers

Trautmann and MaKinster [11] found that the use of a flexible adaptive model for training secondary science teachers to use geospatial technology catered to the diverse needs, skills, and motivations of the teachers. While one teacher felt “excited” and “intimidated” by her lack of experience, she demonstrated “Technological Pedagogical Knowledge … by her ability to switch from one tool to the next on the fly” [11]. Even though she experienced failures using both ArcMap and then Google Earth, she switched to Mapping Gateway in her Earth Science ninth grade class. Another teacher, who had students that he felt were challenging to motivate and that had academic difficulties, found that using geospatial technology helped his students to “visualize key science concepts” [11]. This teacher found himself evaluating his lessons to see if they could be taught using GIS but at the same time felt it was important to take students outdoors. Thus, his goal was to use technology to enhance the lessons and not to replace good pedagogy. Another teacher, who had considerable experience with GPS (Global Positioning System) and Google Earth, created tours to demonstrate certain concepts for students. He used it more with his Environmental science course than with his Earth science, and indicated that his use depended on the science concept to be learned. For example, he preferred hands on manipulation when teaching rocks and minerals but found the technology more useful when teaching meteorology.

Dickes et al. [12] described the implementation of ViMAP, “an agent-based programming and computational modeling platform,” over 7 months in an elementary 3rd grade classroom with 14 African American and one (1) Latino student in a population with over 95% on free or reduced lunch. Dickes et al. [12] showed that the teacher Emma changed positions from observing the instruction by the researchers in her classroom, to an emergent co-designer, and then to sole instructor, as she developed agency. They noted that “she wanted to expand ViMAP’s pedagogical impact by making more explicit connections to required 3rd grade mathematics concepts” [12]. Her observations led her to make more explicit connections to the mathematical concepts students needed to learn. Dickes et al. [12] noted that even “as a novice programmer herself with no prior experience in programming, the teacher Emma saw physical enactment of computational commands as a valuable form of sensemaking and encouraged activity design which scaffolded student thinking in similar ways”. Similarly, this current study unpacked and explored whether elementary preservice teacher engagement in these activities might lead them to perceive any potential pedagogical benefits for their future classrooms.

The hope of every preservice teacher program is that students transfer their learning from the college setting to the elementary classroom setting. Bransford et al. [13] cite three kinds of transfers. Vertical transfer is the transfer of skills that are important to achieve another skill such as “writing letters of the alphabet are useful to writing words.” Near transfer refers to “transfer from one school task and a highly similar task” [13]. Lastly, far transfer refers to transfer “from school subjects to non-school settings … (Klausmeier, 1985)” [13]. The importance of transfer is even more critical now, as educators sought to transfer teaching strategies from the classroom setting to the virtual environment during the Covid pandemic and after.

In some ways, studies using technology looked at the degree of near transfer or far transfer. Zha et al. [14] used “a block programming app called Hopskotch” to help students develop computational thinking. Participants were fifteen preservice teachers who were elementary education majors in an educational technology course. Their findings showed that participants scored significantly better on post quizzes than on their pre quizzes. Thus, their use of the technology transferred into computational thinking exhibited in quiz scores. However, far transfer of skills to the elementary classroom can be difficult to measure. The researchers measured preservice teachers’ perceptions about their own ability to transfer learning. Zha et al.’s [14] noted that measures of attitudes showed “borderline” significant improvement in only one item “I doubt that I can solve problems by using computer applications.” Other improvements, though insignificant, included items such as, “I expect to use software in my future educational and teaching work,” “I expect to use computer applications for future projects involving teamwork,” and “I can learn to understand computer concepts” [14]. While some items remained the same, a decrease was seen in the item “I hope that my future career will require the use of computing concepts” [14]. Overall, the findings showed participant changes from being “confused” to “able,” then to “interesting,” and at the end to “excited” [14].

Goal of this research project

This exploratory qualitative research study looked at preservice students’ perceptions about their engagement with various technologies. This was done to determine whether emergent themes or patterns in their engagement could provide insights into preservice teachers’ potential use in their elementary classrooms. This pre-Covid pandemic study could shed light on implementations in the Covid-19 pandemic virtual classroom and on post-pandemic learning in the classroom. The research questions that guided the study were: What are students’ perceptions of their own capabilities and preferences for the technology? What themes and patterns emerge in students’ engagement with the various instructional technology? What patterns emerge in students’ connections to subject content matter and ideas about teaching and learning?

Participants and course overview

Participants were undergraduate preservice elementary education majors enrolled in a required online instructional technology course in an Historically Black College and University (HBCU). Ten (10) students signed consent forms with IRB approval providing permission to use course artefacts. This overview highlights some of the lessons from this instructional technology course. The course began with an introduction to technology use within the elementary school setting, and a look at international and state technology standards. The goal of this introduction was to familiarize students with what more progressive schools were doing in technology and to encourage buy-in for the rest of the course. Students were encouraged to reflect on what they hoped to accomplish in the course and to consider advantages and disadvantages of technology in the classroom. In the next lesson students were introduced to GIS technology for learning using ArcGIS maps [15] and other geospatial technology. ArcGIS contained accompanying lessons, elementary “geoinquiries” [15] written using a 5E lesson format. Then students were asked to explore NASA’s Eyes which is an interactive visualization software [16]. They were to create a lesson using NASA’s Eyes. Students were then encouraged to reflect on the benefits and understandings gained from using geospatial technologies for learning in the discussion board. Next, students were introduced to coding technology. First, they explored Scratch coding using a pre-made 10 step direction lesson from the website and then they created their own scratch project. Then they used the code.org platform and carried out the checklist of activities. Next, they explored two types of simulations and interactive explorations, Phet Simulations and then, an interactive exploration from the Genetic Science Learning Center. They were encouraged to explore first without and then with the guiding questions provided. Other lessons included the use of Snap Circuits and Engineering Design activity to create a lunar lander. Students reflected on each implementation experience in the online discussion board.

Data collection

Data collection included students’ online discussions for each topic. They responded to discussion prompts and to each other’s postings. Since this was an online course, Blackboard was the main platform used. Students also answered pre and post questions for each lesson topic. These questions were grouped into three main categories related to their general perceptions about their own capabilities, overall preferences for the instructional technology, and perceptions about the tasks performed.

The pre and post questions were informed by Hatlevik and Hatlevik [17] research on the various relationships in teachers’ use of Information and Communication Technology (ICT). Hatlevik and Hatlevik [17] collected data from 1158 teachers at 116 Norwegian schools to study associations between teachers’ self-efficacy for using ICT for instructional purposes, and the impact and associations with “lack of facilitation by school management,” [17], collegial collaboration and teachers’ general ICT self-efficacy. Hatlevik and Hatlevik [17] used response categories such as: “1 = Never, 2 = Sometimes and 3 = Often” to look at ICT at school and categories “1 = I do not think I could do this, 2 = I could work out how to do this and 3 = I know how to do this” to look at “general ICT self-efficacy” [17]. Likert categories “1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = agree and 4 = strongly agree” [17] were used to gauge teachers’ beliefs about their ability to prepare lessons, monitor students’ progress, and assess student learning. Similarly, these categories were used to inform the questions in this study, with modifications.

It is important to note that while Likert scale questions were used, this is a qualitative exploratory study, and not a quantitative research study. The Likert scale questionnaires were used to provide insights into students’ perceptions and to enhance the qualitative narrative and vice versa.

Data analysis

Data analysis used basic statistics to examine the Likert pre and post questions to gauge changes in students’ perspectives. Only the means and standard deviations for students who completed both pre and post questionnaires were used. Thus, not all data were used. The basic statistics do not provide reliable or generalizable data but rather triangulates the qualitative data and situates this very small sample in a larger context, should this be done on a larger scale. Discussions for students who consented were organized into conceptual ordered tables [18] and then uploaded into NVivo data analysis software. Data were coded for emergent themes using different types of codes. Simultaneous coding was used. According to Saldaña [19] simultaneous coding refers to the use of two or more different codes for the same data unit [19]. Codes were informed by the research questions and the literature, and analytic memos were used to generate codes for data that provided similarity or differences in meanings. Codes were also informed by research on schema theory to explore connections to learning and transfer.

Theoretical framework

Schema theory was used to explain the emergent codes and themes generated. Schema theory is a theory of remembering used predominantly in Mathematics to explain how students organize new knowledge in light of their prior learning and experiences [20]. Marshall [20] created a unique way of analyzing schema that encouraged flexibility in understanding student learning. According to Marshall “a schema is a vehicle of memory, allowing organization of an individual’s similar experiences in such a way that the individual can easily recognize additional experiences that are similar, discriminating between those that are dissimilar” [20]. According to Marshall an individual’s schema possesses form (architectural features) and substance (psychological features). The form of a schema refers to its storage, networks, connectivity, flexibility, variability in size, and embeddedness. The psychological features of schemata include the construction of the schema, what is given attention to, repetitions, uniqueness, abstractions, and content variability [20].

Quinlan [21--23] has used schema theory extensively to analyze and explain student learning for example, during discussions requiring multimedia data [22]. Similarly, Quinlan [23] used these features to look at the extent of transfer of learning to students’ final assignments. However, in this particular study, schema is used mainly to inform and explain the repetitious and simultaneous codes generated rather than to generate codes.

Limitations

Not all students filled out both pre and post questions for each topic, so these numbers varied. The Likert scale results are not statistically significant nor generalizable but are used to triangulate the narratives in this exploratory qualitative research study. The discussion narratives were coded for emergent themes rather than look at individual cases where narratives triangulated with the survey. The results looked at overall perceptions and did not account for repetitions by individuals for different tasks. Therefore, it is possible that one or a few students’ ideas were used repeatedly in the narratives. Effort was made to ensure that the narratives reflected different students.

Results from pre and post questions

Emergent themes in students’ discussions

This section highlights the emergent themes from students’ discussions. The results were from tasks that explicitly encouraged students to reflect and from tasks where other ideas emerged. This section was arranged in order of frequency of occurrence with the most important themes presented first. The connections to the themes and frameworks are shown in bold and italics.

Transfer

While this data for this exploratory qualitative research was collected prior to the Covid-pandemic, unpacking the role of technology before the onset of the pandemic, both in the K-12 classroom and in the preservice instructional technology course, is important in understanding the onset of learning using technology during and after the Covid-pandemic. All teachers were expected to transfer their skills as in-person classroom teachers to the new mode of teaching that required different types of expertise in instructional technology. Some were successful and others were not so successful. Bransford et al. [13] note that “knowledge that is overly contextualized can reduce transfer; abstract representations of knowledge can help promote transfer” [13]. This leads us to wonder what knowledge about instructional technology leads to the most effective transfer of skills from the physical to the virtual K-12 classroom. While Albion’s [24] literature review show that self-efficacy beliefs are important indicators for how prepared teachers are to implement technology, Albion points to the greater challenge for teachers with more traditional views compared with those with more student-centered views. According to Bransford et al. [13] transfer is an active and dynamic process and not a passive one and depends on an individual’s initial learning. This supports the need to consider both preservice students’ and in-service teachers’ prior experiences with technology and hence their prior schemas. As this study shows, preservice students abstracted from prior experiences as far back as elementary school. They abstracted from vicarious experiences when they observed their own teachers use technology for behavior management. They discriminated between the use of technology to learn or for other purposes.

However, while preservice teachers highlighted their own engagements during the activities and discussions, their perceptions about their own capabilities and preferences at the end of the activity tells another story in their post responses. Their initial discussion was consistent with what they gave attention to and were influenced by in the task. They abstracted from what was incongruent with their new experiences. Thus, repetitions in their experiences are important for effective use of instructional technology, to help them develop flexibility, build a schema, and develop “abstract representations” [13] related to technology implementation. Transfer takes time. The teacher in Dickes et al. [12] study moved from observing the researchers implement to equal co-designing, then to lead instructor and then to sole instructor of her class. Transfer is indicated in her development of agency and her perceptions of the usefulness to students.

Overall preferences for instructional technology

This need for repeated meaningful experiences with technology is underscored by the findings on students’ preferences. When asked about overall preference for instructional technology preservice teachers more easily aligned their responses to their role as a teacher than their role as a learner. Among their preferences were Inspiration, Coding, Scratch, Snap Circuits, and Simulations. Overall, their preferences seemed to correspond more to whether or not they saw themselves using it in the classroom than whether or not they felt it was easier to learn. The findings underscore the importance of introducing prospective teachers to a variety of technologies and methods of integrating technology. Szeto and Cheng [25] looked at preservice primary and secondary teachers’ patterns of integration of technology within different subject areas and found that all preservice teachers integrated Youtube across all subject areas. The other technologies their preservice teachers included were PowerPoint, ebooks, and CD/DVD. The frequent use of these technologies could be indicative of teachers’ preferences, thus supporting the need for a wider experience.

Implications for the instructional technology course

That the instructional technology experiences of Black preservice undergraduate elementary education majors were negative while in elementary school should not be a total surprise. This expectation and observation, particularly for Black students informed the approach to this instructional technology course. The assumptions are supported by the research that shows that Black students’ K-12 learning experiences is different from that of White students. Boykin and Noguera [26] point out that Black students are often left to work alone in isolation. Thus, the researcher began with the assumption that technology is often used a babysitting and behavior management tool particularly for Black students. This is supported by the preservice students’ narratives about their own personal experiences. It is important to note that these personal experiences are emergent codes from students’ reflections.

Instructional technology courses for elementary education majors should go beyond preparing teachers to use class organization platforms or video communications and conferencing platforms, which are school-specific, and which they could learn in professional development workshops with their school districts. Flick and Bell [27] recommend that technology be used to understand science rather than be decontextualized, to allow students to experience the unique features of the technology and to encourage inquiry. The use of technology to help students develop spatial learning is an important consideration [7, 8]. However, extreme caution should be taken to determine what this means for classrooms with predominantly Black students. Seemingly good intentions could easily replace instruction with video games which students could play on their own at home and which do not require a classroom teacher to monitor. Thus, with any good practice it is important to ask what this means for students of color and for implementations in classrooms with predominantly Black students.

Conclusion

Future studies should explore the prior technology experiences of both preservice and in-service teachers. Prior experiences influence teachers’ preparedness to effectively use technology and can be indicators of potential use. Furthermore, considerations should be given to the implementations of standards and goals for learning to determine the extent to which effective use of technology is equitable, promote higher level thinking, or is used for behavior management with students of color.

This study is important in providing a frame of reference for the nature of thinking that might similarly influence today’s education progressions using instructional technology both in the K-12 setting and beyond. With the current mobilizations of various platforms for learning during post-Covid pandemic, it is important to consider the extent to which best practices in learning and in instructional technology influences current trends and current saturations.