THE INVESTIGATION OF TPACK LEVEL AND THE IMPLICATION TOWARDS LECTURES’
COMPETENCE IN ONLINE TEACHING DURING COVID-19 IN PRIVATE HIGHER EDUCATION JAMBI
(Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling)
DISSERTATION
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Doctoral Degree in Education, Post Graduate Program,
University Jambi
WRITTEN BY RESI SILVIA NIM: P3A119010
EDUCATION DOCTORAL PROGRAM POSTGRADUATE
JAMBI UNIVERSITY 2022
DECLARATION OF ORIGINALITY
I, Resi Silvia, P3A119010, clarifies that this dissertation is my own work and has not been submitted previously in any forms for another degree or graduate level at any university or other institute or tertiary education. Information derived from the published and unpublished work of others has been acknowledged in the text and list of references given in the bibliography.
Jambi, December 2022
Resi Silvia
NIM. P3A119010
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I would like to express my deepest grateful to Allah SWT, the Almighty, the Most Merciful (the eternal be sought of all for blessing), who has led me to the completion of this dissertation entitled The Investigation of TPACK Level and the Implication toward Lecturers’ Competence in Online Teaching During Covid- 19 in Private Higher Education Jambi.. Then, invocation and greetings are always sent to the great prophet, Muhammad SAW. My thanks to all my family, my mother, sister, dan brother be encouraging me in my daily life through a period of study and working on dissertation.
I also would like to thank all of those who have contributed in different ways to this dissertation. Therefore, in this occasion, I thank to Eddy Haryanto, M.Sc.Ed, M.PP., Ph.D and Dr. Dra. Rosinta Norawati, MA as my supervisor who have given a great deal of continuous guidance, valuable advice, meaningful contributions, time and help in completing this dissertation. Then, my special acknowledgements are addressed to Urip Sulistiyo, S.Pd., M.Ed., Ph.D, Dr. Ella Masita, S.Pd., M.Pd., M.Sc, Dr. Mukhlash Abrar, S.S., M.Hum as the contributors and examiners who provided comments, contribution and constructive feedback for a better dissertation. My special thanks to Prof. Dr. Drs. Ekawarna, M.Psi as Head of Doctor of Education Study Program and provided valuable advice and feedback on this dissertation.
My appreciation also goes to all my colleagues for best support and prayers that are always given. This dissertation will hopefully be beneficial to those in need as well as the advancement of science and technology
Jambi, Desember 2022
Resi Silvia
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Pages
COVER ... i
DECLARATION OF ORIGINALITY ... ii
APPROVAL ... iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ... iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS ... vi
LIST OF TABLES ... xi
LIST OF FIGURES ... xii
ABSTRACT ... xiii
CHAPTER I ... 1
INTRODUCTION ... 12
1.1 The Background of the Study ... 12
1.2 The Problems of the Study ... 17
1.3 The Objectives of the Study ... 19
1.4 Hypothesis ... 21
1.5 The Significances of the Study ... 23
1.6 Limitations of the Study ... 24
CHAPTER II ... 26
LITERATURE REVIEW ... 26
2.1 Theories of Distance Learning ... 26
2.1.1 Advantages of Distance Learning ... 31
2.1.2 Disadvantages of Distance Learning ... 33
2.2 Overview of Technology as Tools in Teaching ... 36
2.3 Overview of Technological Pedadogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) Framework ... 52
2.3.1 Content Knowledge (CK) ... 57
2.3.2 Pedagogical Knowledge (PK) ... 57
2.3.3 Technological Knowledge (TK) ... 58
2.3.4 Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK) ... 59
2.3.5 Technological Pedagogical Knowledge (TPK) ... 59
2.3.6 Technological Content Knowledge (TCK) ... 60
2.3.7 Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) ... 61
2.4 Assessing TPACK Competency ... 63
2.5 Overview of Competence ... 68
2.5.1 The Concept of Competence... 68
2.5.2 Types of Competence ... 71
2.6 Overview of Lecturer ... 81
2.6.1 Lecturers’ Competence ... 83
2.6.2 Standard Competency of Lecturer ... 91
2.6.3 Developing Lecturer’s Competence ... 92
2.7 Overview of Content Development in Online Learning ... 96
2.8 Overview of Assessment in Online Learning ... 98
2.8.1 Assessment Method in Online Learning ... 99
2.8.2 Assessment Challenges in Online Learning ... 100
2.9 COVID-19 Pandemic and Education ... 102
2.9.1 Impact of Covid-19 Pandemic on Global Education ... 102
2.9.2 COVID-19 Pandemic and Higher Education... 105
2.9.3 Remote Teaching During Covid-19 Pandemic ... 109
2.9.4 Continuity Education System during COVID-19 ... 113
2.10 Perception ... 119
2.10.1 Definition of Perception ... 119
2.10.2 Factors Influencing the Perception ... 120
2.11 Previous Related Studies ... 122
2.12 Framework of the Study ... 130
CHAPTER III ... 132
METHOD AND PROCEDURES ... 132
3.1 Research Design ... 132
3.2 Variable of the Study ... 133
3.3 Operational Definitions ... 133
3.4 Population and Sample ... 135
3.5 Technique for Collecting the Data ... 137
3.6 Validity and Reliability ... 140
3.7 Techniques for Analyzing Data ... 142
3.7.1. Data Reduction ... 142
3.7.2. Data Analysis ... 143
3.7.2.1. Descriptive Analysis ... 143
3.7.2.2. Description of Research Variables ... 143
3.7.2.3. Structural Equation Modeling SEM Analysis ... 143
3.7.3. Drawing Conclusion ... 146
CHAPTER IV ... 147
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS ... 147
4.1 Findings of the Study ... 147
4.1.1 Demographic Data ... 147
4.1.2 Statistics Description of the Questionnaire ... 149
4.2 Data Analysis ... 155
4.2.1 Evaluation of Outner Model as Measurement Model ... 156
4.2.1.1 Indicator Reliability ... 156
4.2.1.2 Internal Consistency Reliability ... 156
4.2.1.3 Convergent Validity ... 157
4.2.1.4 Discriminant Validity ... 158
4.2.1.5 Cross Loading ... 164
4.2.2 Evaluation of Structural Model or Inner Model ... 167
4.2.2.1 Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) ... 167
4.2.2.2 Coefficient of Determination ( R2) ... 168
4.2.2.3 Cross-Validated Redundancy (Q2)... 169
4.2.2.4 Statistical Test of T/P Value ... 169
4.2.3 The Differences of Each Variable in terms of Age, Gender, Education Background and Teaching Experience ... 173
4.2.3.1 The Differences of Each Variable in Terms of Age ... 173
4.2.3.2 The Differences of Each Variable in terms of Gender ... 175
4.2.3.3 The Differences of Each Variable in terms of Education Background 176 4.2.3.4 The Differences of Each Variable in terms of Teaching Experience 178 4.3 Hypothesis Testing ... 180
4.3.1 The Relationship among TPACK Components ... 180
4.3.2 TPACK Level and Lecturers’ Competence on Online Teaching During Covid-19 in Terms of Age ... 181
4.3.3 TPACK Level and Lecturers’ Competence on Online Teaching During Covid-19 in Terms of Gender ... 182
4.3.4 TPACK Level and Lecturers’ Competence on Online Teaching During Covid-19 in Terms of Teaching Experience ... 182
4.3.5 TPACK level and lecturers’ competence on online teaching during covid-19 in terms of education level... 183
4.4 Discussions ... 184
4.4.1 The Lecturers’ Level of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) ... 184
4.4.2 The Lecturers’ Level of Competence in term of Planning and Preparing, Learning Process, and Learning Evaluation ... 187
4.4.2.1 The Relationship among TPACK Components ... 189
4.4.2.2 TPACK Level and Lecturers’ Competence on Online Teaching During Covid-19 in Terms of Age, Gender, Teaching Experience and Level of Education ... 194
4.5 Limitation of the Research ... 197
4.6 Novelty of the Research ... 197
CHAPTER V ... 199
CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS ... 199
5.1 Conclusions ... 199
5.2 Implication ... 203
5.3 Suggestions ... 205
BIBLIOGRAPHY ... Error! Bookmark not defined.
APPENDIXES ... 236
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Definitions of the Domains of the TPACK Framework ... 45
Table 2. Private Higher Education in Jambi ... 125
Table 3. Lecturers’ Competence Questionnaire Specification ... 127
Table 4. Lecturers’ TPACK Questionnaire Specification ... 128
Table 5. Demographic Data of Lecturers... 136
Tabel 6. The Statistics Description of Questioner and Level of Variable ... 140
Table 7. Construct Reliability and Validity ... 146
Table 8. Discriminant Validity (Fornell-Larcker) ... 150
Table 9. Discriminat Validity: Heterotrait-Monotrait Ratio (HTMT) ... 152
Table 10. Discriminant Validity and Cross Loading ... 153
Table 11. R-Square ... 157
Table 12. Q2 Square ... 158
Tabel 13. Structural Model Assessment ... 161
Tabel 14. The Level of TPACK and Competence in term of Age ... 162
Tabel 15. The Level of TPACK and Competence in term of Gender ... 164
Tabel 16. The Level of TPACK and Competence in term of Education Background ... 165
Tabel 17. The Level of TPACK and Competence in term of Teaching Experience ... 167
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure1. The TPACK Framework and its Knowledge Components ... 42
Figure 2. Framework of the Research ... 119
Figure 3. The Graphic of Each Variable ... 143
Figure 4. The Structural Testing Model Result ... 148
Figure 5. The Structural Testing Model Result ... 160
Figure 6. Graphic of the Variables in term of Age ... 163
Figure 7. Graphic of the Variables in term of Gender ... 164
Figure 8. Graphic of the Variables in term of Education Level ... 166
Figure 9. Graphic of the Variable in term of Teaching Experience ... 168
ABSTRACT
Silvia, Resi. P3A119010. The Investigation of TPACK Level and the Implication toward Lecturers’ Competence in Online Teaching During Covid-19 in Private Higher Education Jambi. Promotor:
Eddy Haryanto, M.Sc.Ed, M.PP., Ph.D., Co-promotor: Dr. Dra.
Rosinta Norawati, MA
Teaching and learning process is quite difficult to do since Covid-19 pandemic has rapidly influenced the nature of teaching and learning across all educational aspects around the world, especially in Indonesia. There are lots of competencies that lecturers must have, plus in this current pandemic that forces every teacher to master technology, one of those is TPACK (Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge). This study was conducted to investigate the level of lecturers’
TPACK and their competence in teaching and learning on online environment during Covid-19 pandemic. It also aimed to explain the association among variables of TPACK and competence. This study was conducted for three months from April to June 2021 utilizing survey as a data collection method. The population of the study comprised all lecturers in all private colleges in Jambi City. The design of the study involved one hundred and seventy-one lecturers (n=171) in private higher education in Jambi. The data were obtained through TPACK questionnaire and competence questionnaire. ANOVA and SEM were used to analyze the level of TPACK and competence. All aspects of TPACK and lecturers’ competences categorized in the high category (mean score > 4.00). This study showed that the relationships of all TPACK components were complex involving some significant hypotheses. The results showed that CK significantly affect TCK, TK significantly affect TCK, TK significantly affect TPK, PK significantly affect TPK, TCK significantly affect TPACK, TPK significantly affect TPACK. Findings from the study also revealed that the level of lecturers’
TPACK and performance varied in terms of age, gender, teaching experience, and the level of education. In term of gender, there was significant difference of lecturers’ competence. In addition, it was reported that there were significant differences of scale scores of TK, PK, TCK and TPK in term of level of education.
The finding of the hypothesis test shows most latent variables gave contribution positively. The results of this study help shed light on this new area of research.
Keywords- TPACK, Technology, Competence, Structural Equation Model (SEM), Covid-19 Pandemic
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION
This chapter discusses briefly the background of the study, the problems of the study, the objectives of the study, the significances of the study, and limitations of the study.
1.1 The Background of the Study
One component of education which has very important and strategic role in improving the quality of education is lecturers. Lecturers play very important role for maximizing efficient function of educational system and for enhancing the quality of learning. Lecturers also have important influence on their students’
academic achievement. In Indonesia, the important role of lecturer is outlined in the Act of Republic Indonesia Number 14 of 2005 on Teachers and Lecturers. It is stated that lecturers are professional educators with the primary task of educating, teaching, guiding, directing, coaching, assessing, and evaluating students. It is worth saying that lecturers play a major role in the development of education. Lecturers also determine the success of students, particularly in relation to teaching and learning. In addition, lecturers have great influence in shaping the outcome of the education.
According to Indonesian Law on teacher and lecturer (No.14, 2005), competency is described as a range of knowledge and behavior which must be possessed by teacher or lecturer in order to do their duties. Lecturer competency incudes their knowledge, skills and behavior which help or enhance the
student. One’s competence should include communication skills, ability to learn, conduct social interactions, problem solving, working with ICT or other support tools, and so on (Zeravikova, 2015). It can be concluded that the lecturer is professional educators who have the responsibility for containing the knowledge, skills, and professional ability associated with efforts to educate the students in all aspects, whether spiritual, emotional, intellectual, physical, and other aspects.
In addition, Richard (1998) states that one of pedagogical content knowledge which should be prepared by lecturers is make appropriate use of technology. In addition, based on Education Virginia Department (2012), one of the competence standards of lecturer is lecturer is able to use instructional technology to enhance student learning. The use of technology has become an important part of the learning process in and out of the class. Technology enables leacturers to adapt classroom activities, thus enhancing the learning process.
The transition of the real teaching-learning process into the virtual classroom in the classroom context is the culmination of the government's attempts to keep COVID-19 from spreading to university populations and local communities. As a result, the teaching and learning processes in various Indonesian regions (rural and urban) have been transformed to online learning.
The online learning indicates that it is critical for lecturers to understand technology, pedagogy, and education at this time. Lecturers can remotely teach students using technologies that allow synchronous and asynchronous communication with the entire class, group, and individual student or youth;
access to learning resources; and collaborative and creative activities. In line with
the minister of education's decision regulating changes in the learning system from home, every college is currently carrying out learning from offline to online.
Nowadays the growing corona virus pandemic compelled campus officials to halt all lectures and most in-person classes as of March 2020, most faculty and lecturers were caught off guard. Few had experience teaching online courses.
Most had to scramble to learn how to deliver lectures via teleconferencing services and to pick up tricks from colleagues about how to be remotely engaging. This shift into virtual classrooms is the way to prevent COVID-19 from spreading to communities.
Therefore, at the time of the Covid19 pandemic teaching and learning process is quite difficult to do since this pandemic has rapidly influenced the nature of teaching and learning across all educational aspects around the world.
There are lots of competencies that lecturers must have, plus in this current pandemic that forces every educator to master technology, one of those is TPACK (Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge).
According to the TPACK concept, Harris, J., et al (2009), technology incorporation is viewed as a complicated multidimensional mechanism that necessitates an appreciation of the mutual complex interaction between three knowledge bases: pedagogy, content, and technology. The TPACK structure contains seven structures. They are as follows: (1) Content knowledge (CK), also known as subject matter knowledge, (2) Technology knowledge (TK), also identified as knowledge of different technology, (3) Pedagogical knowledge (PK),
content knowledge (TCK), that refers to subject knowledge provided by the use of technology, (5) Technological pedagogical knowledge (TPK), which corresponds to knowledge about the use of technology to apply variety of teaching methods, and (6) Pedagogical content knowledge (PCK), which relates to knowledge of teaching methods for various forms of subject material, and (7) Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK), defined as knowledge of how to use technology to apply teaching methods for various types of subject material.
Several researches on educators’ pedagogical knowledge and TPACK have been conducted. In 2016, Yudi et al. published Indonesian EFL Teachers' Application of TPACK in In-Service Education Teaching Practices, and Aniq and Drajati published Investigating EFL teachers' perspectives on their TPACK development: how EFL teachers perceive seven domains on the TPACK system in 2019. Currently, there are only a few studies that can map the relationship between the seven factors through structural equation modeling (SEM) (Chai et al., 2013; Koehler et al., 2013). One study reported that CK and PCK did not predict teacher TPACK positively, while other factors predicted TPACK positively (Koehler et al., 2013). Other research shows that the direct positive predictors of the TPACK of pre-service teachers are TCK, PCK and TPK, with TK, CK, and PK only having an indirect effect (Chai et al., 2013). Other studies reported that PK, CK, TK and PCK did not predict TPACK positively, while other factors had a positive effect (Dong et al., 2015). The difference in the results from these studies suggests that the mapping of the model structure of the factors
forming TPACK under various conditions may not be the same, which implies that educators need to understand the distinguishing effects of TPACK development in different groups. Several studies discussed the relationship between TPACK and the use of technology integration in the teaching and learning process.
The use of technology in higher education is no longer an option but a core requirement of todays’ teaching and learning process during Covid-19 pandemic.
The competence of lecturers is also expected to be more innovative and professional in order adapt to and anticipate the rapid changes in technology and changes made by the covid-19 pandemic. The discrepancy between what they have to do in the teaching and learning process during covid-19 pandemic and the real cases of them in field is the main point which became the reason for conducting research at the Colleges in Jambi to know the level of TPACK and lecturers’ competence and also the differences of TPACK level and lecturers’
competence in term of age, gender, level of education, and teaching experience in online teaching during the covid-19 pandemic in online teaching and learning during Covid-19 pandemic.
1.2 The Problems of the Study
The following research questions are raised to guide the study:
1. What is the lecturers’ level of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK)?
2. What is the lecturers’ competence during covid-19 in term of planning and preparing, learning process, and learning evaluation?
3. Is there any relationship between lecturers’ Content Knowledge (CK) and the lecturers’ Technological Content Knowledge (TCK) on online teaching and learning?
4. Is there any relationship between lecturers’ Technological Knowledge (TK) and the lecturers’ Technological Content Knowledge (TCK) on online teaching and learning?
5. Is there any relationship between lecturers’ Technological Knowledge (TK) and the lecturers’ Technological Pedagogical Knowledge (TPK) on online teaching and learning?
6. Is there any relationship between lecturers’ Pedagogical Knowledge (PK) and the lecturers’ Technological Pedagogical Knowledge (TPK) on online teaching and learning?
7. Is there any relationship between lecturers’ Technological Content Knowledge (TCK) and the lecturers’ Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) on online teaching and learning?
8. Is there any relationship between lecturers’ Technological Pedagogical Knowledge (TPK) and the lecturers’ Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) on online teaching and learning?
9. Is there any relationship between lecturers’ Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) and the lecturers’ competence on online teaching and learning?
10. Is there any significant difference of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) level and lecturers’ competence in terms of age?
11. Is there any significant difference of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) level and lecturers’ competence in terms of gender?
12. Is there any significant difference of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) level and lecturers’ competence in terms of teaching experience?
13. Is there any significant difference of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) level and lecturers’ competence in terms of education level?
1.3 The Objectives of the Study
Based on the problems mentioned above, the objectives that needed to be investigated in this study are to examine:
1. The extents of lecturers apply technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) through online teaching and learning.
2. The extent of lecturers provide online lessons, introduce new learning content, and conduct online assessment through online environment.
3. The extent of the lecturers’ level of Content Knowledge (CK) impact on the lecturers’ Technological Content Knowledge (TCK) on online teaching and learning
4. The extent of the lecturers’ level of Technological Knowledge (TK) impact on the lecturers’ Technological Content Knowledge (TCK) on online teaching and learning
5. The extent of the lecturers’ level of Technological Knowledge (TK) impact on the lecturers’ Technological Pedagogical Knowledge (TPK) on online teaching and learning
6. The extent of the lecturers’ level of Pedagogical Knowledge (PK) impact on the lecturers’ Technological Pedagogical Knowledge (TPK) on online teaching and learning
7. The extent of the lecturers’ level of Technological Content Knowledge (TCK) impact on the lecturers’ Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) on online teaching and learning
8. The extent of the lecturers’ level of Technological Pedagogical Knowledge (TPK) impact on the lecturers’ Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) on online teaching and learning
9. The extent of the lecturers’ level of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) impact on the lecturers competence on online teaching and learning.
10. The differences of TPACK level and lecturers’ competence on online teaching during covid-19 in terms of age
11. The differences of TPACK level and lecturers’ competence on online teaching during covid-19 in terms of gender
12. The differences of TPACK level and lecturers’ competence on online teaching during covid-19 in terms of teaching experience
13. The differences of TPACK level and lecturers’ competence on online teaching during covid-19 in terms of education level
1.4 Hypothesis
1. Ha : The lecturers’ level of Content Knowledge (CK) impact on the lecturers’
Technological Content Knowledge (TCK) in online teaching and learning Ho : The lecturers’ level of Content Knowledge (CK) does not impact on the lecturers’ Technological Content Knowledge (TCK) in online teaching and learning
2. Ha : The lecturers’ level of Technological Knowledge (TK) impact on the lecturers’ Technological Content Knowledge (TCK) in online teaching and learning
Ho : The lecturers’ level of Technological Knowledge (TK) does not impact on the lecturers’ Technological Content Knowledge (TCK) in online teaching and learning
3. Ha : The lecturers’ level of Technological Knowledge (TK) impact on the lecturers’ Technological Pedagogical Knowledge (TPK) in online teaching and learning
Ho : The lecturers’ level of Technological Knowledge (TK) does not impact on the lecturers’ Technological Pedagogical Knowledge (TPK) in online teaching and learning
4. Ha : The lecturers’ level of Pedagogical Knowledge (PK) impact on the lecturers’ Technological Pedagogical Knowledge (TPK) in online teaching and learning
Ho : The lecturers’ level of Pedagogical Knowledge (PK) does not impact on the lecturers’ Technological Pedagogical Knowledge (TPK) in online teaching and learning
5. Ha : The lecturers’ level of Technological Content Knowledge (TCK) impact on the lecturers’ Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) in online teaching and learning
Ho : The lecturers’ level of Technological Content Knowledge (TCK) does not impact on the lecturers’ Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) in online teaching and learning
6. Ha : The lecturers’ level of (TPK) impact on the lecturers’ Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) in online teaching and learning Ho : The lecturers’ level of (TPK) impact on the lecturers’ Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) in online teaching and learning 7. Ha : The lectures’ level of TPACK impact on the lecturer's competence in
online teaching and learning
Ho : The lecturers’ level of TPACK does not impact on the lecturers’
competence in online teaching and learning
8. Ha : There is significant difference of TPACK level and lecturers’ competence on online learning in terms of age
Ho : There is no significant difference of TPACK level and lecturers’
competence in terms of age
9. Ha : There is significant difference of TPACK level and lecturers’ competence in terms of gender
Ho : There is no significant difference of TPACK level and lecturers’
competence in terms of gender
10. Ha : There is significant difference of TPACK level and lecturers’ competence in terms of teaching experience
Ho : There is no significant difference of TPACK level and lecturers’
competence in terms of teaching experience
11. Ha : There is significant difference of TPACK level and lecturers’ competence in terms of education level
Ho : There is no significant difference of TPACK level and lecturers’
competence in term of education level
1.5 The Significances of the Study
This research is mainly intended to examine the extent of lectures provide online lessons by applying TPACK, introduce new learning content, conduct teaching and learning process, conduct online assessments throught online environment in teaching and learning process during covid-19 pandemic. It will be beneficial not only for the lecturers but also the teachers and the government.
The result of the research is expected to be able to give some advantages classified as follows. For the researcher, this research is expected to give a good understanding about online education and its effects on the teaching and learning process during covid-19 pandemic. The results of the research are expected to be significant considerations in enhancing the quality of teaching and learning process during covid-19 pandemic.
In addition, this study also sharpens the inquiry of the researcher in doing research. For the lecturers, this research will provide them some basic information about online education program. The covid-19 pandemic will likely continue presenting new way that come up in the course of routine virtual education. The shift from online classes back to in-person learning may create disruptions of its own. Hopefully, these phases of trouble shooting can provide universities, lectures and students the opportunity to practice adaptability, patience and resilience. And hopefully, this study will serve as preparation for future challenges that come with the next epidemic, pandemic and other disaster.
1.6 Limitations of the Study
Assumed from the research background above, researcher focuses on lecturers’ Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) and lecturers’ competencies on online teaching and learning during the covid-19 pandemic in private higher education in Jambi City. Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) framework is based on Shulman (1986) construct of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) and is defined to seven constructs of TPACK following Schmidt et al. (2009): technology knowledge (TK), content knowledge (CK), pedagogical knowledge (PK), pedagogical content knowledge (PCK), technological content knowledge (TCK), technological pedagogical knowledge (TPK), and technical pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK).
The competence of lectures in this study is measured based on the following aspects: (1) Ability to formulate the objective of learning, (2) Ability to
organize the material of learning, (3) Planning of effective learning process, (4) Selecting of source and media of learning, (5) Starting of effective learning, (6) Mastery of the learning material, (7) Implementing of approach and strategy of learning, (8) Applying of source and media of learning, (9) Stimulating and maintaining of student involvement, (10) Applying appropriate and proper language in communication of learning, (11) Closing of effective learning, (12) Designing of instrument for evaluation, (13) Applying strategy and method of evaluation, and (14) Applying the feedback.
CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW
The chapter discusses the overview of Distance Learning, Technology as Tools in Teaching, TPACK, Lecturer’ Competence, Content Development in Online Learning, Assessment in Online Learning, Covid-19 Pandemic and Education, Previous Related Studies and Framework of the Study.
2.1 Theories of Distance Learning
Just as no single learning theory has emerged for instruction in general, the same is true for online education. A number of theories have evolved, most of which derive from the major learning theories discussed previously (Picciano, 2017). In this section, several theories are examined. Terry Anderson (2011) examined the possibility of building a theory of online education, starting with the assumption that it would be difficult, and perhaps impossible task. He approached this undertaking from a distance education perspective, having spent much of his career at Athabasca University, the major higher education distance education provider in Canada. While he acknowledged that many theorists and practitioners consider online learning as “a subset of learning in general” (Anderson, 2011), he also stated that online learning as a subset of distance education has always been concerned with provision of access to educational experience that is, at least more flexible in time and in space as campus-based education (Anderson, 2011).
Anderson considered a number of theories and models but focused on the well-respected work of Bransford Brown, and Cocking (1999) who posited that
effective learning environments are framed within the convergence of four overlapping lenses: community-centeredness, knowledge-centeredness, learner- centeredness, and assessment centeredness. These lenses provided the foundational framework for Anderson’s approach to building an online education theory, as he examined in detail the characteristics and facilities that the Internet provides with regards to each of the four lenses. Second, he noted that the Internet had evolved from a text-based environment to one in which all forms of media are supported and readily available. He also accurately commented that the Internet’s hyperlink capacity is most compatible with the way human knowledge is stored and accessed. In this regard, he referred to the work of Jonassen (1992) and Shank (1993) who associated hyperlinking with constructivism. The essence of interaction among students, educators, and content is well understood and is referenced in many theories of education, especially constructivism (Picciano, 2017).
Garrison (1985), and Aydemir, et al (2015) categorizes technological evolution of old and distance learning under three generations: Correspondence, Telecommunications, and Computer. Likewise, Anderson and Dron (2011) made a similar categorization: Mass media, Conferencing, and Web 2.0. When we look at the common criteria of these categorizations we can see that the type of interaction (one-way or two way) and role of the participants (active or passive) plays an important role. Furthermore, as Gunawardena and McIsaac (2003) states while analyzing todays and future distance learning technologies, it is crucial to
consider integrated telecommunication systems rather than simply video versus audio, versus data systems.
Online learning is a form of distance learning or distance education, which has long been a part of the American education system, and it has become the largest sector of distance learning in recent years (Bartley & Golek, 2004; Evans
& Haase, 2001). For the purpose of this literature review, both hybrid or blended learning and purely online learning are considered to be online learning as much of the literature compares these two formats against the traditional face-to-face.
Purely online courses are courses delivered entirely over the Internet, and hybrid or blended learning combines traditional face-to-face classes, learning over the Internet, and learning supported by other technologies (Osguthorpe & Graham, 2003).
One reason why there is so much discussion around online learning is that there are many purported benefits and uses of online learning. Some of the most important ones are: its effectiveness in educating students, its use as professional development, its cost-effectiveness to combat the rising cost of postsecondary education, credit equivalency at the postsecondary level, and the possibility of providing a world class education to anyone with a broadband connection (De la Varre, Keane, & Irvin, 2011; Gratton-Lavoie & Stanley, 2009; Lorenzetti, 2013).
What has received most of the attention for online learning is the postsecondary education arena. The rising cost of postsecondary education and the importance of a postsecondary degree are well documented in the literature. The lifetime earning gap between high school graduates and college graduates is continuing to
widen (Dynarski & Scott-Clayton, 2013). At the same time, the cost of college tuition is rising faster than inflation and the student loan debt is rapidly increasing.
As of 2014, the total national student loan debt is over one trillion dollars (Finaid.org, 2014). Many scholars and educators believe that online learning can be an effective tool in combating the rising cost of postsecondary education by spreading the cost of a class over a much larger number of students compared to the traditional setting, dividing the cost by tens or hundreds of thousands of students as opposed to dozens (Bowen, 2013; Jung & Rha, 2000; Tucker, 2007).
Moreover, the marginal cost of a student in an online setting is negligible relative to the traditional setting, necessarily constrained by a number of factors such as the size and availability of the physical classroom.
Intimately connected to this issue of cost and postsecondary education are the required credits to obtain a postsecondary degree. Traditionally, students have to earn most of the college credits at an institution before they are awarded bachelor degrees at that institution. The point of contention is how online classes will play a role in awarding credits or credentials, and many educators connected to online learning are hoping that there will be credit equivalency for some online classes. For instance, Daphne Koller and Andrew Ng, creators of Coursera, had worked with the American Council on Education to recommend credit- equivalency for some online courses (Koller & Ng, 2012). The goals of this endeavor are to increase completion rate, reduce time to degree attainment, reduce costs to postsecondary education, and offer more access to non-traditional students. As of 2013, the American Council of Education had approved five online
courses for college credit (Kolowich, 2013). However, there is concern over whether colleges will accept the recommendation, and there is also concern about the dilution of a traditional degree due to the transition (Kolowich, 2013;
Lorenzetti, 2013).
Last but not least, there is the hope that online learning will be able to provide a world class education to anyone, anywhere, and anytime as long as they have access to the Internet. A number of websites and companies—Khan Academy, Udacity, edX, and Coursera are some of the most prominent ones—are built on this premise, and many well-respected scholars and entrepreneurs have high hopes and expectations for online learning, particularly for massive open online courses (Fisher, 2012). Central to this particular benefit—in fact, to most of the purported benefits of online learning—is the effectiveness of the online format in educating students. If online learning is generally less effective than the conventional face-to-face format, then some of the aforementioned purported claims and benefits of online learning are highly suspect. There in lies the crux of the issue, the fundamental concern of online learning and the focus of this paper:
the effectiveness of the online format in educating students compared to the traditional format. To address this issue, the positive, negative, and mixed and null findings of the effectiveness of online learning as compared to the traditional format will be examined.
2.1.1 Advantages of Distance Learning
Distance learning might not be the best choice for every student seeking to pursue a college degree or university program but the list of advantages seems to outweigh the list of disadvantages.
1. Study from Anywhere, Anytime
The best thing about the distance education is you could learn it from anywhere and at any time. It does not matter in part of the country you are living you can join the course and start learning. Even if your course is offered by an international school you could easily get access to course material if you are a citizen of a different country. Get all the knowledge and training anywhere you reside on the planet (Nagrale, 2013).
2. Saving Significant Amount of Money
According to Bijeesh (2017), for any given program, the fee of a distance education degree (online or otherwise) may be much more affordable than the fee of a regular on-campus degree. Students who are looking for economically viable options can go for a distance learning program. You don’t have to live in the same city or the same country to attend the learning institution of your choice. You can study wherever you have access to a computer and Internet connection. Moreover, the course offered at distance learning centers are cheaper than the courses provided at traditional education centers (Brown, 2017).
3. No Commuting
Nagrale (2013) stated that if you are opting for a distance education, then you do not have to commute in crowded buses or local trains. You need a computer with an internet connection in your home. Entire college would be in your bedroom and you do not have to go out. Commuting is the most difficult part because you waste a lot of time, money, and more importantly the energy. No one likes commuting for long hours.
4. Flexibility to Choose
Learners will have to follow a set schedule of learning as per the curriculum of the school if they are following traditional ways of learning. But different types of distance learning allow learners to set their learning schedule as per their convenience without following a regular schedule of learning. Even if they are out of touch form learning process, distance learning program offers them flexibility to choose their course of learning. (Brown, 2017)
5. Saving Time
Bijeesh (2017) argued that there’s no time wasted in going to and from college, no time wasted waiting for a bus or train. In a distance learning program, your classroom is right in your bedroom - the study material on your desk or the today’s and future distance learning technologies, it is crucial to consider integrated telecommunication systems rather than simply video versus audio, versus data systems. e-material on your computer. Students who don’t have
enough time on their hands can turn to distance education as an option and pursue it from the comfort of their homes.
6. Earn While You Learn
Those who want to improve their resume by getting higher education and without breaking their existing job then distance learning can be the best option for them. Learners can go on earning their livelihood along with improving their qualification as distance learning will accommodate both learning as well as earning (Brown, 2017).
2.1.2 Disadvantages of Distance Learning
Although distance learning offers more people an opportunity to attain higher education, it is not all advantages and benefits.
1. High Chances of Distraction
According to Bijeesh (2017), with no faculty around for face-to-face interaction and no classmates who can help with constant reminders about pending assignments, the chances of getting distracted and losing track of deadlines are high. You need to keep yourself motivated and focused if you want to successfully complete your distance learning course.
Distance education is not a good idea if you tend to procrastinate and can’t stick to deadlines. Moreover, if you have any doubt then you have to clear yourself without taking help from your educators or friends since you cannot talk to friends and other colleagues that you do in a normal college course (Nagrale, 2013). It
only requires one to be selfmotivated and focused to be able to complete a course successfully (Brown, 2017).
2. Complicated Technology
Brown (2017) explained that any student seeking to enroll for a distance learning program needs to invest in a range of equipment including computer, webcam, and stable internet connection. There is absolutely no physical contact between students and instructors as instruction is delivered over the internet. This overdependence on technology is a major drawback to distance learning. In case of any software or hardware malfunction, the class session will come to a standstill, something that can interrupt the learning process. Moreover, the complicated nature of the technology used in distance learning only limits online education to students who are computer and tech savvy.
3. No Social Interaction
Learners will often be studying alone and so they may feel isolated and miss the social physical interaction that comes with attending a traditional classroom. Moreover, they don’t have the chance to practice the lessons verbally.
The lack of physical interaction in the education process may cause many problems, such as a great degree of flaming and isolation (Dyrud, 2000). Brown (2017) held the idea that learning in a brick-and-mortar institution presents students with the opportunity to meet and interact with people from different locations on a personal level. Distance learning only limits students to classes and learning materials that are based online. Though students can interact through chat
rooms, discussion boards, emails and/or video conferencing software, the experience cannot be compared to that of a traditional campus. Hara and Kling’s controversial study (2000) also found that the difficulty and distress experienced by students online might not be adequately understood. Working alone at night caused many complexities and depressing experiences.
4. Difficulty Staying in Contact with Instructors
If learners ever have trouble with assignments, or questions about a lecture while in a traditional class it’s generally quite simple to talk to the instructor before or after class or schedule meetings online at a different time. When learners are distance learning, however, they are going to have more difficulty getting in touch with their instructor. Though they can send an email, it’s definitely not going to get them the immediate response they would get if they were able to sit down with their instructor (Hutt, 2017).
5. Job Markets Do Not Accept Online Degrees
Nagrale (2013) believed this is could be quite dangerous if you are totally relying on distance education for a degree. You might get a degree but that is not going to be recognized by private companies in the job market and the same problem in government jobs. Still employers prefer a degree from a regular college over online or distance education. They think that distance education is still not a serious form of education.
2.2 Overview of Technology as Tools in Teaching
Technology is changing the ways educators teach and that learners learn and consequently is playing an increasingly central role in curriculum implementation (Warschauer and Meskill, 2000: Lacina, 2005; Meskill et al., 2002; Woo et al., 2007; Levy, 2010, 2012). Computers and interactive whiteboards are increasingly common in schools world-wide and the speed with which schools can connect to each other and to the world constantly increases. For educators and students’ technology is now mobile, and laptop computers, tablet devices and smartphones are a normal part of the teaching and learning context in many schools. More and more educators and school administrators accept the role that digital resources and the internet can play in raising levels of motivation and engagement in learners, supporting learners with different learning styles and helping improve the quality of teaching and learning (Zhao, 2005).
The technology that has entered every area of our life day by day, has also affected the field of education. Thus traditional education methods have become unable to meet expectations. In addition, through the use of information and communication technologies (ICTs) such as interactive boards, tablet PCs, smartphones, the Internet and computers in education, it is possible that class engagement increases, the lessons become more productive and fun, learning becomes more effective and students become more motivated (Gunuc 2016).
Besides, the use of ICT in education can increase learning speed of students, reduce the cost of education and appeal to different learning styles. In addition to
all these, it is necessary to integrate technology in order to be able to benefit from the use of ICT for teaching and learning purposes.
The concepts of technology integration and technology use in education are separated in some ways. However, although it is sometimes seen in literature that these concepts are used interchangeably, it cannot be said that this is a correct use. The use of ICT in teaching and learning is limited to some extent, along with being a general concept. In other words, the use of every ICT form for teaching and learning does not mean technology integration or does not make significant contributions to the teaching-learning process (Gunuc 2016). Technology integration is a process that requires a systematic approach. One of the main reasons why ICT use cannot always make significant contributions to education is that ICT use is unplanned and unintentional, but also not routinely done. ICT can provide great contributions to the learning and teaching process when it is planned and integrated into the course for a specific purpose. However, the use of ICT in the class is generally used as a teaching tool which is temporary, spontaneous, non-focused learning. For this reason, in particular, the process of integrating ICT has been considered in this study.
In order to integrate ICT tools, there is a need for all education stakeholders to support the integration process in order to make effective planning and cooperation. In this context, educators and decision-makers have a great responsibility (Al-Mohammadi and Derbel 2014). Although all training stakeholders are responsible for the integration process, as the main actor, the
lecturer must be responsible for the entire process and the student should be in the center. Lecturers have the most important task in this process.
The integration of technology in education has been handled by some researchers as the use of technology in teaching environments while some researchers handled as technology use sufficiency. Pierson (1999) considered technology integration as an effective transfer of educators’ technological, pedagogical and content knowledge to their students. Woodbridge (2003) defined technology integration as a teaching strategy. Technology integration is more than just using a strategy, method or technology (Gunuc 2016). The concept of integration is the bringing together of two separate products, systems or tools developed for different purposes, to realize another purpose. However, the more appropriate and systematic this integration is, the more effective and successful the integration will be. The concept of technology integration is basically the effective use of technology in the education system and the benefit of technology in teaching and learning process.
In teaching and learning, ICT tools are considered to be the most important components of teaching-learning environments due to their important contributions to structuring the teaching process in a way that appeals to many sensory organs, helps students meet their individual needs, draws attention to them, facilitates remembrance, saves time, embodies abstract concepts. Barron, et al (2001) define the benefits of technology integration as following;
a. Encourages students to learn actively, cooperatively based on learning and
b. Supports various learning styles of students c. Provides individual development and motivation d. Increases educator-student interaction
e. Improves communication skills f. Helps students build cultural bridges.
Technology integration in the teaching and learning environment is continuing to evolve and becoming more important as education moves further into the twenty-first century. The ways in which educators accomplish this integration are as diverse as the types of learning styles that students exhibit in any classroom. Digital devices and supporting equipment, such as computes, tablets, smartphones etc. can afford opportunities to enhance the learning experience and convey concepts and ideas that would otherwise be difficult to express. Defining what technology integration is, and what it is not, should be the first step in deciding how to incorporate it into the classroom (Dockstader, 1999).
Defining technology integration is complicated and researchers have assumed multiple perspectives on this subject. In the past 30 years, the definition of technology integration has developed and been refined by various authors and researchers. The “uses” presented by Thayer (2011) are a thoughtful lens for examining this development and will help to support this researcher to develop a definition of According to his blog Education4site, Thayer (2011) describes three uses of technology integration and argues that without considering each of the three one might miss the holistic intent and thus will have a limited picture and
understanding of technology integration. The three “distinctly different aspects”
are: Technology Integration in Learning (TiL), Technology Integration in the Classroom (TiC), and Technology Integration in Instructors’ duties (TiI). Each of these aspects can be considered as a piece of technology integration as a whole in a teaching and learning environment. However, for the purposes of this study, these different perspectives, collectively, will be considered as technology integration.
To some educators, technology integration might mean utilization of the most-recently developed technologies such as: tablets and wearable devices;
implementing a one-to-one laptop initiative, where each student is provided with a laptop; development of daily lessons integrating an interactive whiteboard; or even the launch of online instructional programs that may substitute for the traditional textbook. To other educators it may mean creating a PowerPoint to demonstrate an understanding of a concept, or it may mean taking the students to the computer lab once a week to work on a research project. Still other educators may view technology integration as the use of the overhead, chalkboard or dry erase board, or textbooks with paper and pencil.
Technology can provide students with the opportunity to demonstrate creative ideas in an innovative format that is otherwise unobtainable in the standard classroom setting (Okojie, et al., 2006). Not only must the technology be used, but choices about how to integrate it into the learning environment must be deliberate and support students by, for example, enhancing a student's
understanding and perception of the concept being presented, or enabling the student to express his or her understanding of the concept in a novel way.
Educators might also find the use of technology appealing because it provides access to a range of alternative instruction options that exposes them to both how and what students understand.
Technology integration is not limited to the physical pieces of equipment in the classroom but must include a knowledge base from which to use it productively. Okojie, et al., (2006) conducted a study on the perceptions of technology integration and how issues of computer shortage, lack of computer skill, and technology intimidation could hinder the integration of technology in a teaching and learning environment. The researchers studied how technology integration is narrowly perceived and they focused on that perception to help establish an understanding of the scope of technology integration in education.
Okojie, et al., (2006) also considered the development of learning objectives based on technology use, the selection of instructional methods to further technology integration, the solicitation of feedback from educators, and the evaluation of assessment strategies for follow up activities.
The researchers established the argument that technology needs to be used for teaching and learning and should be considered as an integral part of instruction, not as an object exclusive to itself. By considering the how and the why of technology integration as Earle (2002) did, educators can discern connections between the two, and draw technology closer to instruction.
According to Okojie et al. (2006), technology integration not only involves the inclusion of technical artifacts per se, but also includes theories about technology integration and the application of research findings to promote teaching and learning. Educators must possess some pedagogical intent to enhance the learning experience through the use of a technological device. Okojie, et al., (2006) go on to describe this needed intent as strategies for selecting the desired technologies, skill to demonstrate how the selected technologies will be used, skill to evaluate such technologies, as well as the skill to customize the use of such technological skills in a way that addresses instructional problems.
According to a study by Cuban et al., (2001), students' use of only applications, such as the Internet to conduct a simple search or Google to obtain images, represents a low degree of technological integration. In contrast, the development of multi-media presentations containing animation, video editing and completing projects that involve collecting and explaining data, represents a high degree of integration. Educators who are exploring questions such as "How can one take what they already have and enhance it through the use of technology?" exhibit the type of thinking that might elevate technology integration to the next level (Cuban et al., 2001).
While technology integration, as a phrase, is used often in educational settings, it is not clear that everyone means the same thing when they use that phrase, as seen in the above examples. Existing definitions of technology integration are explored in this section and combined to form an accepted
understanding for the underpinnings of this research. According to Condie (2009), who considers the integration of technology from a business perspective, the lack of a precise definition of technology integration has caused the term to be inappropriately associated with the most basic and limited data meshing procedures (Condie, 2009). This concept has also been found to be true in a great number of teaching and learning environments. True integration, Condie argues, enables the user to have a complete set of information in one system that is retrievable at the touch of a button. With a system such as this, information can be passed effortlessly between related applications to ensure that accurate and complete information is used throughout the information exchange process (Condie, 2009).
Strong technology integration may be dependent upon both the educator's perception of its effective use, and the perceived understanding of what the students may obtain from the utilization of technology. According to Earle (2002), technology involves the tools with which we deliver content and implement practices in better ways. Its focus must be on curriculum and learning. Integration is defined not by the amount or type of technology used, but by how and why it is used. This idea of intended use was also emphasized by Okojie, et al., (2006) who state, it should be noted that technology, which is used to facilitate learning, is part of the instructional process and not an appendage to be attached at any convenient stage during the course of instruction.
The integration of technology goes beyond the utilization of a digital device, but rather is a part of the instructional process and must be deliberate in how and why it is being used. For the purpose of this study, a digital device will be defined as an electronic device such as a laptop, tablet or smart phone. Simply placing these digital devices in the classroom or establishing a computer lab is only providing increased access for students. Technology integration must also consider electrical infrastructure and network capabilities to ensure adequate operation as well as educator education to support effective classroom and pedagogical use. It is insufficient to provide students and educators with the digital device without the support to explore what can be done with these technologies and how their use can enhance the learning process.
In 2008, the National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES) described technology integration in this way: Effective integration of technology is achieved when students are able to select technology tools to help them obtain information in a timely manner, analyze and synthesize the information, and present it professionally. It continues to state that the technology should become an integral part of how the classroom functions; as accessible as all other classroom tools (NCES, 2008). This more refined definition now considers not only the perceptions of the educator, but also includes the role of the student in accessing and using technology.
Mishra and Koehler (2009) would concur by stating, technology integration approaches that do not reflect disciplinary knowledge differences, the
corresponding processes for developing such knowledge, and the critical role of context ultimately are of limited utility and significance, as they ignore the full complexity of the dynamic realities of teaching effectively with technology. The authors continue, explaining that the concept of integrating technologies into the teaching and learning environment can be seen through a variety of different lenses, and only through exploring each can one obtain a sense of what true technology integration should look like.
The definition of technology integration is complicated and hinges upon the educators’ perception of intended use. The educator must consider the pedagogical potential of technology to enhance the lesson, as well as student understanding in obtaining the desired learning outcomes. To begin defining integration, an acknowledgment should be made that an agreed upon a definition has yet to emerge (Dockstader, 1999, Condie, 2009). The variations identified in defining integration seem to be dependent upon one's perspective of use. As noted earlier, Thayer (2011) considered three different aspects of integration, TiL (Technology Integration in Learning), TiC (Technology Integration in the Classroom), and TiI (Technology Integration in Instructors’ duties). These device classifications begin to shape how one might perceive use from this intended use.
Cuban et al., (2001) considered different degrees of integration ranging from a simple Google search to a collaborative multi-media presentation.
Researchers have identified how the integration of technology goes well beyond the act of placing digital devices in the classroom, establishing a computer lab, or
providing increased access for students (CAEP, 2011, NCES, 2002). Integration of technology must also consider how and why it is used (Earle, 2002, Okojie, et al., 2006) and consequently establishes a pedagogical basis of intent. For the purpose of this study, the following will be considered as the definition of technology integration: True technology integration is only achieved when students are able to select technology tools that will help them obtain information, analyze it and synthesize that information for future use (NCES, 2008).
Innovation on the other hand, is what a educator does with the integration of technology. This view point focuses on what is being done with what is available to educators. Providing educators with the latest technology may not provide the students with a meaningful learning experience if the educator is not utilizing the technology in meaningful and engaging ways. In a study by S. H.
Kwek (2011), the researcher looked at how design thinking (innovation) was used in the teaching and learning environment as a new model of learning. Kwek utilized observations and interviews to develop a fuller understanding of educator’s motivations that drive one’s ability to adopt innovative approaches to instruction. If educators are not utilizing the technology available to them in meaningful ways their students are missing out on the chance to express their creativity and a chance to be innovative. Kwek found that educators must have a mastery of their academic core content that then drive how design thinking is used in the teaching and learning environment. “The basic instructional approach of talking to students as they sit passively in their seats” remains to be the most common teaching style. As a educator begins to utilize design thinking they can
provide experiences for students that encourage meaning without the imposition of a fixed set of knowledge and skills.
Even though times have changed, schools have kept the logic of preparing factory workers as the basis of their existence. In a study by L. Donovan, et al (2014) they developed an innovation configuration map based on the Concerns- Based Adaption Model of Change. The results of this study indicate that 21st century skills can be manifested in the teaching and learning environment through content-based and project-based approaches. Donovan et. al states that “Without a consistent operational definition of 21st century skills (such as innovation) it is difficult to determine whether true 21st century teaching and learning is occurring”. They go on to state that, “The perspective that we must first have is an understanding of implementation before we can begin to determine effectiveness, it is apparent that there is a need to clearly document what a 21st century teaching and learning environment is before we can develop an effective assessment of its impact”.
Kuboni, et al (2016) define innovation as the process of making changes to something established by introducing something new. It applies to radical or incremental changes to products, processes or services. For the purpose of this study, innovation will be defined as the application of existing technologies to introduce, produce and develop new ideas and concepts through content-based or project-based approaches.
The struggle to define technology integration is impacted by individual perceptions of what technology is, and these perceptions, in turn, may influence the way these individuals experience barriers to integration in their classrooms.
Known barriers include improper operation of computers, maintenance problems associated with outdated software at home or work and inadequate technical support at work (Javeri & Chen, 2006); time to learn the operation of a technology (Butler & Sellbom, 2002); and technology support and access (Fletcher, 2006).
Experiences with these operational barriers can impact willingness to engage with existing and future technologies in the classroom.
As educators begin to integrate technology into their courses, they are likely to encounter barriers that might deter them from pursuing any further integration attempts. Greenhow, et al., (2008) state that, skillful teaching is demanding, and integrating technology into teaching and learning places additional demands on educators.
Ertmer (1999), discusses two types of barriers that educators face when confronted with these types of added demands. She identifies "first-order barriers”
as being “extrinsic to educators and may include such problems as a lack of access to program software and desktop access, insufficient time to develop instructional strategies, and insufficient technical and administrative support" (Javeri & Chen, 2006). Ertmer (1999) also describes "second-order barriers,” which are “intrinsic to educators and include beliefs about teaching, beliefs about computers, established classroom practices, and an unwillingness to change" (Javeri & Chen,
