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.