A presentation of the study I propose to complete for my dissertation. This is an initial presentation for a research class. The full proposal presentation will be completed in Spring 2010. Any suggestions are always welcome :)

1. THE INCLUSION OF TECHNOLOGY IN PHYSICAL EDUCATION TEACHER EDUCATION PROGRAMS IN CANADA AND THE UNITED STATES Proposal of Dissertation Study Helena Baert Dec. 8, 2009 University of Arkansas

2. Introduction 1998: DePauw stated that in every university Kinesiology Physical Education department in the US technology is used within instructional programs as a way to inform pedagogy. New innovations track heart rate, motivate new movers, make students think about why and how they move, encourage kids to get off the couch!

4. ARE PE TEACHERS PREPARED TO USE THESE TECHNOLOGIES IN THEIR CLASSROOMS?

5. ARE PE TE EDUCATORS PREPARING PE TEACHERS TO USE THESE TECHNOLOGIES IN THEIR CLASSROOMS?

6. Statement of the Problem With the inclusion of the new 2008 standards for future PE teachers, PETE faculty have the task to create instruction that effectively integrates technology I ask whether or not current faculty members of PETE programs are adequately prepared to take on such a task.

7. Research Questions What do current PE educators believe to be their technological proficiency levels? What is the current level of integration of technology of current PE educators? What factors affect technology use of PETE faculty within the PETE programs? How are PETE programs integrating technology?

8. Relevant Literature Benefits of Educational Technology Technology in Higher Education Technology in Teacher Education Technology in PETE Technology Integration Diffusion Theory Approaches to integrating technology Factors Influencing Technology Integration Perceptions on Technology Integration Technology in Physical Education

9. Type of study This study will provide a descriptive overview of the current scope regarding the integration of technology in Physical Education Teacher Education programs across North America. Survey Research Future: Case Studies, PD Interventions

10. Methods

11. Participants PETE Faculty Members Canada and USA Cluster Sampling

12. Instrument Development Review the literature Design the instrument Panel of experts review and pre-test the survey instrument Pilot test the instrument Final survey design and planning Survey study

13. Instrument Howland and Wedman (2004): instrument of integration of technology of faculty within teacher education programs. Conceptual framework based on learning phases that encourage teaching and learning using emerging technologies Measures technology proficiency perceptions & level of technology integration.

14. Section 1: Technology proficiency Perceptions of personal skill and knowledge levels of technology Non-use: I have no knowledge/limited knowledge. Awareness: I am aware of this technology and how it can be used. Exploration & Learning: I’m in the process of learning this technology. Application: I use this technology. Sharing and Reflection: I encourage colleagues to use this technology through discussion, modeling, mentoring, collaborative planning, or other means.

15. Section 2: Integration Perceptions of integration in teaching: Not applicable: I do not believe this technology has application for me or for the curriculum area(s) I teach and is not relevant as a teaching and learning tool. None: no use in course(s) Some:some use in course(s) Well-integrated:natural part of course(s)

16. Section 1 & 2 (example)

17. Section 3: Factors Factors perceived by the PETE faculty members to affect their technology integration. 5-point Likert Scale (SA – SDA) Using common factors from research + open ended option: Fear, Training, Pedagogical Beliefs, Motivation, Time, Student Needs, Funding, Accessibility, Institutional Culture, Technical Support, Institutional Vision, Professional Organizational Guidelines/ Standards

18. Section 4: Demographics Approaches to Integration of Technology: Single Course Technology Infusion Student Performance Assessment Case-based Integration Other: gender, age, country, years spent teaching PE at the higher education level, number of PE courses taught each year, highest degree completed, level taught (undergraduate, graduate: Masters/Doctorate), degrees offered in institution, number of PETE faculty members part-time and full-time, number of students majoring in PE at institution, NASPE/NCATE accredited for US schools.

19. Instrument development Validity: Face & Content Validity Define the domain of interest. Select a panel of experts in the content domain. Table of specifications to match the items to the performance domain and judges will be asked to assess the degree to which a given item matches the set objective. Index of Item-Objective Congruence or IIOC value will be calculated Reliability: Internal Consistency Method Cronbach’s Alpha’s

20. Data Collection Pre-notice letter sent a few days prior to the questionnaire Initial survey mailing including a cover letter explaining why the response is important Thank you postcard sent a few days after the questionnaire Replacement questionnaire sent 2-4 weeks after the first survey mailing Final contact made by telephone or other mode of contact thanking participants for their cooperation. (Dillman, 2007: Tailored Method Design)

21. Data Analysis Descriptive statistics: Means Standard Deviations Frequencies Confidence Intervals Reliability: Cronbach’s Alpha Item-to-total Correlations

22. Questions?