Journals / IOJET / 2021 / Cilt: 8 - Sayı: 4

THE EFFECTS OF TECHNOLOGY SUPPORTED UbD BASED INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN TRAINING ON STUDENT TEACHERS’ TECHNOLOGICAL PEDAGOGICAL CONTENT KNOWLEDGE AND LEARNING – TEACHING CONCEPTIONS

Journal
IOJET
Pages
2636–2664
Publication Date
2022-10-18
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Within the professional development program's scope, it is suggested that the researchers should conduct projects, workshops, and research courses on the development of student teachers' competencies in UbD-based instructional design studies.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The present study aimed to improve student teachers' technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) and learning and teaching conceptions through technology supported UbD-based instructional design training.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In the study, 215 student teachers in 25 different groups participated in UbD-based instructional design training that includes poetry design, PowerPoint design, video research and asking questions, scenario-based visual aided learning activity design, and UbD unit design tasks by Google Classroom.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Within the professional development program's scope, it is suggested that the researchers should conduct projects, workshops, and research courses on the development of student teachers' competencies in UbD-based instructional design studies.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

The present study aimed to improve student teachers' technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) and learning and teaching conceptions through technology supported UbD-based instructional design training. It employed an action research design that comprises quantitative and qualitative research processes. In the study, 215 student teachers in 25 different groups participated in UbD-based instructional design training that includes poetry design, PowerPoint design, video research and asking questions, scenario-based visual aided learning activity design, and UbD unit design tasks by Google Classroom. As data collection tools, TPACK self-efficacy beliefs scale and learning and teaching conceptions scales, and collective written diaries were used. Statistical findings showed that UbD-based instructional design contributed to a significant improvement in student teachers' TPACK and constructivist teacher conceptions while a decrease in behaviorist teacher conceptions. Content analysis results pointed out that the experiences and effects of UbD on student teachers were discovered under five themes: development of (a) TPACK, (b) constructivist teacher understanding, (c) lifelong learning experiences, (d) emotional orientation (e) the restrictions of UbD based instructional design. Within the professional development program's scope, it is suggested that the researchers should conduct projects, workshops, and research courses on the development of student teachers' competencies in UbD-based instructional design studies.

🔖

Cite This Article

Uluçınar, U. (2022). THE EFFECTS OF TECHNOLOGY SUPPORTED UbD BASED INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN TRAINING ON STUDENT TEACHERS’ TECHNOLOGICAL PEDAGOGICAL CONTENT KNOWLEDGE AND LEARNING – TEACHING CONCEPTIONS. IOJET, Cilt: 8 - Sayı: 4, 2636–2664. https://ajindex.com/articles/123789

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (12)

  1. Abbitt, J. (2011). An investigation of the relationship between self-efficacy beliefs about technology integration and technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) among preservice teachers. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 27(4), 134-143.
  2. Altun, H. & Usta, E. (2019). The effects of programming education planned with TPACK framework on learning outcomes. Participatory Educational Research (PER), 6(2), 26-36.
  3. Aypay, A. (2011). Öğretme ve öğrenme anlayişlari ölçeği’nin Türkiye uyarlamasi ve epistemolojik inançlar ile öğretme ve öğrenme anlayişlari arasindaki ilişkiler. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri, 11(1), 7-29.
  4. Baran, E., Chuang, H.H. & Thompson, A. (2011). TPACK: An emerging research and development tool for teacher educators. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 10(4), 370-377.
  5. Boozer, A. (2014). Planning backwards to go forward: Examining pre-service teachers’ use of backward design to plan and deliver instruction. (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation), Arizona State University. Bottery, M. & Wright, N. (1997). Impoverishing a sense of professionalism: Who's to blame?. Educational Management & Administration, 25(1), 7-24.
  6. Bottery, M. (1997). Teacher professionalization through action research—possibility or pipe‐dream?, Teachers and Teaching, 3(2), 273-292.
  7. Cho, J. (2005). Thinking about backward curriculum design. The Journal of Curriculum Studies, 23(1), 63-94.
  8. Choi, Y. (2012). Backward design of social studies assessment for the enhancement of social studies teachers’ expertise. Research in Social Studies Education, 19(1), 85-100.
  9. Cooper, H. (2010). Research synthesis and meta-analysis: A step-by step approach: 2 (Applied Social Research Methods). SAGE. Cox, M. W. (2011). The effects of behaviorist and constructivist instruction on student performance in college-level remedial mathematics. (Unpublished Doctorate Thesis), Texas A&M University. Hahs-Vaughn, D. L. & Yanowitz, K. L. (2009). Who Is conducting teacher research?. The Journal of Educational Research, 102(6), 415-426.
  10. Durdu, L., & Dag, F. (2017). Pre-service teachers’ TPACK development and conceptions through a TPACK-based course. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 42(11).150-171.
  11. Graff, N. (2011). An effective and agonizing way to learn: Preparation for planning curriculum. Teacher Education Quarterly, 38(3), 151-168.
  12. Guilott, M. C., Wigby, K., Owen, L. A., Parker, G. (2020). Making learning stick: Teaching for transfer ensures students can appl