Measures for ICT Implementation in Colleges of Education

Alona Forkosh Baruch
Levinsky College of Education, Tel Aviv University, Israel
alonabar@levinsky.ac.il

Orit Avidov-Unger
Achva Academic College, Open University, Israel
avidovo@achva.ac.il

Abstract: The paper focuses on a questionnaire evaluating Information and Communication Technology (ICT) implementation among teacher educators in academic colleges of education. It examines components of ICT training as perceived by teacher educators in these colleges, their attitudes towards ICT contribution of for teaching and learning, and the available conditions and resources for ICT implementation. The questionnaire was developed as part of a study focusing on evaluating the implementation of the computerization program and is partly based on a questionnaire developed in a former study conducted in 1999-2000 (Goldstein et.al., 2012). The validity of the questionnaire was examined based on the data collected from a sample of 615 faculty members in 6 education colleges. Findings suggest the questionnaire is reliable and valid, and can be used for measuring ICT implementation in education colleges.

Introduction

Training faculty in higher education to implement ICT in their teaching is a complex endeavor, requiring allocation of time and resources, as well as constructing a support system (Brzycki & Dudt, 2005; Gomez, Sherin, Griesdorn & Finn, 2008). It also requires technological and pedagogical re-organization. The research literature reports meager ICT implementation by faculty in educational contexts, as a result of a variety of difficulties and barriers (Goktas, Yildirim & Yildirim, 2009).

Hence, best pedagogical practices include components such as: reciprocal and accessible communication, updated contemporary information, collaboration, teamwork, peer assessment etc. These can be fundamentally enhanced using ICT (Bonk, 2009). Faculty of colleges dealing with training future teachers address proficiency which integrates content knowledge and pedagogic knowledge (Shulman, 1986). The technology component was added later on (Koehler & Mishra, 2009); consequently, ICT is perceived as an addition to the equation, not necessarily as an integral and equal element. Hence, research on ICT in higher education (among them colleges of education) focus on aspects of ICT implementation stages; characteristics of faculty that facilitates ICT implementation in teaching, attitudes towards ICT implementation, innovative practices using ICT and factors influencing patterns of ICT implementation.

Theoretical Models for Implementing ICT – Implementation in Colleges of Education

Personal as well as institutional factors affect the decision to implement ICT as part of the change process within the organization. In one of the models seven factors affecting ICT implementation were identified: a) Resources and financial planning; b) Infrastructure development; c) People factor, including faculty motivation to implement ICT (including beliefs, attitudes and values); d) Policy that addresses vision and ICT implementation plan for dissemination; e) learning power of technology-based education within the curriculum; f) Evaluation of the effect of technology on learning outcomes; g) Support and encouragement of faculty in terms of technical and pedagogic support. The model developed – RIPPLES – includes all the above (Surry, Ensminger & Haab, 2005).

The most quoted model for implementing innovation in the "Diffusion of Innovation Theory" (Rogers, 2003). Diffusion of innovation is defined accordingly as a process by which an innovation is distributed and sustained using several channels within a system. Five relevant stages are identified for diffusion of innovations: knowledge, persuasion, decision, implementation and confirmation. The end of the process reflects a situation in which the innovation becomes part of the everyday routine of the innovator.

Yet another model is the CBAM (Concerns Based Adoption Model) model, in which the process of change during the adoption of innovative educational practices is described. The model identifies seven levels of usage referring to novel practices: orientation, preparation, mechanical use, routine use, refinement, integration and renewal (Hall & Hord, 1987). As opposed to Rogers' model, the CBAM model reflects an ongoing process, in which novelties motivate yet additional rounds of adoption of innovations. Hence, the adoption of technology is perceived as a continuous process driven by personal as well as institutional aspects, whether a bottom-up or a top-down process, as detailed in the following section.

The Israeli National Program for the Computerization of Academic Colleges of Education

In the year 2011 the Israeli Ministry of Education enforced a national program for adapting the academic colleges of education to 21st century education; this program will be known as the Computerization Program for Colleges of Education (The Department for Teacher Training and Professional Development, 2011). According to this plan, colleges of education received funding for upgrading their infrastructure as well as for professional training of their faculty, dependent on the submission of institutional computerization programs for implementation Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) in their training programs. A year later, in 2012, nine colleges of education received the desired funding on a competitive basis (according to the quality of the programs they submitted), and begun to implement their three-year computerization plan. This process was accompanied by research, led by a research group including representatives from these colleges as well as from the Israeli MOE's Department for Teacher Training and Professional Development. The goal of the study was to identify models and implementation processes in the different colleges, and to identify best practices of ICT implementation in teaching and in teacher training. A questionnaire developed for this study is based on a theoretical framework combining the model defined by UNESCO of the skills required by teachers in the information age (Hine, 2011), with the model of the Technological-Pedagogical-Content Knowledge based on the model by Schulman and developed further to include technology as a component (Mishra & Koehler, 2006), as well as with the RIPPLES model of factors influencing ICT implementation in educational institutes (Surry, Ensminger & Jones, 2002).

The Study

Our study examines the integration of ICT by faculty in colleges of education in the initial stages of implementing the National Program for Adapting the Colleges to 21st Century Education, known more as the Computerization Program for Colleges of Education. The goal of the study was to examine the validity and reliability of the questionnaire, thereby assuring its role in reflecting the change these colleges have undergone as a result of constructing an institutional computerization program and carrying it out.

Development of the Questionnaire

The development process of the questionnaire included a set of sequential steps. First, three of the members of the research team examined existing questionnaires in the field, drawing a draft questionnaire. Then, a discussion was facilitated with all nine research team members, in which there was reference to the scope of topics and their relevance to the field, the structure of the questionnaire and to the phrasing of the questions and items. Then, a pilot study was launched with 24 faculty members as participants who were invited to fill in the questionnaire and measure time. Some of these participants were also interviewed, to attain a wider perspective in the issues referring to the study. As a result, the questionnaire was altered, its items crystalized, re-phrased or omitted. All comments were embedded in the new version of the questionnaire following consultation including members of the research group, until a final version was reached.

Sample

The sample included 615 faculty members, which are approximately 25% of the population of lecturers in 8 education colleges which executed a computerization program in the year 2012. Of these, 72% were female and 28% male. About 80% belonged to the Jewish sector, while about 20% - to the Arab sector. Background data of faculty indicated that most participants were full faculty members with a full position in their colleges, with promotion tracks. About 45% were pedagogic instructors. The rates of participation as well as the distribution of participants are shown in Table 1.

College	No. of Participants	% of the total participants of the study	% of faculty within each college	
A	55	8.9%	42.3%	
B	68	11.1%	42.5%	
C	67	10.9%	43.5%	
D	101	16.4%	19.5%	
E	89	14.5%	19.8%	
F	91	14.8%	31.3%	
G	73	11.9%	9.1%	
H	71	11.5%	35.5%	
Total	615	100%	22.8%=	
Table 1: Sample buildup and distribution according to participation rates

The collection of data was diverse: the questionnaire was distributed using a printed version (N=262) and a digital version (N=350). In some of the colleges, most participants filled in the printed version, while in others most participants filled in the digital version; this is an interesting fact in itself. In order to examine the connection between the paper and digital format of data collection via the questionnaire, we conducted a multi-variable Manova test. In a former parallel study, conducted about 5 years ago in colleges of education prior to the computerization program, there was a deviation between the paper and digital versions of the questionnaire, indicating that the participants who used the digital format of the questionnaire exhibited more advanced ICT skills than the participants who filled the printed version of the questionnaire. However, in this study no statistical differences was noted between the two types of questionnaire formats (printed vs. digital).

Tools

The questionnaire developed for this study is based on a questionnaire for faculty members developed for a previous study of the network in the years 2007-2011 (Goldstein et al. 2012). The questionnaire was built based on Rogers' Diffusion of Innovation theory (Rogers, 2003), the CBAM model (Hall et al. 1998) and the RIPPLES model (Surry et al. 2002). In the renewed version of the questionnaire the number of items was reduced, omitting some peripheral issues and an additional item referring to the TPACK model (Mishra & Koehler, 2006) was added. We also added open questions regarding facilitating factors and factors hindering ICT implementation by faculty.

The questionnaire in its current version includes 24 questions (79 items altogether), of them 9 referring to background data and 3 open-end items. In the open-end items the participants were requested to address personal aspects of ICT implementation in the college: a) what encourages faculty to implement ICT in their teaching in the college? b) what hinders ICT implementation of faculty in their teaching in education? c) what would the faculty member's definition of success in ICT implementation in the college? Content analysis of the answers to these questions enabled to identify patterns referring to facilitating vs. hindering factors in ICT implementation, as well as to develop a taxonomy for defining what would be considered successful in ICT implementation in education colleges in Israel from the faculty's point of view.

The theoretical variables of the questionnaire include components attempting to examine the nature and characteristics of ICT implementation in colleges of education in light of the components of effective teacher training and in accordance to the goals of the national reform aimed to implement 21st century skills in this training. Based on the literature dealing with implementation of innovative technology (Toledo, 2005; Rogers, 1995; Russell, 1996), we built a scale of skills which created a framework for effective implementation. This enabled to map faculty members in terms of their stage of implementing the ICT reform in colleges of education. The scaling includes questions examining attitudes and perceptions of faculty members on three levels: 1) with regards to themselves and their usage of ICT in education 2) with regards to students on two levels: students' use of ICT, and their application of ICT in their practice within their training schools; 3) with regards to the college culture which should also include ICT tools and platforms offered to faculty, as well as reference to existing conditions and resources. 

The questions according to the theoretical variables are distributed as follows:
•	Questions on the faculty level – 25 items which included a sub-questionnaire regarding usage of ICT tools by faculty, a sub- questionnaire referring to technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK measure), questions referring to the participant's stage of ICT integration and a measure of the participant's knowledge regarding the integration of technology in his or her teaching.
•	Questions on the students' level – 23 items which included questions referring to the level of exposure to ICT skills with regards to students in their courses, the application of these ICT skills among students, and the level of application within schools in which the students are trained as part of their professional practice.
•	Questions on the college (systemic or institutional) level – 30 items examining who in the college leads the ICT implementation culture, how and to what degree are course websites being used, accessibility of ICT support (technological and pedagogical) within the college, and also questions about the ways ICT implementation is reflected in the culture of the college.
The questionnaire was submitted anonymously. The data processing was conducted using SPSS software. Reliability and validity were examined using content and structure validity testing.

Findings

As stated above, this study was conducted on 615 teachers from 8 colleges of education across the country and from 5 districts of the Ministry of Education. The findings reported below relate to the validity and reliability of the questionnaire.
The first research question addressed the use of ICT tools in personal or professional needs. The extent of use for each tool was measured using Likert scale with 5 levels (5 - strongly agree, 1 - do not agree). Factor analysis was used in order to convene the items into variables. Table 2 presents the factor analysis findings. 

Factor 2	Factor 1	I use the following tools and resources for personal / professional		
0.763	-0.056	Blog	h	
0.717	0.126	social networks (like LinkedIn, facebook, interlocking)	e	
0.686	-0.114	Wiki	g	
0.628	0.402	tools or collaborative workspace for documents (like Googledocs)	d	
0.6	0.226	Application: smartphone / iPad / other tablets	f	
0.588	0.326	synchronous environments (such as Skype, Elluminate)	i	
0.481	0.404	media sites (like YouTube)	j	
0.425	0.403	simulations, games or educational software	k	
0.059	0.789	presentations (like PowerPoint)	b	
0.301	0.634	spreadsheet (like Excel)	c	
-0.06	0.537	word processor	a	
18.1%	28.9%	explained variance percentage		
0.80α=	0.51α=	reliability		

Table 2: Factor analysis on the use of ICT tools for personal or professional needs

The factor analysis presented in table 2 shows two key factors were found: basic tools such as a word processor or spreadsheet, which serves instructors for basic ICT use and advanced tools that can be attributed to the era of Web 2.0, and that reflect the activity of sharing or complex ICT activities.
Factor analysis was also conducted for computerized tasks given to students as part of teacher training.
In order to identify variables that arise from this question items, an exploratory factor analysis using Varimax rotation was conducted. Results of factor analysis are presented in Table 3 and show a division into five factors, explaining 52% of the variance. Alpha Cronbach reliability for all items was α=0.82.

Factor 5	Factor 4	Factor 3	Factor 2	Factor 1	Is at least one of the courses you have taught your students: (answer yes / no)	
0.250	0.130	-0.036	0.076	0.768	Participated in an online discussion	
-0.115	0.064	0.268	0.214	0.611	Synchronous remote meetings attended (with experts, professors or students)	
0.351	0.353	0.047	0.040	0.567	Cooperative tasks performed in an online environment	
-0.019	0.282	0.268	0.060	0.442	Conducted online portfolio using personal website or course site (digital portfolio)	
0.076	-0.124	0.426	0.371	0.434	Built or managed a personal site (such as a blog or Mikrovlogyng)	
0.038	0.200	-0.136	0.707	-0.039	Performed tasks using mobile phones	
0.031	0.047	0.083	0.607	0.291	Use social networks (such as interlocking, facebook)	
-0.180	-0.049	0.324	0.600	0.173	Were exposed to virtual worlds (like SecondLife, Ekoloko)	
0.236	0.402	0.117	0.558	0.002	Used simulations, applications, or online games	
0.359	-0.09	0.038	0.420	0.394	Compiled or edited values on Wiki 	
0.028	0.086	0.713	0.037	0.177	Learned(Project Based Learning	
0.164	0.155	0.628	0.211	0.159	Solving authentic problems using ICT (Problem Based Learning)	
0.186	0.274	0.609	-0.141	-0.045	Learned through exploration activities	
0.096	0.719	0.117	0.057	0.215	Introduce products using  digital means (eg, presentations, videos prepared by the student)	
-0.081	0.718	0.178	0.122	0.099	Used  video and / or audio	
0.291	0.37	0.362	0.171	0.025	Analyzed events / incidents using ICT tools	
0.726	-0.012	0.218	0.176	-0.019	Using other computerized tasks. Please specify which kind: 	
0.626	0.092	0.066	-0.13	0.237	Used learning management systems (such as Moodle, HighLearn)	
8.4%	9.7%	11.0%	11.5%	11.7%	Explained variance percentage 	
0.37	0.51	0.58	0.58	0.66	Reliability	

Table 3: Factor analysis on the use of ICT tools among students during the instructor courses

This question consisted of 18 items, which were divided to 5 factors using factor analysis. Each factor characterizes different kinds of ICT activities:  factor 1 refers to synchronous/ asynchronous interactive activity and online information management, and can be described as personal/ group information management. Factor 2 refers to advanced technological methods (mobile technology, social networking, virtual worlds). Factor 3 refers to project based learning projects and problem based learning. Factor 4 refers to the display of information. Factor 5 refers to aspects of organizing and managing learning. Table 3 presents the percentage of variance explained and reliability for each factor obtained.

Another question related to the students use of ICT in their teaching methods, as reported by the instructors. Responses were dichotomous (yes / no). The data are presented below in Table 4.

Factor 2	Factor 1	Please mention if at least in one of your courses your students: 	
0.208	0.874	Planned ICT lessons for their class in school	
0.284	0.857	Taught classes in school using ICT 	
0.068	0.764	Taught their class using exploration activities	
0.87	0.12	Taught their class using remote online course	
0.814	0.231	Taught their class using learning management tools (i.e moodle) or school site	
30%	43%	Explained variance percentage 	
0.64	0.81	Reliability	

Table 4: Factor analysis for students' use of ICT tools

The factor analysis found two factors with respect to this question. The first factor relates to the components of integrating ICT as part of classroom activity. The second factor relates to the use of teaching and learning platform for distance learning.
the next question addressed attitudes towards ICT use. subjects were asked to rate their attitudes towards  each item on a Lickert scale ranging from 1=defiantly not agree to 5=strongly agree. Inverse items were recoded for the purpose of the analysis. overall reliability for the whole question submitted was  = 0.785. Table 5 shows the analysis of the factors regarding faculty attitudes toward the use of ICT.

Factor 2	Factor 1	 Attitudes toward ICT use	
-0.144	0.847	D. using ICT does not fit with my perception regarding the teacher role	
-0.229	0.810	F. ICT does not fit to my field of teaching 	
0.044	0.759	B. the use of ICT can alienate the teacher from his students	
0.520	-0.647	A. ICT use can improve my teaching 	
0.891	0.072	E. ICT in education changes significantly my position as a teacher	
0.686	-0.491	C. using ICT can increase cooperation between scholars	
27%	43%	Explained variance percentage	
0.70	0.77	Reliability	

Table 5: Factor analysis for faculty attitudes towards the use of ICT

To identify the factors that characterize the attitudes towards the use of ICT among lecturers, factor analysis was carried out freely (without limiting the number of factors) using rotation type Varimax. Results of factor analysis presented in Table above show a division into two factors, explaining 70% of explained variance. The two factors match the division between positive and negative propositions, reflecting difficulties compared with challenges.

Conclusions

UNESCO has developed a theoretical framework for assessing ICT integration in educational institutions (Hine , 2011 ; Kozma ,2011), defining the goal of the education system in the current era as developing a generation of knowledge producers rather than merely consumers of knowledge; the latter was typical of the industrial era . ICT has a central role in achieving this goal within educational institutes; this includes colleges of education, who train future teachers. Within this framework, we can distinguish between three levels of ICT integration: technological literacy, knowledge deepening and knowledge creation. Technological literacy enables basic use of information and concentrates on knowledge consumption using ICT skills. Knowledge deepening is designed to cope with complex learning situations and problems. Finally, knowledge creation is aimed at restructuring the world of saturated information through the use of technology for producing multi-modal knowledge.

Research findings align with the theoretical and practical models of integrating ICT in education, and exhibit a similar pattern of ICT implementation in colleges of education. Hence, the data from the questionnaire, based on theoretical models, enable to classify levels of ICT implementation – according to participant as well as programs or even institutions. However, the current findings refer to a methodological point of view. We conclude in this respect that colleges of education should evaluate the levels of ICT integration in teaching and teacher training using the indicators derived from the data. 

Since the main goal of ICT is to promote deeper levels of constructing new ideas, our main conclusion is that it is important to evaluate ICT implementation on all its levels and help develop practical models to assist the process of high level ICT implementation. In terms of research, these levels are indeed evident in the questionnaire presented.

On a more practical level, the findings of this study validate the questionnaire as a tool for policymakers in Israel for examining the implementation of ICT in the teacher education system; notwithstanding, this is also a result of local issues, in addition to global aspects (Ben-Peretz, 2009). This is especially emphasized by the contemporary concept developed in the Israeli education system, according to which teacher development is an ongoing endeavor, beginning with the first years of professional training in colleges of education (Feiman-Nemser, 2001). The questionnaire developed for this study reflects this paradigm of continuum in training faculty as well as education students, by assisting them in overcoming barriers through the stages of adopting technology as an integral component of their teaching. Faculty members in colleges of education meet future teachers throughout their training, creating endless chances for ICT implementation as a facilitator of pedagogic change. By identifying their level of ICT implementation, as well as the factors promoting and hindering adoption of ICT, we are creating opportunities for colleges of education to address barriers and overcome difficulties. 

Acknowledgments
This study was sponsored by the Director of Teacher Education at the Ministry of Education and Research Authority MOFET Institute. We acknowledge the entire research team, including (besides ourselves): Dr. Olzan Goldstein, Dr. Anat Oster, Ms. Merav Asaf, Dr. Asmaa Ganayim, Dr. Miri Shonfeld, Dr. Yehuda Peled, Mrs. Ruth Peled.

References

Ben-Peretz, M. (2009). Policy making in education: A holistic approach responding to global changes (pp. 65-74). Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

Bonk, C.J. (2009). The world is open (pp. 91-138). CA: Jossey Bas.

Brzycki, D. & Dudt, K. (2005). Overcoming Barriers to technology use in teacher preparation programs. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13(4), 619-641.

Feiman-Nemser, S. (2001). From preparation to practice: Designing a continuum to strengthen and sustain teaching. Teachers College Record 103, 1113-1055.
Goldstein, O., Waldman, N., Tesler, B., Forkosh-Baruch, A., Shonfeld, M., Mor, N., Heilweil, I., Zelkovitz., Z., Zidan, W. and Kozminsky, L. (2011). The current state of pre-service teachers training for ICT based teaching in Israel: 2008-2009​. Proceedings of Global TIME: Global Conference on Technology, Innovation, Media & Education (February, 22-24, 2011), AACE.

Goldstein, O., Waldman, N., Tesler, B., Shonfeld, M., Forkosh-Baruch, A., Zelkovitz., Z., Mor, N., Heilweil, I., Kozminsky, L. and Zidan, W. (2012). Training pre-service teachers for ICT-based teaching and implementation of ICT in colleges of education: state in 2009. Dapim, 54, 20-67. [Hebrew]

Goktas, Y., Yildirim, S., & Yildirim, Z. (2009). Main barriers and possible enablers of ICTs integration into pre-service teacher education Programs. Educational Technology & Society, 12(1), 193–204.

Gomez, L. M.,  Sherin M. G., Griesdorn, J., Finn, L. (2008). Creating social relationships: The role of technology in preservice teacher preparation. Journal of Teacher Education, 59(2), 117-131.

Hall, G. E. & Hord, S. M. (1987). Change in schools: Facilitating the process (pp. 1-22). Albany: SUNY Press.

Hine, P. (Ed) (2011). UNESCO report: ICT Competency Framework for Teachers (pp. 3–10). Paris, France: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0021/002134/213475e.pdf

Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content  knowledge? Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 60-70.

Kozma, R. (Ed.). (2011). Transforming Education : The Power of ICT Policies. Policy. UNESCO.

Ministry of Education IL (2011). Regulations of the department for teacher training: preparation for deployment of the plan for adapting education colleges to education in the 21st century. [Hebrew] Retrieved Dec. 2013 from http://cms.education.gov.il/EducationCMS/Units/HachsharatOvdeyHoraa/Hozrim/HearchutMumanuyot21.htm

Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A Framework for Teacher Knowledge. (T. Bastiaens, J. Dron, & C. Xin, Eds.) Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054. 

Rimon, O. (2010). Adaptation of the education system to the 21st century: the new plan of the Ministry of Education. Hed Hachinuch, 12, 40-45. [Hebrew] Retrieved Dec. 2013 from http://cms.education.gov.il/NR/rdonlyres/62E534AB-E474-4C60-B03A-FC02440B33B4/125568/Hinucdigitali.pdf

Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th edition) (pp. 5-38). New York: Free Press.

Shulman, L. S. (1986). "Those who understand: knowledge growth in teaching". Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14.

Surry, D. W., Ensminger, D. C., & Haab, M. (2005). A Model for Integrating Instructional Technology into Higher Education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(2) 327-329.

Surry, D. W., Ensminger, D. C. & Jones, M. (2002). A model for integrating instructional technology into higher education. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.