A comparison of student perceptions of academic, social, and emotional self-efficacy in classrooms with divergent approaches to integrating instructional technology
2019
- 634Usage
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Usage634
- Downloads484
- Abstract Views150
Interview Description
As society advances in technology, it is important that our educational systems have a unified understanding of how technology should be used inside the classroom (Bitter & Pierson, 2001; Oppenheimer, 2003). However, literature is mixed on whether technology impacts the learner positively or negatively (Brusca, 1991; Cassil, 2005; Cuban & Cuban, 2009; Kulik, 2003; Li & Ma, 2010; Strong, Torgerson, Torgerson, & Hulme, 2011; Torgerson et al., 2004; Waxman, Connell, & Gray, 2002). A number of researchers state that technology in schools can have a positive impact on achievement (Brusca, 1991; Cuban & Cuban, 2009; Li & Ma, 2010) while other researchers concluded that the distractions provided by technology decrease achievement and the habits it instills are harming students’ development, both academically and socially (Cassil, 2005; Kulik, 2003; Strong et al., 2011; Torgerson et al., 2004; Waxman et al., 2002). Various findings on the impact of technology as it relates to learning achievement suggest that there is a variable beyond the technology itself that may affect student learning (Cassil, 2005; Kulik, 2003; Strong et al., 2011; Torgerson et al., 2004; Waxman et al., 2002). Despite a large amount of literature on the impact of technology on educational achievement, there is a lack of literature related to the impact of technological approaches on learner self-efficacy, a strong predictor of achievement (Bandura, Barbaranelli, Caprara, & Pastorelli, 2001). This study aimed to fill the gap by determining if a relationship exists between students’ academic, social, and emotional self-efficacy and their classroom’s approach to integrating technology. Classrooms involved in the study where separated based on their approach to integrating technology and assessments where administered to each student. The first assessment was a specialized measure of self-efficacy, developed by Peter Muris (2001). The second was a measurement of technological competence, developed by the researcher. The results of the study showed significant relationships between self-efficacy and several factors involved in integrating technology.
Bibliographic Details
University of Tennessee at Chattanooga
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know