The interaction between the presenting of training activity style and the source of support in integrated training environments to develop the skills of using technological innovations and the level of technological acceptance of teachers during service.
Abstract
This research aimed at examining the effect of the interaction between the pattern of providing training activity (distributed versus massed) and the source of support (trainer versus trainees) in the integrated training environments and its impact on developing the skills of using technological innovations for teachers during the service and their technological acceptance, which is related to the skills of using the interactive whiteboard and the PowerPoint presentation program. Independent variables were tow types of Presenting Pattern Training Activity via via Blended Training Environments and two Scaffolding Source, dependent variables were developing and Developing Technological Innovations Using Skills for Teachers and their Technology acceptance,The research included four experimental treatments, which were assigned to four groups. The results revealed: found the effectiveness of the (distributed) activity presentation pattern, regardless of the source of support, in , practical performance and the level of technological acceptance, and the effectiveness of the source of support (the trainees) regardless of the pattern of presenting the activity, in , practical performance and the level of technological acceptance, and the presence of an interaction between The pattern of providing the activity and the source of support on practical performance, and the level of technological acceptance; Where the best treatments came in favor of the third group, which was trained in the mode of providing activity (distributor) and source of support (trainees).
Downloads
References
Balakrishnan, V. (2017): Key determinants for intention to use social media for learning in higher education institutions. Universal Access in the Information Society, 16(2)289-301.
Bellefeuille, G., Martin, R. R., & Buck, M.P.(2005). From pedagogy to technagogy in social work education: A constructivist approach to instructional design in an online, competency-based child welfare practice course. Child & Youth Care Forum, 34(5), 371-389.
Bergmann, J & Sams, A(2012). Flip your classroom: Reach every student in every class every day. New York, NY: International society for technology in education.
Bertucci, A& Davics, S & Douglas L & Dean, N &Nick, B. (2012). Influence of Group Processing on Achievement and Perception of Social And Academic Support In Elementary Inexperienced Cooperative Learning Groups, Journal Of Educational Research, 105(5), 329-335.
Brame, C.J. (2013) Flipping the Classroom. Retrieved 10 September, 2016, from: http://cft.vanderbilt.edu/teaching-guides/teaching-activities/flipping-theclassroom .pdf Vanderbilt University for Teaching.
Davies R.S., Dean D.L., Ball. N.,( 2013). Flipping the classroom and instructional technology integration in a college-level information systems spreadsheet course. Educational Technology Research and Development, 61 (4), 563–580.
Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models. Management science, 35(8), 982-1003..
De los Arcos, B. (2014). Flipping with OER: K12 teachers’ views of the impact of open practices on students. In Proceedings of The 10th annual open Courseware Consortium Global Conference Open. Education for a Multicultural World”. Ljubljana, Slovenia, on April 23-25, 2014
Dennen, V.P., Burner, K.J.(2008). The cognitive apprenticeship model in educational practice. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. Van Merrienboer, & M. P. Driscoll (Eds.), Handbook of educational communications and technology, 3rd ed., (pp. 425-439). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Enfield, J. (2013). Looking at the impact of the flipped classroom model of instruction on undergraduate multimedia students at CSUN. TechTrends, 57, 14–27.
Johnson, L., Becker Adams, S., Estrada, V. & Freeman, A (2014). NMC Horizon Report: 2014 Higher Education Edition. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium.
Johnson, L., W. (2012). Effect Of The Flipped Classroom Model On A Secondary Computer Applications Course: Student And Teacher Perceptions, Questions And Student Achievement.
Kharbach, M.(2014), Tow Lncredibly Useful Videos on Flipped Learning. Educational Technology and Mobile Learning.
Kristen Moran., Amy Milsom(2015). The Flipped Classroom in Counselor Education, Counselor Education .& Supervision. March 2015 , Volume 54.
McDaniel, M. A., Wildman, K. M., & Anderson, J. L. (2012). Using quizzes to enhance summative-assessment performance in a Web-based class: An experimental study. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 1, 18–26
McNeill, K.L., Lizotte, D.J., Krajcik, J., & Marx, R.W.(2006). Supporting students’ construction of scientific explanations by fading scaffolds in instructional materials. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(2), 153-191.
McPherson , M., Nunes , M. (2004). The role of tutors as an integral part of online learning support . European journal of open distance and elearning electronic journal , 10 (1),2-13.
Parry, Andrew (2012). The Learning Activity Management System, 4Th Annual National VLE Conference-21 June 2884, University of Bristol Learning Technology Support Service.
Raes, A., Schellens, T., De Wever, B., & Vanderhoven, E.(2012). Scaffolding information problem solving in web-based collaborative inquiry learning. Computers & Education , 59(1), 82-94.
Reas, a., Davics, A., Douglas L., Dean, J., Nick, B (2012). Scaffolding information problem solving in web-based collaborative inquiry. learning, computers education, 59(1), 82- 94.
Ritter, C., Polnick, B., Fink, R., Oescher, J.(2010). Classroom learning communities in educational leadership: A comparison study of three delivery options. Internet and Higher Education, 13, 96–100.
Rohrer. D., Taylor. K. (2006). The Effects of Overlearning and Distributed Practice on the Retention of Mathematics Knowledge, Applied Cognitive Psychology. 20(l). 1209-1224.
Staker, H., Horn, M. B. (2015). Classifying K – 12 blended learning. Innosight Institute, (May), 22. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-007-9037-5 [2]
Strobino, C., P. (2013). The Effectiveness Of Flipping Classroom Instruction With Homework Assignments So As To Increase Student Understanding In Algebra. Montana State University, Bozeman, Montana.
Studer. B& Koeneke. S. & Blum.J. & Jäncke. L. (2010). The effects of practice distribution upon the regional oscillatory activity in visuomotor learning.
Technology Counts (2001). The New Divides. Looking beneath the Numbers To Reveal Digital Inequities.Education Week. 20 (35), May 10 2001
Verdaasdonk, E., Stassen. L., van Wijk. R., Dankelman. J. (2007). The influence of different training schedules on the learning of psychomotor skills for endoscopic surgery. Surgical Endoscopy and other interventional Techniques, 21(1).214- 219.
Xiong, T. (2018). The Impact of Technology Innovation in High School Biology Courses on Science Learning for Hmong Students, Walden Dissertation and Doctoral Studies, Walden University.
Zarei, A., Tavakkol, M. (2012). The Effects of Collaborative Versus Noncollaborative Massed and Distributed Presentation on the Comprehension and Production of Lexical Collocations. The Journal of Teaching Language Skills (JTLS), 4 (3). 127-145
Copyright (c) 2024 AbdAllah Ahmed Abd El Mohsen Mandour, Adel El-Sayed Saraya, Mohamed Mokhtar Elmaradny
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Creative Commons License: CC BY-NC
Creative Commons Rights Expression Language (CC REL)
