Teaching ICT to Teacher Candidates Using PBL: A ... - CiteSeerX

Gülseçen, S. & Kubat, A. (2006). Teaching ICT to Teacher Candidates Using PBL: A Qualitative and Quantitative Evaluation. Educational Technology & Society, 9 (2), 96-106.

Teaching ICT to Teacher Candidates Using PBL: A Qualitative and Quantitative Evaluation Sevinç Gülseçen Faculty of Sciences and Informatics Department, Istanbul University, 34452 University, Istanbul, Turkey [email protected]

Arif Kubat Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, Inönü University Malatya, Turkey ABSTRACT The idea underlying this study is that the prospective teachers develop their Information and Communication Technology (ICT) skills throughout the learning process supported by the Problem Based Learning (PBL), a method that produces independent learners who can, then, continue to learn on their own in their chosen careers. The major goal of the study, conducted in two phases during two academic years, is to investigate the differential effects of PBL and conventional teacher-centred instruction on cognitive and a group of affective variables which have been coined “technophobia”. Phase I of the study, entirely qualitative in character, covered a case study in which a total of 111 students from three departments of the Faculty of Education took part. Phase II of the study was quasi-experimental in nature with 79 students taking part. Most of the outcomes from Phase II were based on statistical measurements. At the end of the instruction process, the findings indicated that, while there was no significant difference in the anxiety levels of the two groups, the number of successful students had registered a considerable increase. Furthermore, the students, actively involved in the learning process, solving real problems, viewed the PBL as an effective learning tool rich in motivation. Within this framework, the motivating role of ICT as a method of learning is automatically recognised.

Keywords Problem Based Learning, Information and Communication Technology, Cognitive Tools, Improving Clasroom Teaching.

Introduction In general, when the related literature is reviewed, it appears that several international and national studies point in the direction of the central role teachers play in the implementation of educational change. In particular, however, the main concern is the integration of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) into the teaching process. According to Fullan (1991), “Educational change depends on what teachers do and think – it is as simple and as complex as that.” On the other hand, while only a few teachers have had the opportunity to develop more than the basic skills in the use of ICT, even fewer have developed confidence and competence in the integration of ICT into their classrooms (Orhun, 2002a; Albion, 2003). A 1992 OECD report entitled, “Education and New Information Technologies: Teacher Training and Research” emphasizes in its conclusion that, “...the potential of the new ICT for improving learning and teaching will not be realised unless teachers are well trained and retrained in the pedagogical use of technology in the classroom (Orhun, 2002b: Yıldırım & Kiraz, 1996). While the ICT receives wider acceptance in the field of education, computer anxiety remains to be a challenging concern. Generally speaking, some teachers still exhibit a certain degree of anxiety toward computers as a tool to be employed in the fields of education and learning. Yıldırım and Kiraz (1996) state the fact that even the utilisation of e-mail is adversely effected by the negative approach of some teachers towards it. It is obvious that the teachers themselves must have necessary training and support to properly integrate the related technology into their practices even before employing methods and techniques to improve the process of teaching and learning. In particular, the teachers are to be healed of the anxiety of computers utilised in such processes. Moreover, the virtues of self-confidence and positive approach toward computers, as well as belief in the ability to employ them in an effective and efficient manner should be instilled in the teachers. Computer-based cognitive tools have a higher potential to foster meaningful learning, which requires a constructivist view of learning (Jonassen, 2000; Gibson & Silverberg, 2000). According to Jonassen, Howland, Moore and Marra (2003), constructivism, like nearly all contemporary theories of learning (situated learning, social cognition, activity theory, distributed cognition, ecological psychology and case-based reasoning) share ISSN 1436-4522 (online) and 1176-3647 (print). © International Forum of Educational Technology & Society (IFETS). The authors and the forum jointly retain the copyright of the articles. Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than IFETS must be honoured. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, to republish, to post on servers, or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from the editors at [email protected].

96

convergent beliefs about how people naturally come to know. One of the best exemplars of a constructivist learning environment is Problem Based Learning (PBL) as described by Barrows who was involved in the early stages of the development of PBL at McMaster University in Canada (Savery & Duffy, 1995; de Graff & Kolmos, 2003). He defines the concept in terms of its specific attributes such as being student-centred, taking place in small groups with the teacher acting as a facilitator, and being organised around problems. Liu (2004) suggests that the aspect of anchoring learning in real world contexts in PBL has been found to provide opportunities for transferring knowledge and skills from the classroom to workplace more easily. According to Albion (2003) teachers’ use of ICT may be influenced by their self-efficacy beliefs, that these, in turn, may be enhanced by access to examples of successful practice, and PBL may provide an especially effective vehicle for this purpose. We also believe that the attitudes of the teachers can be influenced and changed positively during the early periods at the teacher training institutions. By creating a learning environment which promotes professional development, teacher candidates should be made aware in terms of the ways in which they could benefit from existing ICT tools. The main goal of the study presented in this paper was to investigate the differential effects of PBL and conventional teacher-centred instruction on performance of teacher candidates of the Faculty of Education, Istanbul University (hereafter Faculty of Education) and a group of affective variables such as “technophobia” as coined by Rosen and Well (1992), i.e., Computer Anxiety Rating Scale (CARS), Computer Thoughts Survey (CTS) and General Attitudes Towards Computers Scale (GATCS). The performance and attitudes of students in the PBL curriculum has been compared with that of the students in the standard curriculum longitudinally over two years. The rest of the paper is organised in four sections. Based on the literature review in “General Rationale and Hypothesis” section, the basic definitions for constructivism and PBL are provided in that order, followed by the main hypothesis of the study. Subsequently, Phase I and Phase II detail a model of PBL program used in a second-year course on “Introduction to ICT” at the Faculty of Education taught by same instructor (the first author of this paper) during the academic years 2001-2002 and 2002-2003 respectively. Both phases introduce an “experiment” in developing ICT skills of the second-year students by having them design a multimedia presentation for their future students, working in groups undertaking PBL-based project work. While Phase I is entirely qualitative, Phase II is more quantitative and much of what is described in these two sections stems from students evaluation and feedback obtained over two academic years. A general discussion and conclusion follow in the last section.

General Rationale and Hypothesis The Context Providing schools with ICTs promises a high return on investment. The presence of computers and Internet access raises ICT literacy and skills, better preparing the future generations to participate in the information society. To this end, the schools represent ideal access points because they cover a large part of the population, especially in developing countries. Connecting schools through technology also bring online that part of the population that can learn quickly how to use ICT (World Telecommunication Development Report, International Telecommunication Union, 2003). The education policies and systems of Turkey, a country with young population, are being revised on an ongoing basis so as to train competent and fully equipped teachers challenged to meet the needs of eight years of elementary compulsory schooling recently put in place. Orhun (2002b) stated that main part of Computer-Aided Education (CAE) project was initiated in 1990-1991 as part of the World Bank National Education Development Project. It included a program to introduce computer literacy and computer aided instruction in grade 10 at selected secondary schools. A report by the Research, Planning and Coordination Board of the Ministry of National Education (http://www.meb.gov.tr) titled, “The National Education at the Beginning of 2002”, it is stated that “... using the credit received from the World Bank, 3188 IT classrooms have been built in 2802 schools, tenders have been opened to build more of them, and to obtain software in 3000 more primary schools.” The Faculty of Education is one among several others to meet the ever increasing demand of teachers and educational specialists in Turkey. The initial teacher preparation involves the development of discipline-based knowledge, curriculum, and pedagogy skills as well as professional ethos. A course named “Introduction to ICT” has also been included as a compulsory course in the curriculum. The history of the course reaches back to 1999 97

when the Faculty began receiving students. At the end of the course, students are expected to gain specific ICT skills and knowledge which they will then transfer on to the workplace through opportunities provided. Most of the students come from the middle or lower classes with no or very little access to technology. Although the students seem to be motivated and keen to learn when introduced to the topic itself, a certain level of anxiety stemming from their fear of what is technological is also noted. It cannot be said that the overall attitudes of the students concerning computers, their application, or impact on the society is negative. Nevertheless, the fact is that the dominant feeling in most students’ approach to technology is one of anxiety based on a technophobic tendency pointed out earlier in this paper. As indicated by Weil and Rosen (1995), the problem of technophobia is fairly common. Erktin and Gülseçen (2001) define it as an important psychological factor efficacious in the use of computers in education. According to Rosen and Weil (1992), the technophobic is an individual evidencing at least one of the following, ranging from severe reactions to mild discomfort: anxiety about present or future interactions with computers or computer related technology, specific negative cognition or self critical internal dialogues during actual computer interaction or when contemplating future computer interaction. During the academic year 1999-2000, the “Introduction to ICT” course has been taught using traditional weekly lectures and laboratory sessions throughout the semester four hours a week. By the end of the semester, it was obvious that there was not sufficient time available to cover the entire content of the course; individual students were at varying levels of knowledge and unhappy with this fact; many students suffered the same level of technophobia as they did in the beginning; the instructor was dissatisfied with her performance – as there were too many students in one class, it was impossible to interact equally with every student on one-to-one basis causing an adverse affect on the outcome. Moreover, both the instructor and the students themselves were dissatisfied by the performance of the students who exhibited signs of lack of motivation. In order to alleviate the problem of unmotivated students, a plan could be brought forth to overcome the lack of time, as well as to facilitate the learning process. Designing an interactive and highly effective learning environment conducive to cooperation, self-assessment, and provision of prompt feedback would allow for better opportunities for students taking into account their personal learning preferences. According to Frank et al. (2003), self-direction, a passion for learning, and strong individual responsibility are important influences on achievement. Therefore, in order to allow the students to learn different ways in pace with their individual nature while encouraging them to evaluate their own way of learning, a more flexible approach to teaching was adopted. Such an approach requires the instructor to change as well. To wit, the teacher is to cease being the center of attention and the source of all knowledge, becoming instead a coach, a facilitator of the knowledge to be acquired. The next section explains, PBL has several distinct characteristics that may be identified and utilised in designing such environments. Constructivism and PBL Constructivism as a philosophical view on how we come to understand or know, holds that any so-called reality is the mental construction of those who believe they have discovered and investigated it. Its view is characterized in terms of three primary propositions. Knowledge is in our interactions with environment. Cognitive conflict is the stimulus for learning. Understanding is influenced through the social negotiation of meaning (Saunders, 1992; Savery and Duffy, 1995). From these three propositions, a set of instructional principles that can guide the practice of teaching and the design of a learning environment emerged. These principles are, anchoring all learning activities to a larger task or problem, supporting the learner in developing ownership for the overall problem or task, designing an authentic task and the learning environment to reflect the complexity of the environment, giving the learner ownership of the process used to develop a solution, designing the learning environment to support and challenge the learners’s thinking, encouraging testing ideas against alternative views and alternative context providing opportunity for and support reflection on both what is learned and on the learning activity (Savery and Duffy, 1995). As stated in the literature since its first prominence in the late 1970s, PBL has lent its increasingly important voice to the ongoing debate on how to organize teaching and learning at the universities. It restructures traditional instructor/student interaction to emphasize active, self-directed learning by the student, rather than didactic, teacher-directed instruction (Harland, 2002; Maxwell, Bellisimo, & Mergendoller, 2001). According to Driessen and Vlueten (2000), PBL is characterized by problem-orientation, interdisciplinary work and selfdirected learning and focuses on interpersonal and professional skills. Having taken its place among the curricular innovations hotly debated in the circles of the higher education over the last 30 years, learners exposed the PBL are gradually allowed to acquire more and more responsibility, who, then, become increasingly independent of the teacher in terms of their own education. Providing educational materials and guidance that facilitate learning are the responsibilities of a PBL instructor. Several studies have shown that PBL is a 98

successful method compared with the more traditional curricula with regard to internal motivation and long-term retention of the learned knowledge. It brings about procedural changes in a direction that can support a shift in perspectives from teaching to learning (Dahlgren, 2003). The PBL covers any learning environment in which the problem drives learning. That is to say, before students acquire knowledge, they are given a problem so posed that the students discover that they need to learn something new before they can solve the problem at hand. Tse and Chan (2003) assert that in the PBL environment, students act as professionals and confront problems as they actually occur – with fuzzy edges, insufficient information, and a need to determine the best solution possible by a given date. The primary distinction is the focus on introducing concepts to students by challenging them to solve a real world problem. Duch (1997) states that in contrast to the more traditional approach of assigning an application problem at the end of a conceptual unit, the PBL uses problems to motivate, focus and initiate student learning. A critical factor in the success of PBL is the problem itself. PBL problems should strive to induce students to learn at the higher Bloom levels (see Table 1), where they analyze, synthesize and evaluate rather than simply define and explain. A Level 3 problem is a good PBL problem, at Bloom’s Analysis, Synthesis or Evaluation levels. It is related to the real world, drawing the students into the problem. Table 1. Bloom’s cognitive levels and student activities (Bloom, 1956) Bloom’s Cognitive Level Student Activity Evaluation Making a judgment based on a pre-established set of criteria Synthesis Producing something new or original from component parts Analysis Breaking material down into its component parts to see interrelationships/hierarchy of ideas Application Using a concept or principle to solve a problem Comprehension Explaining/interpreting the meaning of material Knowledge Remembering facts, terms, concepts, definitions, principles The characteristics that may be identified and utilized in designing a PBL curriculum are as follows (Savery & Duffy, 1995; Tse and Chan, 2003): 1. Reliance on problems to drive the curriculum – the problems do not test skills; they assist in development of the skills themselves. 2. The problems are authentically ill-structured – there is not meant to be one solution and, as new information is gathered in a reiterative process, perception of the problem, and thus the solution, changes. 3. Students solve the problem – lecturers are coaches and facilitators. 4. Students are only given guidelines for how to approach problems – there is no one formula for student approaches to the problem. 5. Authentic, performance-based assessment – this is a seamless part and end of the instruction. Hypothesis During the first meeting with the students at the beginning of academic year 2001-2002, a female student (Cigdem) felt extremely insecure with the idea of using a computer and said, “I am afraid to break it?” Also the students encountered difficulties stemming from lack of basic technical skills such as using the keyboard. One of the male students (Hasan Ali) expressed this difficulty as, “I will never be able to get familiar with all keys on this keyboard!” The fear and anxiety reached to such a degree that some students were compelled to ask instructor’s guidance during what is their first meeting with the computer. The reactions of Cigdem and Hasan Ali, also observed in most of the students during their first experience with the computers, was the moment the instructor made the decision to leave conventional teaching and shift to the PBL model of instruction to provide the students with a more effective learning environment.

Phase I Method Participants The sample of the study consists of a total of 111 sophomore students (28 female and 83 male at average age of 21) from the Department of Primary Education (Division of Classroom Teaching and Division of Science 99

Teaching) and Department of Foreign Languages Teaching (Division of English Language Teaching) respectively. At the beginning of the course, it was observed that the students, exhibiting various levels of anxiety concerning the usage of computers, were also at different levels of basic computer knowledge. In order to measure the said knowledge, a simple test comprised of ten multiple choice questions has been applied. In accordance with the results of the test, students have been classified as “Computer Illiterate”, “Moderately Computer Literate” and “Fairly Computer Literate.” The percentage of the “Fairly Computer Literate” was only 3%. As stated before, high levels of anxiety has been observed in vast majority of students who were, then, classified on such basis as “Technophobics” and “Non-technophobics”. Procedure During the first two weeks of the course, the introductory concepts of ICT (basics of computer hardware and software, familiarisation with Windows, and a word processor) were taught at what could be described as conventional lectures. One of the objectives of the said lectures was to eradicate the vast differences of basic technical knowledge determined to have existed among the students followed by the application of the PBL. In order to encourage the students to assume the responsibility and take ownership for the problem, it was presented as a Level 3 problem, classified as “good problem” at Bloom’s higher levels presented in the previous section. The students were, then, confronted with a real world scenario (Tse and Chan, 2003) through a seemingly authentic correspondence by utilizing a Power Point presentation for their future students on a topic relevant to the academic field they have chosen, e.g. language or science teaching, by working in groups of 3 to 5. In the last 10 years, Power Point presentations have become the most prevalent form of multimedia in education as the students prefer it to presentations from transparencies (Bartsch & Cobern, 2003; Jonassen et al., 2003). Not all the information needed was divulged concerning the problem at hand. Students were provided only with enough information about the goals and the process they would go through during the program. They were given a four week free study time to complete the work. De Graf and Colmos (2003) suggest that the PBL education is based on students’ background, expectations, and interests. Thus the topic selection is left to the students themselves without imposing any limit at all with the supposition that the groups would be more enthusiastic about studying a topic of their own choosing. The students were also informed that they needed to research, discover new material, arrive at judgements and decisions based on the information accessed through print (books, papers and magazines), human (other instructors from the Faculty of Education, classmates, and other experts), and electronic information resources (CD-ROMs and Internet web sites). They have especially been encouraged to browse Internet resources to obtain contemporary electronic material (pictures, images, sound effects, visual effects and video clips) and to integrate them into their presentations. Knowledge concerning Power Point presentation was not imparted to the students. They, were, however, encouraged to access computers whenever they can from computer laboratories within the university campus, Internet cafés, student dormitories and homes. During this period, tasks such as collecting materials, learning the related software, preparing the initial design of the presentations and getting feedback from the instructor were successfully performed. At the end of the four week period the presentations were examined and the deadline was extended for two weeks in order to let students to make the necessary modifications and to finalise the presentations. During that time the role of the instructor was that of being a coach and facilitator. Measurements Measurements were based on observations, interviews and group portfolios. Also a test was performed in order to assess the academic achievement of students. At the end of the semester, a performance-based assessment of final presentations was made. Findings and Discussion At the end of the course, all groups were able to complete their presentations from which the following were chosen as the most successful ones: “Substances”, “Holiday”, “Communication Devices”, “Population of our Country” (Classroom Teaching); “Ants”, “Genetics”, “Our Mountains” and “Harmful Insects” (Science Teaching); “Solar System”, “Indians”, “The Ancient Egypt”, “Earthquake” and “Seasons” (English Language

100

Teaching). Assessment of presentations and data that was collected by the instructor using measurements mentioned above revealed a number of themes that have to be discussed. Once students began working with the problem they are confronted with, they gradually identified what they needed to learn. Most of them were engaged in a self-directed study to gather the information necessary to solve the problem. Some visited Internet cafés, others met at the homes of their group-mates with computers. A couple of students visited primary schools in order to obtain information from the school teachers. One group (the “Our Mountains” group) interviewed a science teacher in preparation of their presentation and discovered that she got into trouble with the section describing the mountains because all third graders tried to memorize the text in the book. Another group (the “Communication Devices” group) visited the main post office of the city where there is a museum and obtained a large amount of material about early predecessors of contemporary communication devices in order to insert them into their presentation. In a PBL model of instruction, the focus is on learners as constructors of their own knowledge within a context similar to the context in which they would apply that knowledge. As expected, during the self-study period, students taught both critically and creatively and monitored their own understanding. Most of the groups prepared several additional slides including an explanation of initial preparations and characteristics of the presentation imparted (see Table 2). It was observed that the students worked interactively rather than dividing the workload on an individual basis. The intimacy of learning in small-group setting was determined to be part of the pleasure that intrinsically exists in an integrated educational process. During the meetings in the class, it was determined that the anxiety observed at the beginning of the course had decreased rapidly and the desire and motivation to learn had pulled ahead. The reality that “Ants” and “Substances” presentations were made by the students with the highest level of anxiety (Cigdem and Hasan Ali) was an important sign of the success of the PBL. Smiling faces with bright eyes conveyed enthusiasm and motivation of the students. At the end of the course, when the performance-based assessment was conducted, most of the students tried to behave as teachers. Self-confidence was another important characteristic observed during the assessment process. Most of the students expressed their feelings with such sentences as, “I can perform better” and “I feel proud of myself”. Table 2. Explanations about the presentation “Seasons” Characteristics Explanation We worked on vocabulary teaching. We try to teach the new words by direct association. That Purpose means we try to make a relation between words and pictures. This method is being used since the direct method. We tried to adapt it to our presentation. The pictures are very colourful. We wanted to take the students’ attention to the presentation. In our work, colours are very important. Each season is depicted in different colours. The Colours seasons and their colours are relevant. For example, white for winter, green for spring etc. In each season, there are three parts. In the first part, we examine the nature; in the second, people; and in the third, the fruits and vegetable in each season. The verbs we used are in the present tense generally. The pictures are suitable for the verbs. Pictures We try to animate the verbs with the pictures. The words in the sentences (for example; dark, thick clothes) can be related with the pictures: ski on the mountains, wear dark and thick clothes, have a picnic, pick flowers, plants start growing, go swimming. Graphics are used to make the students recognise the comparisons. Graphics The language is relatively simple; it is for lower grades. We want the students to understand Language the sentences. Games could be designed in this unit to make use of interaction while learning. Additional

Phase II Rationale and Hypothesis The findings from the Phase I have encouraged us to apply the PBL program for the students taking the same course during the academic year 2002-2003. This time our aim was to investigate the differential effects of the PBL and teacher-centred instruction on cognitive and a group of affective variables which have been coined technophobia. We had to teach at least one class in conventional teacher-centred way. Our hypothesis was that the class taught by utilizing the PBL would be more successful and experience a decrease in their anxiety level more rapidly than with the class receiving teacher-centred instruction. 101

Method Design A quasi-experimental study was designed to evaluate the cognitive and affective outcomes of the PBL program. Sample consisted of university students from the Division of Classroom Teaching (experimental group) and from the Division of English Language Teaching (control group). Pre-test and post-test results for the experimental and the control groups on cognitive and affective variables were compared. The differences in the scores of the experimental and the control groups were also reported. Participants The experimental and control groups taking the same course consisted of 49 and 30 sophomore students respectively. The SPSS-X for Windows programme was used to explore the demographics and the frequency of responses. The experimental group consisted of 15 (31%) male and 34 (69%) female students. The mean age was 20.5 with a standard deviation of 1.3. About 25% of the students possessed a PC. Twenty six percent of the students reported they had taken a computer course before attending the university, and 74% had not. According to the demographics, 68% of mothers had elementary school degree, while 32% have middle/high school or university degree. Also 68% of mothers were housewives and 32% working somewhere. Forty percent of fathers had elementary school degree, 60% graduated from middle/high school or university. Forty six percent were workers and 54% were civil servants. The control group consisted of 8 (27%) male and 22 (73%) female students. Mean age was 20 with a standard deviation of 0.4. In this group, about 40% of the students possessed a PC. Thirty three percent of the students reported that they had taken a computer course before attending the university and 67% had not. From the control group demographics it was determined that 50% of mothers had elementary school degree and 50% middle/high school or university degree. While 54% of them were housewives, 46% have worked somewhere. Of fathers, 27% had elementary school degree and 73% graduated from middle/high school or university. The amount of workers among fathers was 43% while the amount of civil servants was 57%. The experimental group demonstrated low competency level on using computers. Procedure The same instructor taught in both classes. A PBL program was to be used in the experimental group. The control group was given the usual teacher-centred instruction. The PBL program was employed by assigning a group project to the class based on creativity designing a Power Point presentation for their future students as in Phase I, to be completed in a month. As it was mentioned in previous sections the critical factor in the success of PBL is the problem itself. It was presented as a Bloom’s Level 3 problem and it was similar to those students would face in their future profession. This made the students even more enthusiastic than instructor and they immediately realise that they had to make analysis, synthesis and evaluation. Instruments and Measurements After the instruction the students were given the same tests and statistical analyses were run to compare the corresponding performances of the two groups on all the tests. The pre and post tests were also compared for the two groups separately. Both classes were administered the achievement test, CARS, CTS and the GATCS prior to the instruction. Of the two classes, the one with the lower mean score on the achievement pre-test (39.8) was chosen to be the experimental group. The achievement test consisted of 16 items based on the objectives of the course. For the reliability of the scale Cronbach alpha was calculated to be 0.7775. Technophobia was measured by three scales, namely CARS, CTS and GATCS (Rosen and Weil, 1992). The scales were translated into Turkish. CARS consists of 20 items. Higher scores represent more situations for which the respondent feels anxious. The results of the item analysis for the Turkish form were deemed to be satisfactory. For the internal consistency of the Turkish form, Cronbach alpha was calculated to be 0.8975. The second scale was based on the translations of the items of the CTS. Higher scores represent more positive cognition concerning computers. Cronbach alpha was 0.7487 for the 102

Turkish form. For attitudes towards computers, the GATCS, the Cronbach alpha correlation coefficient was determined to be lower (0.6551) than the other two scales. But, this result paralleled other reliability studies conducted by Rosen and Weil on GATCS (1992). In order to gather adequate information concerning the change of students’ attitudes and their level of knowledge, other data sources were used. Among these were, the observations made throughout the course, the group interviews during the performance-based assessment of the presentations, and the final test at the end of the semester examining all the learning objectives covered over the whole semester. Results Considering the sample sizes, non-parametric tests were used for comparing the experimental and control groups as well as the pre-test and the post-test results. The two groups were compared in pre and post measures of achievement (variable ACH) and affective variables (variables CARS, CTS and GATCS) by Independent Samples T-Test. Results of the comparisons of the two groups are presented in Table 3. Paired Samples T-Test was run for the experimental and control groups separately as a non-parametric counterpart of the t-test for dependent groups. Result of the comparisons of the pre and the post test measures are presented in Table 4. When the achievement pre-test results were compared, they indicated a difference at .001 level between the two groups. The control group mean score was significantly higher than the experimental group mean score prior to the instruction. When the test was run for the achievement post test, no significant difference was determined between the scores of the two groups. The group given the PBL instruction was disadvantaged as to the cognitive entry behaviours in the beginning of instruction. At the end of the instruction, the difference disappeared. When the pre and the post test measures of achievement were compared for the two groups separately, the difference in the experimental group scores was about 0.38 points and significant at 0.0001 level, whereas, the difference in control group was .08 points, significant at 0.05 level. We concluded from these findings that PBL instruction applied in our experiment can be claimed to be just as good as the teacher centred instruction for achievement, if not better. Then tests were run for the affective variables. The results of the test for anxiety CARS pre-test given in Table 3 showed no significant differences in the anxiety levels of the two groups although the mean of the control group was a little higher. Similarly, for the post test of anxiety no significant differences existed between the scores of the two groups. When the pre and post measures of computer anxiety were compared, no significant differences were observed, although for both groups, the level of anxiety was lower after instruction. There were no significant differences in the computer cognition measured by CTS in the two groups. But, when pre and post measures were analyzed separately, the cognition of the group which was given the teacher-centred instruction was significantly more positive after the instruction. The change in cognition was not significant after PBL instruction. The results of the pre-test on GATCS showed no significant difference between the attitudes of the two groups as shown in Table 3. The results of the post-test however showed a near significant difference in the attitudes of the experimental and the control groups where the attitude of the control group was more positive. The pre and post test differences in the attitudes of the control group was significant as observed in Table 4. The attitude of the control group was more positive at the end of the instruction, while there was no change in the attitudes of the PBL group. Exp./ Contr. Diff. ACH CARS CTS GATCS

Mean Exp./Contr. 2.1645/2.4792 2.0959/1.9750 2.9684/2.9067 3.3418/3.4417

Table 3. Independent Samples t-test Results PRETEST St.Dev. t Sign. Mean Exp./Contr. Exp./Contr. 0.6382/0.4803 -1.821 .04 2.5421/2.5563 0.6415/0.5663 .849 .398 2.0286/1.9667 0.4323/0.3352 .668 .506 2.9071/2.9367 0.5381/0.2736 -.943 .349 3.3051/3.4650

POSTTEST St.Dev. t Exp./Contr. 0.3883/0.3059 -.170 0.5762/0.6469 .442 0.3798/0.3598 -.342 0.6679/0.2761 -1.245

Sign. .886 .660 .733 .217 103

Pre/ Post Diff. ACH CARS CTS GATCS

Table 4. Paired Samples t-test Results EXPERIMENTAL Mean St.Dev. t Sign. Mean Pre/Post Pre/Post Pre/Post 2.1645/2.5421 0.7629/0.3883 -3.783 .0001 2.4792/2.5563 2.0959/2.0286 0.6415/0.5762 -.755 .454 1.9750/1.9667 2.9684/2.9071 0.4323/0.3798 1.051 .299 2.9067/2.9367 3.3418/3.3051 0.5381/0.6679 .481 .633 3.4417/3.4650

CONTROL St.Dev. t Pre/Post 0.7157/0.3059 -.746 0.5663/0.6469 .114 0.3352/0.3598 -.555 0.2736/0.2761 -.502

Sign. .461 .910 .583 .619

General Discussion and Conclusion The motivational role of ICT in learning is widely recognised. How well prospective teachers learn to use ICT will profoundly influence their effectiveness as future educators. This paper demonstrates how we employed the PBL method in the course titled “Introduction to ICT”, providing the students at the Faculty of Education with a lively and effective learning environment. As researchers, we are interested in determining whether or not such an environment helps the students improve their academic performance. Another point of interest, as significant as the preceding one, is to note the difference in the level of anxiety about present or future interaction with the computers, if indeed there is any, in comparison with traditional teaching and learning environment. In both phases of the study, it was rewarding to see the students so interested in and deriving pleasure from their learning experience with the PBL. It seemed obvious that they were more motivated, working much harder with this model compared with the students to which the traditional methods were applied. As Milliken and Barnes (2002) states, there is a recognition that traditional, university teaching methods have served the interests of lecturers and educational institutions more than they have served the interests of students. It is possible to state that with the application of the PBL, the interests and learning needs of students are more fully and sufficiently acknowledged and satisfied. The attitude towards the computers were consistently determined to be an important variable in educational computing research playing a pivotal role in student success in computer-related tasks. Hong, Ridzuan, and Kuek (2003) stated that the students with positive attitudes towards the computers are also favorably disposed towards them as an instrument of learning. On the other hand research in medical education indicate that the students develop improved attitudes towards learning when received PBL training in advance (Lim, 2002; Liu, 2004). In our study we observed that, in addition to pedagogical benefits obtained as a byproduct, the learning process was driven by the problem initially posed: the learning process became interactive involving the students and the teachers in unison. By working in groups, the students developed collaborative work skills (Grabinger et al., 1997) and learned how to work within complex environments. Although groups spent a great deal of time on PBL work usually breaking the time limit, they took longer than expected to complete the presentations. Two factors seemed to account for this situation from which the second one might be considered as a limitation for this study. Firstly, they found that conducting Internet searches for specific information was quite different and generally needed more time. Secondly, they had limited computer access out of class hours and this made the process of working together slower. As (Tynjälä, 1999) and Willis (2002) state, student learning is strongly steered by its assessment tool. Traditional methods of assessment have often used only “objective” measures such as examinations and tests to assess learning. Student’ perception of assessment requirements direct their approaches to learning and affect their learning outcomes At the beginning of the semester students from the experimental group had negative feelings about performance based assessment which is another key point in PBL, they found it encouraging by the end of the course. The level of knowledge the students reached were deemed to be satisfactory. During the time they spent together, they also tried to teach each other the more complex features of the Power Point, most of them expressing their hope of better performance in the near future. The evidence gathered from the whole process indicate that the students were inclined to self-direction. Another promising development was observed in the area of strong individual responsibility, further motivating some students to prepare presentations for other courses, e.g. “The History of Art” and “Instruction Technologies”. Thus, the generic course could be said to have achieved its aims. 104

Although our expectation was an evidence of a significant difference between the changes in attitudes of the two groups in Phase II, we were encouraged to see, the students overcame, at least to some degree, their initial feelings of technophobia. In our opinion, this particular result concerning Phase II could be explained by taking into consideration the human factor: the instructor as the source of information. The instructor is still the dominant side in the relationship between the elements that partake in the learning process where technology is both a tool and the object. A different explanation can be derived from the fact stated by Liu (2004) that the original discomfort with an initial degree of freedom as exhibited in most of the students during PBL, is an additional source of anxiety. As it was stated in Grabinger et al. (1997), creating autonomous, life-long learners, the PBL specifically teach students to manage their own learning: identify learning needs, set learning objectives, select and employ learning strategies, determine and use appropriate resources and assess the overall process. Such an approach requires that we, the instructors, change also, from being the center of attention and the source of all knowledge to the coaches and facilitators of the acquisition of knowledge sought for by the students. Although the PBL is perceived as costly, for it requires a great investment of faculty time to provide tutors, we believe that teaching through this method produces independent learners who can continue to learn on their own in their chosen careers.

Acknowledgements We wish to acknowledge the assistance of Çiğdem Selçukcan, Fidan Bayraktutan and Ceyda Cimilli in conducting interviews with the students and making classroom observations for this study. Appreciation is extended to Hulusi Gülseçen for his support during all stages of the study. We also thank the reviewers of “Educational Technology and Society” who gave constructive and helpful comments.

References Albion, P. R. (2003). PBL + IMM = PBL2: Problem-based learning and interactive multimedia development. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 11 (2), 243-257. Bartsch, R. A., & Cobern, K. M. (2003). Effectiveness of Power Point presentations in lectures. Computers & Education, 41, 77-86. Bloom, B. (1995). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, New York, USA: McKay. Dahlgren, M. A. (2003). PBL through the looking-glass: comparing applications in computer engineering, psychology and physiotherapy. The International Journal of Engineering Education, 19 (5), 672-681. De Graaf, E., & Kolmos, A. (2003). Characteristics of Problem-Based Learning. The International Journal of Engineering Education, 19 (5), 657-662. Driessen, E., & Vlueten, C. V. D. (2000). Matching student assessment to problem-based learning: lessons from experience in a law faculty. Studies in Continuing Education, 22, 235-248. Duch, B. (1997). Problems: A key www.udel.edu/pbl/cte/spr96-phys.html.

factor

in

PBL,

retrieved

November

25,

2005

from

Erktin, E., & Gülseçen, S. (2001). Psychological factors affecting the use of IT in education. Education and Science, 26 (121), 7-11. Frank, M., Reich, N., & Humphreys, K. (2003). Respecting the human needs of students in the development of e-learning. Computers & Education, 40, 57-70. Fullan, M. (1991). The new meaning of educational change, London, England: Cassell Educational Ltd. Gibson, K. E., & Silverberg, M. (2000). A two-year experience teaching computer literacy to first-year medical students using skill-based cohorts. Bulletin of Medical Library Association, 88 (2), 157-164. 105

Grabinger, S., Dunlop, J., & Duffield, J. A. (1997). Rich environments for active learning in action: problem based learning. ALT-J, 5 (2), 3-17. Harland, T. (2002). Zoology Students’ Experiences of Collaborative Enquiry in Problem-based Learning. Teaching in Higher Education, 7 (1), 6-17. Hong, K.-S., Ridzun, A. A., & Kuek, M.-K. (2003). Students’ attitudes toward the use of the Internet for learning: A study at a university in Malaysia. Educational Technology & Society, 6 (2), 45-49. International Telecommunication Union (2003). Access Indicators for the Information Society, World Telecommunication Development Report, Geneva (ISBN 92-61-10541-6). Jonassen, D. (2000). Computers as Mindtools for Schools: Engaging Critical Thinking, Prentice Hall. Jonassen, D. H., Howland, J., Moore, J. L., & Marra, R. M. (2003). Learning to solve problems with technology: a constructivist perspective, New Jersey, USA: Pearson Education Inc. Lim, K. (2002). Impacts of personal characteristics on computer attitude and academic users information system satisfaction. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 26 (4), 395-406. Liu, M. (2004). Examining the performance and attitudes of sixth graders during their use of a problem-based hypermedia learning environment. Computers in Human Behaviour, 20, 357-379. Maxwell, N. L., Bellisimo, Y., & Mergendoller, J. (2001). Problem Based Learning: modifying the medical school model for teaching high school economics. The Social Studies, March/April, 73-78. Milliken, J. & Barnes, L. P. (2002). Teaching and technology in higher education: student perceptions and personal reflections. Computers & Education, 39, 223-235. Orhun, E. (2002a). Computer-Based Cognitive Tools. In E. Orhun, & P. A. M. Kommers (Eds.), Information and communication technologies in education: a focus on cognitive tools, İzmir, Türkiye: Ege University Press, 17-26. Orhun, E. (2002b). Computer Innovation in Education in Turkey: A Study of the Initiation Conditions in Secondary Schools in İzmir. In E. Orhun, & P.A.M. Kommers (Eds.), Information and communication technologies in education: a focus on cognitive tools, İzmir, Türkiye: Ege University Press, 343-375. Rosen, L. D., & Weil, M. M. (1992). Measuring Technophobia, A Manual for the Administration and Scoring of the Computer Anxiety Rating Scale, Computer Thoughts Survey and the General Attitudes towards Computers Scale, California State University Dominguez Hills, Computerphobia Reduction Program. Saunders, W. L. (1992). The Constructivist Perspective: Implications and Teaching Strategies for Science. School Science and Mathematics, 92 (3), 136-141. Savery, J. R., & Duffy, T. M. (1995). Problem Based Learning: An instructional model and its constructivist framework. Educational Technology, 35, 31-38. Tynjälä, P. (1999). Toward Expert Knowledge? A Comparison Between a Constructivist and a Traditional Learning Environment in the University. International Journal of Educational Research, 31, 357-442. Tse, W. L., & Chan, W. L. (2003). Application of problem based learning in an engineering course. The International Journal of Engineering Education, 19 (5), 747-753. Weil, M. M., & Rosen, L. D. (1995). The psychological impact of technology from a global perspective: a study of technological sophistication and technophobia in university students from twenty three countries. Computers in Human Behaviour, 11 (1), 95-133. Willis, S. C., Jones, A., Bundy, C., Burdett, C. R., Whitehouse, C. R., & O’Neill, P. A. (2002). Small-group work and assessment in a PBL curriculum: a qualitative and quantitative evaluation of student perception of the process of working in small groups and its assessment. Medical Teacher, 24 (5), 495-501. Yıldırım, I. S. & Kiraz, E. (1996). Distance does not really matter: a case study. Proceedings of the Türkiye First International Distance Education Symposium, Ankara: UZEV, 673-682. 106