Technology integration in physical education teacher education programs: a comparative analysis
Integración de tecnologías educativas en programas de formación de formadores de educación física: análisis comparativo Montclair State University, Estados Unidos y Kibbutzim College of Education, Israel
The purpose of this research was to examine and compare the attitudes and perceptions of program preparation to use and integrate technology during teaching practices between pre-service physical education students from Montclair State University (MSU) (N = 187), NJ, USA and from Kibbutzim College of Education (KCE) (N = 120). Data was collected by means of a questionnaire. Of the 307 participants, 50.8% are women and 48.5% men. According to their college status, 15% were first-year (N = 47), 16% were second year (N = 49), 24% were third year (N = 74) and 45% were fourth year (N = 137). Analysis of t-tests and Mann Mann -Whitney U tests indicated a significant difference between the two institutions in (a) access to computers in college, (b) the opinion of the students about their readiness to integrate Information and Communication Technology (ICT) in education (c) technological knowledge acquired during classes, and (d) the student's opinion of professors modeling the use of educational technologies. According to the results, MSU students have clearer knowledge on the use of specific technologies such as heart rate monitors, pedometers, and systems assessment of fitness and physical skills. Furthermore, the differences between universities did not depend on gender or race. The findings also indicated that technology integration in these programs was still in the developmental stages.
Key words: ITC’S, Teacher Education, Technology Integration, Physical Education, United States, Israel
Resumen
El propósito de esta investigación fue examinar y comparar las actitudes y percepciones sobre la preparación para utilizar e integrar tecnología educativa en la práctica de la enseñanza entre estudiantes de educación física en el programa de formación de docentes en Educación Física de Montclair State University MSU) (N = 187), Nueva Jersey, EE.UU. y de Kibbutzim College (KCE) (N = 120), Tel Aviv, Israel. Los datos fueron recopilados por medio de un cuestionario. De los 307 participantes, el 50.8% son mujeres y el 48.5%, hombres. Según años de carrera, 15 % eran de primer año (N = 47), 16% de segundo año (N = 49), 24 % de tercer año (N = 74) y 45% de cuarto año (N = 137). El análisis de t-tests y Mann-Whitney U indicó que existe una diferencia significativa entre ambas instituciones en: (a) el acceso a las computadoras en la universidad, (b) la opinión de los estudiantes acerca de si están preparados para integrar las TIC en la enseñanza, (c) el conocimiento tecnológico adquirido durante las clases, y (d) la opinión del estudiante si los profesores son un ejemplo en el uso de tecnologías educativas. Según las encuestas, este hecho refleja que los estudiantes de MSU tienen conocimientos más claros sobre uso de tecnologías específicas como monitores de ritmo cardíaco, podómetros, sistemas de evaluación de la aptitud y destrezas física, etc. y que las diferencias entre las universidades no dependen del genero o de los años de carrera de los estudiantes.
Palabras clave: TIC, Formación Docente, Integración De Tecnologías, Educación Física, Estados Unidos, Israel
1. Introduction
Questions such as how educational technology impacts teaching and learning, which is the best tool or technology to prompt engagement and collaboration between the students, and how to promote higher-order thinking skills have concerned the educational realm, particularly when discussing the efficacy of pre-service teacher education programs to prepare future educators to infuse the use of technologies in their practice (Kirschner & Sellinger, 2003; Pearson, 2003). According to Smerdon et al. (2000), the sense of preparedness is strongly related to the amount of professional development teachers receive. Research shows that in-service training and the use of the Internet for instructional purposes are related to teachers’ confidence and feelings of being prepared to integrate technology in the classroom (Lockyer & Patterson, 2007; Settlage et al., 2004). In addition, teachers’ ability to use a full range of digital learning tools contributes to students’ engagement and achievement in the learning process (Shonfeld, Resta, & Yaniv, 2011). Thus, the students are likely to show positive attitudes towards technology after experiencing the use of them (LaMaster, 1998; Lim, 2005).
Preparing educators to use different technologies or tools is not the only element to support teachers to integrate Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) in the classroom. Several factors should be considered when deciding which tools to use. An important point is that the learning experience that students are expected to have should determine what tools to include in the design of the lesson. One of the major problems is that educators tend to use technology just because it is available without considering the design principles that will work to support and meet the learning expectations. The use of tools without a clear purpose could become distractive and could impede learning. Technology should be used to facilitate cognitive processing and engage students in critical, higher order thinking about the content, to support interactive, collaborative, and student-centered classrooms (Jonassen et al., 1998).
Disciplines such as physical education are not free from these challenges. It might seem that the gymnasium would be the last place where technology would have a strong influence in curriculum and instruction. This is certainly not the case; technologies are widely used as educational tools in areas of sport, physical activity and health, but pre-service physical educators do not feel fluent or confident to integrate technology in their teaching careers (Liang et al., 2006). Physical education teachers must have an understanding about how computers and other technological devices (i.e. heart rate monitors, motion sensors, pedometers, body composition analyzers, computer-based health-management systems, etc.) contribute to the collection of data for the development of better teaching methods, to the analysis of sport skills, to the assessment of students’ learning, and to the evaluation of health related physical fitness. Current certificate programs in instructional technology offered in the USA and Israel do not address all of the professional needs of physical education teachers in areas such fitness, wellness, and management of sports. Therefore, the purpose of this research was to examine and compare attitudes towards the use of computers and the perceptions of program preparation to use and integrate technology in their teaching practices between pre-service physical education students from Montclair State University (MSU), NJ, USA and from Kibbutzim College of Education (KCE) in Israel. It was expected that learning about teachers’ preparation for uses of instructional technology would support the development of a professional training series and a certificate program in applied technology in exercise science and physical education.
2. Literature Review
The need to prepare teachers to implement Information and Communication Technology (ICT) into teaching and learning in teacher education programs has been stressed by the release of a set of technology standards by the U.S. National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) and the International Society Technology Education (ISTE). As stated in the ISTE standards, “Effective teachers apply the National Educational Technology Standards for Students (NETS•S) as they design, implement, and assess learning experiences to engage students and improve learning; enrich professional practice; and provide positive models for students, colleagues, and the community” (ISTE, 2008). A report called "Redefining Teacher Education for Digital Age Learners," delivered to the USA Congress in October 2010, provided a list of recommendations from education stakeholders for the transformation of teacher education programs (Carroll & Resta, 2010) including the use of the most current and innovative technology in teacher education programs and application of research on pedagogical practices to support teachers’ technology integration in the classroom.
Projects such as the United States (U.S.) Department of Education's Preparing Tomorrow's Teachers to Use Technology (PT3) initiative (Hall et al., 2006) and "Tomorrow 98" program funded by the Israel Committee of Science and Technology Education, promoted the use of technology in educational programs. According to Polly, Mims, Shepherd, and Fethi (2010), preparing teachers and pre-service teachers through individualized mentorship and creating technology-rich field experiences is associated with greater technological knowledge and skills, more use of technology in methods courses and field experiences with K-12 students. Despite these initiatives, researchers also indicated that barriers such as limited administrative support and lack of alignment between teacher education programs and K-12 schools existed and as a result, teachers were less likely to integrate ICT in teaching (Brzycki & Dudt, 2005; Fethi, 2010; Goktas et al., 2009; Polly, Mims, Shepherd, & Redmond et al., 2005).
Research conducted by Goldshtein et al. (2009) in four large colleges in Israel reported that preparation in ICT integration was very limited and did not involve new pedagogies such as Problem Based Learning (PBL), high cognitive tasks, and collaborative learning through Web2 tools. The study also indicated that most pre-service teachers who enter colleges have basic ICT skills and positive attitudes towards ICT integration in education; but teacher- training programs do not provide adequate skills and competencies to teach with technology. Pre-service teachers were exposed in their courses mostly to traditional methods of ICT integration in teaching. Innovative models of ICT integration (e.g. collaborative learning, inquiry based learning, web-based synchronous and a-synchronous distant learning) are barely used. For example, pre-service teachers have little experience in using Learning Management Systems and course websites; therefore, they are not sufficiently exposed to the advantages of learning management with technology. About half of the pre-service teachers graduate with no practical experience in ICT integration in teaching.
]]>
2.1 Technology for physical education teachers
The literature suggests that effective technology integration with specific subject matter requires teachers to apply their knowledge of curriculum content, general pedagogies, and technologies (Koehler et al., 2007). Because physical education is usually taught in a gymnasium or outdoors, it is important for teacher education programs to prepare teachers to infuse technology in a way that will support the pedagogical strategies used in those settings. Teachers need to learn and practice teaching skills in a context as similar as possible to the one they will teach in later. Physical education teachers are expected to know how computers and other technological devices can contribute to data collection for the analysis of sport skills, assessment of student learning, and evaluation of health-related physical fitness. This includes using exercise equipment to assess physical activity (e.g., accelerometers, heart rate monitors, pedometers, interactive dance machines), body composition (e.g., bioelectrical impedance devices, electronic skin-fold calipers), and movement and motor-skill performance (e.g., Dartfish). There are also a number of software packages used to record and analyze physical fitness, physical activity levels, and nutrition habits, such as TriFit, FITNESSGRAM, and Activitygram. PE Manager is another application used in physical education to track student performance via rubrics, tests, and assignments on a mobile device (Woods et al., 2008).
These expectations are reflected in educational standards such as the National Educational Technology Standards (NETS), established by the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE), and in the physical education teacher education (PETE) standards of the National Association for Sport and Physical Education in the United States (NASPE, 2009). Bechtel (2010) explored the use of technology in a Physical Education Teacher Education (PETE) program while addressing the national standard 3, outcome 3.7 for physical education teacher education: “Teacher candidates will: Demonstrate knowledge of current technology by planning and implementing learning experiences that require students to appropriately use technology to meet lesson objectives” (NASPE, 2009, p. 6). Bechtel found that technology was not being effectively infused across the PETE program. The results of this prompted changes in the program to address the need to prepare pre- service teachers to use various forms of technology in their teaching practice. Bechtel recommended that technology be taught across the curriculum using progressive learning experiences that incorporate pedometers and heart rate monitors.
Other research on technology integration in physical education teacher preparation programs reported successful results. For example, Lim (2005) examined the effects of integrating computer technology into a physical education course on students’ attitudes and competency levels towards the national technology standards and selected instructional software applications. The study revealed that overall students' technology competency improved significantly toward national technology standards and selected instructional software applications after taking the course. Also, after their participation in this course, students' attitudes toward national technology standards and selected instructional software applications changed significantly to a more positive view. Ninety-two percent of students indicated they would like to see more computer technology-integrated courses. The findings also indicated that incorporating technology for teaching and learning across the curriculum could be effective in preparing teacher education students to successfully use technology as teaching tools when they become teachers.
Therefore, the current investigation examined and compared attitudes towards the use of computers and the perceptions of program preparation to use and integrate technology during teaching practices between pre-service physical education students from Montclair State University and from Kibbutzim College of Education. Such results may shed light on the way to incorporate ICT into physical education pre-service programs in an effective way. The following research questions were addressed in this investigation: 1.What was the technology literacy level of physical education students? 2.What were their attitudes about integrating technology into teaching? 3.What were the differences between MSU and KCE students based on gender and college status? 4.What were students’ attitudes towards computers, access to computers, students’ perception of their preparation to integrate ICT in teaching, technology knowledge acquired during coursework, and perception of professors modeling the use of computers?
3. Methodology
3.1 Participants and Procedures
The present study was descriptive in nature. The participants in this study were Pre- service Physical Education students from Montclair State University, NJ, USA and from Kibbutzim College of Education, Israel. During the months of March and April 2011, the investigators sent an email to the students inviting them to participate in the survey. The email included a brief explanation of the study and a link to the survey page. Once the survey was submitted, the investigator exported the data to Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) for the appropriate statistical analysis. MSU subjects completed the English version of the survey in ‘surveysmonkey.com while students from KCE completed the Hebrew version of the survey in ‘docs.google.com.’
3.2 Instrument
Data was collected by means of a modified questionnaire, the Pre-service Teachers’ Technology Integration Instrument (PTTII, Granston, 2004). The survey focused on pre- service teachers’ attitudes and perception of program preparation to use and integrate technology in their teaching and learning. The 45-item inventory assessed the following information (a) demographic background, (b) attitudes, (c) access to computers at the college, (d) preparation to teach with technologies, and (e) modeling computer use by professors.
Several independent variables were used in this study including group (MSU vs. KCE), gender (male and female), and college status (freshman, sophomore, junior, senior). The dependent variables assessed in this study included students' attitudes towards computers, access to computers at College, students’ perception of their readiness to integrate ICT in teaching, technology knowledge acquired during coursework, and students’ perception of professors modeling computer use.
Attitudes towards using computers was a composite variable and consisted of a 6-item subscale. Each item was rated on a 4-point scale, ranging from 1 to 4 using descriptors such as 1-Strongly Disagree, 2-Disagree, 3-Agree, and 4-Strongly Agree. Measures of access to computers at college (Support and Resources). Each item was rated on a 4-point scale, ranging from 1 to 4 using descriptors such as 1-Strongly Disagree, 2-Disagree, 3-Agree, and 4-Strongly Agree. Preparation to teach with computers included 14 items. The items were rated on a 3-point scale, ranging from 1 to 3 using descriptors such as 1-unprepared, 2- somewhat prepared, and 3-prepared. Technology knowledgeacquired during coursework included 13 items. Each item was rated on a 4-point scale, ranging from 1 to 4 using descriptors such: 4 - All the Courses, 3 - Most of the Courses, 2 - In a few Courses, 1 - None of the Courses. Students’ perception of professors modeling computer use included 5 items. Each item was rated on a 4-point scale, ranging from 1 to 4 using descriptors such as: 4- Strongly Disagree, 3-Disagree, 2-Agree, and 1-Strongly Agree.
Questions assessing attitudes towards using computers, access to computers at college, preparation to teach with computers, technology knowledge acquired during coursework, and students’ perception of professors modeling computer use are presented in Appendix 1.
The validity of the instrument was demonstrated by theoretical support from relevant literature. The review of literature was conducted to determine the significant dimensions closely related to the concept of educational technology. The reliability of the scale was assessed through a coefficient alpha analysis, which provides an index of internal consistency. The reliability of the subscales was .528 for attitudes towards using computers, .792 for students’ perception of professors modeling computer use, .775 for access to computers at college, .810 for technology knowledge acquired during coursework coursework, and .866 for preparation to teach with computers.
3.3 Data Analysis
A total of 307 complete responses were analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). Descriptive analyses were performed on all dependent variables items. Descriptive statistics are presented in Table 1. Data analysis showed that for MSU there is significant skewness and kurtosis for all dependent variables indicating that MSU data are not normally distributed and the sample size for MSU is a lot larger than the sample size for KCE. In addition, Levene's test for homogeneity of variance was significant for all dependent variables. This suggests that the variance for MSU is different to the variance for KCE so ANOVA tests may not be appropriate. Because the results of the two-way analysis of variance indicated non-significant interactions between institutions and gender, independent samples t tests with equal variances not assumed were used to compare differences between institutions and between gender on the variables related to attitudes towards computers, access to computers at the college, technology knowledge acquired during coursework, and perception of professors modeling computer use by professors. The t-tests results are presented in Tables 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8. One-way ANOVAs were used to compare College Status differences on the dependent variables concerning attitudes towards computers, access to computers at the college, technology knowledge acquired during coursework, and perception of professors modeling computer use by professors. Mann-Whitney U tests were conducted to examine differences between institutions and between gender on the students’ preparation to teach with computers. A Kruskal-Wallis test was conducted on the perception of preparation to integrate ICT in teaching. A Chi Square test was conducted in order to examine the relationship between students’ attitudes towards the use of computers and perceptions of program preparation to use and integrate technology in their teaching practices.
4. Findings
Frequency and percentage data of the responses indicated that 187 participants were from MSU and 120 respondents were from KCE. Forty eight percent of the 307 participants were male, 51% were females, and 1% did not report their gender. Forty nine percent of the respondents were less than 24 years old. Most of students at MSU were seniors and juniors (83%) while students from KCE were mainly freshmen, sophomores and juniors (82%). ]]>
4.1 Differences in between academic institutions
The t-test results indicated that MSU students (= 2.96) were likely to have a better attitude towards using computers [t(305) = 1.84 < .10] than students from KCE (= 2.88. Specific results regarding attitudes towards using computers are presented in more detail in Table 2.
According to the t-test results, students from KCE (= 3.61) were likely to have more access to computers at college [t(300) = -3.088 < .01] than MSU students (= 3.45). Specific results regarding access to computers are presented in more detail in Table 3.
The t-test results indicated that MSU students (= 2.25) were more likely to acquire technology knowledge during coursework [t(305) = -10.679, < .001] than students from KCE (= 1.74). Specific results regarding technology knowledge acquired during coursework to teach with computers are presented in more detail in Table 4.
The t-test results indicated that MSU students (= 2.90) were more likely to perceive that professors model computer use in the classroom [t(216) = 5.768 < .001] than students from KCE (= 2.55). Specific results regarding modeling computer use are presented in more detail in Table 5.
A Mann-Whitney U test was conducted to examine differences between institutions in the students’ preparation to teach with computers. From this data it can be concluded that there is a statistically significant difference between the MSU and KCE students preparation to teach with computers (U = 4779.000, p < .000). It can be further concluded that MSU students were likely to be more prepared to teach with computers than students from KCE. Specific results regarding preparation to teach with computers are presented in more detail in Table 6.
4.2 Differences between males and females
According to t-test results, it can be concluded that male students (= 2.87) were more likely to perceive that professors modeled computer use in the classroom [t(292) = 3.356 < .01] than female students (= 2.67). Regarding technology knowledge acquired during coursework, male students (= 2.12) were likely to feel that they acquired more knowledge during coursework than female students (= 1.99), [t(299) = 2.492 < .05]. Specific results regarding perception of professors modeling computer use in the classroom and knowledge acquired during coursework are presented in more detail in Tables 7 and 8.
A Mann-Whitney U test was conducted to evaluate differences between male and female students’ preparation to teach with computers. From the results it can be concluded that there is a statistically significant difference between the male and female students preparation to teach with computers (U = 8866.000, p < .000). It can be further concluded that male students (= 2.25) were likely to be more prepared to teach with computers than female students from KCE (= 2.08).
4.3 Association between preparation to integrate technology and knowledge acquired during coursework
A chi-square test of independence was performed to examine the association between preparation to integrate technology and knowledge acquired during coursework. The association between these variables was significant [x2 (6, N = 306) = 71.634, p <0.001]. The knowledge acquired during coursework affects the students’ preparation to integrate technology. Students from both institutions, who feel more prepared or somewhat prepared to integrate technology, were more likely to indicate that they acquired more knowledge during some of the courses.
4.4 Differences between freshmen, sophomores, juniors, and seniors
One-way analysis of variance showed a statistical significant difference between freshman, sophomore, junior, and senior’s perception of technology knowledge acquired during coursework [F (3, 306) = 15.493, p< 0.001]. According to the post hoc results, freshmen (= 3.1293, SD = .42561) students were less likely to perceive that they acquire technology knowledge than juniors (= 2.8212, SD = 0.51) and seniors (= 2.7675, SD = 0.41. No statistical differences were found between college status on modeling, attitudes, and access.
A Kruskal-Wallis test was conducted to evaluate differences among the college status (freshman, sophomore, junior, senior) with regard to perception of preparation to teach with computers. There was a statistically significant difference between the students’ perception [x2 (3, N = 306 = 28.552, P = 0.001)] with a mean rank of 103.35 for freshmen, 134.48 for sophomores, 150.22 for juniors, and 178.92 for seniors.
5. Discussion
This study compared the perceptions of technology integration in teacher preparation programs and the perception of computer proficiency pre-service physical education in a group of students from the USA and Israel. The results of this ]]>
Overall, the students in this study ]]>
The data also indicated gender differences; males in this study were more likely to feel that the courses in their program prepared them to use technology and that the ]]>
2007). Other studies also indicated that males are more comfortable with technology and had more experience using computers than females (Durndell, 1996; Matthews & Guarino, ]]>
In addition, students from MSU were more likely to use technology to develop lesson plans and to teach lessons than students from KCE. These findings are also consistent when ]]>
The association between preparation ]]>
Although attitudes towards using computers were not high, MSU students’ showed more positive attitudes than KCE students. These results might be explained as a result of the program emphasis on computer ]]>
Table 5 might influence their attitude towards the use of computers. Bay and Lehman (2003) claim that students do not use computers in their class because they have not seen their ]]>
Evidence from this study also suggests that neither teacher-training program provides adequate skills and competencies to teach with technology in the classroom. These findings also show that pre-service teachers are exposed in their courses mostly to traditional methods of ICT ]]>
An interesting finding shows that ]]>
]]>
6. Conclusion
In general, the results of this study indicate that pre-service students from MSU and KCE have poor training in the use of ICT for teaching purposes. Nonetheless, the findings of this study must be interpreted within the context of inherent limitations, mainly from two dimensions. First, the majority of MSU students were seniors and juniors while students from KCE were mainly freshmen, sophomores and juniors. In addition, more male students were from MSU and more females from KCE. Taking these facts into account an initial argument might suggest that the differences between students were more likely to be influenced by the gender and college lever differences rather than by the differences between institutions. Future research should consider using a representative sample for both institutions in terms of gender, age, and college status.
These findings should encourage physical education pre-service programs to seek effective ways for preparing high quality physical teachers to meet the technological challenges in the classroom. In essence, the need resides in redirecting the educational strategies and to adopt new educational models to teach to integrate technology that links the main components that intervene in the educational process. This includes the knowledge on the relations among the most appropriate technology (T) and the most effective teaching (P) to make the educational contents (C) more accessible to the students (Mishra & Koehler, 2006). The idea is that in order to optimize technology-based models of teaching and learning, teachers should be able to apply the content knowledge in a pedagogically sound way that is adaptable to the characteristics of students and the educational context (e.g., the gymnasium). The key challenge is to prepare educators to effectively and efficiently incorporate technological features into the teaching and learning process. Basically educators need to make connections between the purpose of the educational technology and the learning outcome expected. Other recommendations include reviewing the Physical Education curriculum for each program to address the pedagogical uses of discipline specific technologies and developing a digital environment appropriate to pre-service physical education students.
7. References
Bechtel, Pamela. (2010). Technology utilization: Thread it through the PETE curriculum. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 81(6), 53 – 56. [ Links ]
Brzycki, Dolores & Dudt, Kurt. (2005). Overcoming Barriers to Technology Use in Teacher Preparation Programs. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13(4), 619-641. Norfolk, VA: AACE. Retrieved from http://www.editlib.org/p/5167. [ Links ]
Carroll, Tom & Resta, Paul. (2010). The summary report of the invitational summit on redefining teacher education for digital-age learners. Retrieved from http://redefineteachered.org/sites/default/files/SummitReport.pdf?q=summitreport. [ Links ]
Durndell, Alan. (1990). Why do female students tend to avoid computer studies? Research in Science & Technological Education, 8(2), 163-171. [ Links ]
Goktas, Yuksel, Yildirim, Zahide & Yildirim, Soner. (2009). Investigation of K-12 Teachers’ ICT Competencies and the Contributing Factors in Acquiring these Competencies. The New Educational Review, 17(1), 276-294. [ Links ]
Goldshtein, Olzan, Kuzminski, L., Hiluel, I., Walsman, N., Zelkovitz, Z., Tesler, B., Mor, N., Forkush-Baruch, Alona & Shonfeld, Miri. (2009). ICT in Teacher Training in Israel at 1993-2008. Research net: MOFET Institute. [ Links ]
Granston, Carol. (2004). Technology and teacher training: The systematic design and development of a framework for integrating technology into Jamaica’s teacher training programs. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Department of Secondary Education, College of Education, University of South Florida, United States. [ Links ]
Hall, Leslie, Fisher, Clint, Musanti, Sandra & Halquist, Don. (2006). What can we learn from PT3? Tech Trends, 50(3), 25-31. [ Links ]
International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE). (2008). National Educational Technology Standards (NETS) for Teachers. Retrieved from http://www.iste.org. [ Links ]
Jonassen, David, Pfeiffer, William & Wilson, Brent. (1998). Learning with technology: A constructivist perspective. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. [ Links ]
Keengwe, Jared & Kidd, Terry. (2010). Towards Best Practices in Online Learning and Teaching in Higher Education. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 6(2), 533–541. [ Links ]
Kirschner, Paul Arthur & Sellinger, Michelle. (2003). The state of affairs of teacher education with respect to information and communications technology. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 12(1), 5-17. [ Links ]
Koehler, Matthew & Mishra, Punya. (2008). Introducing TPCK. In AACTE Committee on Innovation and Technology (Ed.), The handbook of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK) for educators (pp. 3-29). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. [ Links ]
Kosma, Robert. (2005). National policies that connect ICT-based education reform to economic and social development. Human Technology, 1(2), 117-156. [ Links ]
LaMaster, Kathryn. (1998). Technology: Attitudes, efficacy, and use by practicing physical education teachers. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 69(6), 21-24. [ Links ]
Liang, Guoli, Walls, Richard, Hicks, Virginia, Clayton, Brenda & Yang, Lei. (2006). Will tomorrow's physical educators be prepared to teach in the digital age? Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education [Online serial], 6(1). Retrieved from: http://www.citejournal.org/vol6/iss1/currentpractice/article1.cfm. [ Links ]
Lim, Jon YeanSub. (2005). Preparing pre-service teachers to effectively use technology as teaching tools. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 76(1), A81. [ Links ]
Lockyer, Lori & Patterson, John. (2007). Technology use, technology views: anticipating ICT use for beginning physical and health education teachers. Issues in Informing Science and Information Technology, 4, 261-267. [ Links ]
Löfström, Erika y Nevgi, Anne. (2007). From strategic planning to meaningful learning: Diverse perspectives on the development of web-based teaching and learning in higher education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(2), 312-324. [ Links ]
Matthews, Jerry & Guarino, Anthony. (2000). Predicting teacher computer use: A path analysis. Instructional Journal of Instructional Media, 27, 385-392. [ Links ]
McCaughtry, Nate & Rocco Dillon, Suzanna. (2008). Learning to use PDAs to enhance teaching: The perspectives of pre-service physical educators. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 16(4), 433-459. [ Links ]
Ministry of Education, Israel. (2011). Adapting the Education System to the 21st national plan. Retrieved from: http://cms.education.gov.il/EducationCMS/Units/MadaTech/englishsifria/AdaptingtheEd ucationSystemtothe21Century/Vision_and_rationale.htm. [ Links ]
Pearson, John. (2003). Information and communications technologies and teacher education in Australia. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 12(1), 39-58. [ Links ]
Pektas, Sule Tasli & Erkip, Feyzan. (2006). Attitudes of Design Students toward Computer Usage in Design. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 16(1), 79-95. [ Links ]
Polly, Drew, Mims, Clif, Shepherd, Craig E. & Fethi, Inan. (2010). Evidence of impact: Transforming teacher education with preparing tomorrow’s teachers to teach with technology (PT3) grants. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(4), 863 – 870. [ Links ]
Redmond, Petrea, Albion, Peter & Maroulis, Jerry. (2005). Intentions v Reality: Preservice ICT Integration during Professional Experience. In C. Crawford et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2005 (pp. 1566-1571). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Retrieved from http://www.editlib.org/p/19265. [ Links ]
Settlage, John, Odom, Louis & Pedersen, Jon. (2004). Uses of technology by science education professors: Comparisons with teachers: Uses and the current versus desired technology knowledge gap. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 4(3), 299-312. [ Links ]
Shonfeld, Miri, Goldshtein, Olzan & Forkush-Baruch, Alona. (2008). IT in teacher education in Israel. Maital (IUCELL), Haifa, Israel. [ Links ]
Shonfeld, Miri, Resta, Pual & Yaniv, Hanan. (2011). Engagement and Social Presence in a Virtual Worlds (Second Life) Learning Environment. In Matthew Koehler & Punya. Mishra (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2011 (pp. 740-745). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Retrieved on October, 12, 2011 from http://www.editlib.org/p/36365. [ Links ]
Smerdon, Becky, Cronen, Stephanie, Lanahan, Lawrence, Anderson, Jennifer, Iannottie, Nicholas, & Angeles, J. (2000). Teachers’ tools for the 21st century: A report on teachers’ use of technology. Education Statistics Quarterly, 2(1), 48-52. [ Links ]
Woods, Marianne, Goc Karp Grace, Miao, Hui & Perlman, Dana. (2008). Physical educators' technology competencies and usage. Physical Educator: a magazine for the profession 65(2), 82-99. [ Links ]
*Correspondencia: Susana Juniu: Profesora del Departamento de Ciencias del Ejercicio y Educación Física, Montclair State University, Estados Unidos. Dirección electrónica: junius@mail.montclair.edu Miri Shonfeld: Profesora de Kibbutzim College of Education, Israel. Dirección electrónica: Miri_Sho@smkb.ac.il Adit Ganot:Profesora de Kibbutzim College of Education, Israel. 1. Profesora del Departamento de Ciencias del Ejercicio y Educación Física, Montclair State University, Estados Unidos. Dirección electrónica: junius@mail.montclair.edu 2. Profesora de Kibbutzim College of Education, Israel. Dirección electrónica: Miri_Sho@smkb.ac.il 3. Profesora de Kibbutzim College of Education, Israel.
Artículo recibido: 26 de noviembre, 2012 Aprobado: 12 de setiembre, 2013
]]>
2010816653 - 5620051344619-64120101990822163-1712009171276-29420092004200650325-31International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE).200819982010622533-54120031215-17AACTE Committee on Innovation and Technology20083-292005122117-156199869621-24200661120057611A8120074261-26720073822312-324200027385-39220081644433-459Ministry of Education, Israel20112003121139-582006161179-9520102644863 - 87020051566-15712004433299-31220082011740-745200021148-522008652282-99
= 2.96) were likely to have a better attitude towards using computers [t(305) = 1.84 
< .10] than students from KCE (