Monday, March 31, 2014

Article Review





An Article Review of
Rienties, B., Brouwer, N. and Lygo-Baker, S. (2013). The effects of online professional development on higher education teachers’ beliefs and intentions towards learning facilitation and technology. Teaching and Teacher Education 29, 122–131
DOI: 10.1016/j.tate.2012.09.002.



BY


Haifa Halawani



Dr. SHARIFAH SARIAH BT. SYED HASSAN


Sem. II 2013-2014



INTERNATIONAL ISLAMIC UNIVERSITY MALYASIA


1.     Summary of the article
The article is a study of Alvarez et al. (2009) which he conclude that in spite of the growing number of experimenting with the online teacher training in HEIs in Australia, Europe and the US, no large-scale online teacher professionalisation programs have been implemented or analysed.  Therefore, this paper investigates the impact of an innovative cross-institutional online professionalization program called Make Responsible CHoices with Educational Technology (MARCHET) in the Netherlands.  The program was specifically designed to enhance academics’ skills by effectively integrating ICT into their teaching practice and to reflect on their academics’ beliefs and intentions towards learning facilitation and knowledge transmission.
            Furthermore, the article had good literature review about the model and instrument used in the study; The Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) model and Teachers’ Beliefs and Intentions (TBI). 
There were three Research Questions for this study:                                   
1. To what extent did academics learn to effectively implement ICT in their practice, as measured by an increase in (perceived) Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK)?  2. To what extent did the professional training program lead to a change in teachers’ beliefs and intentions (TBI) towards more student-centred learning?  3. To what extent did academics who successfully completed professional development differ from academics who dropped out in terms of TPACK and TBI?
The study was in Netherlands, 81 academics from nine HEIs participated.  The program was designed for the participant to cover from 20-25 hours, in small group discussion using web-videoconferencing in 8-12 weeks.  Furthermore, the participant filled in pre- and post-test questionnaire consist of designed TPACK and adapted TBI instrument leading to 29 items using a five-item Likert-response scale of 1 (totally disagree) to 5 (totally agree).  The data was analyzed using ANOVA analyses.
The result were revealed and explained. There were a discussion, limitation and conclusion.




Critique
The overall work on the article is good, but there are some points may need to point out.  For example, in the abstract, the author did not mention if the questioner was developed, adopted or adapted.  Moreover, it didn’t include what kind of data analysis the researcher used, no conclusion or recommendation were included. 
The introduction was good, but the statement of problem was not clear; the author pointed the importance of having a good training program, but ended with evaluating MARCHET. 
In the literature review of the Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK),  the author left this point hanging, it was pointed that TPACK been used only amongst pre-service teachers in primary and secondary education, and how it is differ from higher education lectures, but never state that it would be used in this study.  Moreover, if TPACK model will be used as is or modified.  In addition, the researcher used another instrument, Teachers’ Beliefs and Intentions (TBI), but failed to explain or give information of the component as in TPACK.   Furthermore, in the teachers' beliefs and intentions towards learning facilitation and knowledge transmission, there was a confutation in paragraph 4, "Academics in this study were found" while the point was taking about the previous study not the current study.  Moreover, it was pointed at the end that teachers should be asked to look at past actions and how these could be modified to enhance learning, but no information was giving if the current study would modify the training program according to the pre-test result. 
            The sitting of the study was very clear, but in the participant, the emphasis on keeping the information about the participant in order to guarantee anonymity was a little agitated, even though the information was given was good enough.  Furthermore, in the TPACK instrument, the author state "the focus of the questionnaire was shifted from the ability, knowledge and/or intentions to use technology (as in most TPACK questionnaires" on the other hand, the author claimed the questionnaire was designed "Three experts in technology-enhanced learning with expertise in developing questionnaires designed a TPACK questionnaire".  In addition, most of the variables in TPACK were measured using one, two or three items.  How did the measure if the data fit the module?  As a typing mistake, in Table 1, TPACK and TBI example items and reliabilities table 1, there is a mistake (TPACK) instead of (TBI).

In reveling the results,  most of the article introduction and literature review addressing the importance of student-centred approach, and how it is important in online learning, on the other hand, in 5.2. Effects of training on teacher beliefs and intentions state "However, our expectation that participants would therefore implement more student-centred learning was not supported in this study." Why it was not supported?   In 5.3. How do successful participants differ from unsuccessful participants?, the finding of the separate analyses of the 18 TBI scales showed that academics who failed the course had significantly higher scores on beliefs towards training students for jobs compared to participants who completed the program.  This take us back to the problem pointed in the literature review that their belief doesn’t indicate that they will use it, they belief it, but don’t implemented.
Furthermore, the author was pointing the importance of giving support and following the lectures after they finish the training.  What about those participant who completed the study, did they received any support or just left out like any other program?
The author gave very good recommendations on how to have an effective program only. On the other hand, no recommendations for future research based on the finding of the study were not introduce.  Furthermore, on further study on the topic, or on matters that they study could not support as stated "However, our expectation that participants would therefore implement more student-centred learning was not supported in this study."  Recommendation on the TPACK model was not given, for example to try to add any elements.    

CONCLUSION

The article is by no means very helpful in exposing the importance of following the instructor implementing technology in the classroom after they finish a training program.  The overall work is good, in spite of some points which been covered in the critiques.