Technology Readiness of Freshman Education Majors

Jeremy Wendt
Associate Professor
Tennessee Tech University
Box 5042, Cookeville, TN, 38505
USA
jwendt@tntech.edu

Jason Beach
Assistant Professor
Tennessee Tech University
Box 5042, Cookeville, TN, 38505
USA
jbeach@tntech.edu

Ando Akinobu
Assistant Professor
Miyagi University of Education
Tokyo, Japan
andy@staff.miyakyo-u.ac.jp

Abstract
Todays pre-service educators have a completely different set of expectations than those from
previous years. Technology is a driving force behind many of these changes. As a generation
immersed in technology, educators and future educators are expected to understand the
implications and intricacies of educational technology integration. However, the skills and ideas
that freshman education majors bring into the learning environment varies widely. This study
examines technology readiness of freshman education majors across two continents and finds
many similarities, but very few differences.

Keywords
Educational Technology; University Freshman; Teacher Education; Technology Readiness

Conference Topic
E-Learning; Educational Technology

Introduction
Defining technology readiness in the scope of teacher education is a task that is constantly
evolving. Although nearly 100% of todays freshman university students have experience with
and personally own digital tools (laptops, computers, smart phones, tablets, gaming systems,
etc.), very few have transformed their daily use of technological conveniences into functional
classroom devices. As students progress from high school to college and then eventually into
their own classrooms, these pre-service teachers must bridge the technical gap and see the
potential of educational technologies as powerful teaching tools.
 Body

As far back as 2007, (Caruso & Salaway) studies have found that todays digital natives may
have grown up with technology, but are not necessarily prepared for what is expected at the
higher education level. The technology-rich learning environments at a university can look much
different than those from the K-12 setting. Fleming (2012) points out that virtual applications at
four-year institutions have increased dramatically over the past seven years and, in order to be
competitive, students must work with a host of websites and services to prepare for college.
Facebook has even joined in with a game that is geared towards helping low income students get
into college. This digital interaction, whether prepping for the SAT or taking virtual tours, is only
a small preview of the technological wave in addition to their day-to-day routines. Lacking the
skills or accessibility can make college success much more challenging. The findings from this
research adds information that will help understanding and interpreting these factors.

Although the prevalence of technological devices is overwhelming, few students start their
college careers with the appropriate skill set for the necessary integration of educational
technology. All freshman in this study owned some sort of technological device and appeared
comfortable using it. However, the majority did not have the background or confidence in their
abilities for more complicated technological tasks. In a study of teacher education students,
Teclehaimanot, Mentzer, & Hickman (2011) came to several conclusions similar to findings
from the current study. Of the four conclusions, two are very closely related: students were
competent in working with technology; students lacked confidence in integrating technology for
educational purposes.

Many studies in the literature look at general education students, but few focus on education
majors. However, many of the studies have similarities and offer insight into the habits of
college students in general. Hoffman and Borengasser (2011) explained in their research that
students value technology for communication and management, but are not as concerned about
the use of technology tools for teaching and learning. Dresselhaus and Shrodes (2012) survey
results showed that 54% of undergraduates and 50% of graduate students at Utah State used
mobile technology for academic purposes, but the College of Education students used it less than
any other college on their campus. Conversely, Robinson & Stubberud (2012) found that certain
demographics use mobile devices, but prefer paper textbooks even though they like the option of
having access to digital tools. Student preference should be taken into consideration in the
university classroom to ensure successful learning environments as the needs of individual
students vary so widely. Sardones research (2011) presents a framework to assist universities in
meeting the needs of todays students and enabling success through self-motivation and
information technology fluency. Similar to the goals of the current study, Sardone suggests
examining the learners computer self-efficacy to see if the variable affects information
technology fluency and course satisfaction. Ratliff (2009) also concluded that for universities to
adequately prepare students, they should take into consideration the readiness levels of their
students, as this study looks to achieve.

Todays preservice teachers are also developing skills that will increase the level of educational
technology integration in the classroom. Teacher preparation programs are using virtual
environments, 3D printers, hand-held tablets, and many other advanced technologies to prepare
future educators. These efforts are intended to impact the classroom of the future teacher, giving
them tools to engage students. As a follow up to their initial research, Hsu and Chiou (2011), are
designing a training program for preservice teachers to create digital game-supported learning
activities. This would establish a foundation for classroom teachers to have a basic skill set for
creating digital game content and furthering their knowledge of digital media.

The Horizon Report (2014) points out that the current trend is institutional leaders that are
increasingly seeing students as creators rather than consumers. Students must not only be able to
understand and utilize technology tools, but must also be prepared to synthesize the tools and
produce tangible results from the process. Although this shift will reach its full impact in three to
five years, it is a vital indicator of the ever-evolving technological changes in higher education
and education preparation in general.

Methods

The researchers designed the survey with contributions from other surveys they had created from
past studies. The researchers used guidelines from Floyd Fowlers (2008) Survey Research
Methods to guide the development of the instrument. Once the initial draft was completed, the
survey instrument was pilot tested, focus group analyzed, and expert reviewed to ensure its
validity and reliability. After draft review and feedback, the survey question set was reduced to
thirty nine questions. The wording of the survey was simplified, then translated from English to
Japanese. The researchers worked to ensure that the meaning of the questions in the survey were
similar within both languages. Revisions were made to the survey based on comments and
feedback.

The survey was administered to 230 freshman education majors. The education majors were split
between two countries, United States and Japan. Of the 230 education majors, 138 were from the
United States and 92 were from Japan. All of the participants attended a university that prepared
them to enter the field of education. The participants were first year freshmen enrolled in a
university course that exposed them to various aspects of the field of education. The courses
were similar between the two groups. Both courses offered some technology instruction but
focused mostly on the history of education (in their country) and basic aspects of university life.
The surveys were administered in the middle of the semester. The participants were given twenty
minutes at the end of class to complete the survey. The researchers obtained a response rate of
97%.

After the survey was completed, the data was screened for missing responses and other
irregularities. The incomplete, missing, and irregular data were removed from the data set.
SPSS was used to run descriptive statistics on the data. Frequencies were used to understand the
relationship between the responses between the United States and Japanese students. Because the
researchers were interested in the similarities between the two countries perception of
technology readiness, data from the United States and Japan were combined to provide an
overview of both countries technology readiness. The data were then separated between the
countries and compared.
 Findings

The results of the survey indicated that freshmen entering the field of education in both the
United States and Japan felt that their understanding of technology and how it could be
implemented in the classroom was important. While students from both countries agreed that
understanding how technology can be used to enhance education was important, they differed on
how they attained an understanding of technology. In Japan, all of the respondents took a high
school technology course before graduating and attending college. Of the United States students,
only 45% took a technology course, even though it was available. When asked if technology
enhances learning, 71% of the respondents felt that using technology helped them in acquiring
new knowledge.

Of the participants, 99% of the students reported owning a mobile phone. Interestingly, 75% of
the mobile phones were various versions of the Apple iPhone. Although, according to Robinson
& Stubberud (2012), around half of all Americans own a smart phone, 99% of the surveyed
respondents from the United States and Japan owned technological devices including tablets,
laptops, desktops, and smart phones. A small percentage of the students from both countries
owned all of the devices in question. Of the survey respondents, 96% reported having Internet
access at their residence. This number was consistent for students from the United States and
Japan.

Both countries used technology in similar ways for completing assignments. Of the participants
54% of students reported using word processing software weekly, while 38% reported using it
daily. Email was the primary way the instructors in both courses interacted with their students.
Of the participants, 87% of the students used their email daily. An interesting result was the use
of spreadsheets. Of the participants, 81% used spreadsheets monthly. The majority of the
participants used spreadsheets for budget purposes or completing assignments.

Of the participants, 76% indicated that they were proficient when using technology. When asked
how they solve technical issues, 80% of the participants used a web-based search, predominantly
Google, as the first step to solve their problem. When examining how the information was
delivered, 91% of students used text-based solutions such as, how-to websites. Surprisingly, only
5% of participants indicated they would watch a video online that shows them how to fix the
problem. When the participants needed tech support while at their university, 47% of the
participants asked for help from a friend as the first step in resolving their issue. When asked if
technology proficiency was important for teachers to have prior to entering the classroom, 75%
strongly agreed that a teachers understanding of technology could greatly enhance how content
was delivered in the classroom.

When asked which areas they felt they needed more in-depth knowledge, 60% of the participants
indicated that they needed more help in editing video. While not as high as video editing
assistance, 50% of the participants also requested more in-depth knowledge of audio editing.
When asked about their comfort level with office production software, 44% indicated that they
would like additional training with spreadsheet programs. Of the participants, 23% indicated that
they would like more information on word processors. When asked if they needed more
information on presentation programs, only 13% responded that they would like additional
information on how to create presentations for their future classroom. When asked if the
implementation of technology by their professors in their college classes was necessary for a
positive course experience, 47% of the participants indicated that is necessary.

Discussion
Understanding incoming freshmens technology readiness is essential for preparing College of
Education students for how to blend technology and pedagogy. The information presented will
inform faculty and administrators of the abilities and expectations of the ever-changing college
student. The similarities in the results across the participants indicate that different universities
are faced with students that have varied technological background experiences, but when
compared to with each other they share the same discrepancies.

The results from the survey indicate that technology permeates the lives of College of Education
students in both the United States and Japan. Surprisingly, discrepancies in understanding how to
use technology to enhance the delivery of content were the same between both countries. This
reinforces the results from the study that indicate close to half of the participants felt that
technology being used was necessary to have a positive experience in the course. These future
teachers are looking to their instructors for models of technology instruction. They seek to mimic
what they see take place in their college classrooms.

Another result from the study indicated that both groups of students relied on themselves to solve
technical difficulties. Almost all of the participants sought information on how to fix problems
through text-based searches. This indicates that students in both countries are self-reliant on
tackling issues on their own. Self-reliance is an important characteristic when dealing with
technology issues.

Conclusions
The survey was designed to determine technology readiness for freshman entering a College of
Education. The study is limited because it was only issued to one university in the United States
and one university in Japan. Because the survey was only issued to two universities, the results
of this study should be not seen as generalizable. Additionally, the wording complexity of the
survey had to be reduced so that it could be translated into Japanese. The translation of the
survey could have impacted the response of the participants.

The researchers plan to gather additional data, obtained each fall semester. The continued
deployment of the survey will continue to provide information on the habits and thought
processes of freshman education majors and university students. Using this data will equip
universities with the information they need to prepare to adapt teaching practices and provide
remediation and training for students with technical discrepancies .
 Brief biography of each author (one paragraph, no more than 100 words)

Jeremy Wendt, Ed.D., is an Associate Professor of Instructional Technology and Department

Chair at Tennessee Tech University. Since landing in the Educational Technology field in 2003,
he has presented locally, nationally, and internationally, worked with grants of all sizes, and
taught thousands of preservice and inservice educators.

Jason Beach, Ph.D., is an Assistant Professor of Instructional Technology at Tennessee Tech

University. With a primary research focus area of augmented and immersive virtual reality
environments, he is at the forefront of the educational applications of the technology.

Ando Akinobu, Ph.D., is an Assistant Professor of Human-Computer Interaction and Educational

Technology at Miyagi University of Education in Tokyo, Japan. He has researched many
educational areas and is currently working on several projects related to learning trade skills in
virtual environments.

References
Caruso, J. & Salaway, G. (2007). The ECAR Study of Undergraduate Students and Information
Technology 2007. Retrieved July 19, 2009 from
http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERS0706/ekf0706.pdf.

Dresselhaus, A. a., & Shrode, F. f. (2012). Mobile Technologies & Academics: Do Students Use
Mobile Technologies in Their Academic Lives and are Librarians Ready to Meet this
Challenge?. Information Technology & Libraries, 31(2), 82-101.

Fleming, N. (2012). Digital Divide Strikes College-Admissions Process. Education Week,

32(13), 14-15.

Fowler, F.J. (2008) Applied Social Research Methods Series: Vol.1. Survey Research Methods.
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

Hoffman, E., & Borengasser, C. (2011, Oct). Technology Isn't Special Anymore: Priorities at a
Public Research University. Proceedings of the E-Learning in Corporate, Government,
Healthcare, and Higher Education 2011 (pp. 2286-2290).

Hsu, T. Y., & Chiou, G. F. (2011, March). Preservice teachers' awareness of digital game-
supported learning. In Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International
Conference (Vol. 2011, No. 1, pp. 2135-2141).

Johnson, L., Becker, S., Estrada, V., & Freeman, A. (2014). Horizon Report: 2014 Higher
Education.

Ratliff, V. (2009). Are college students prepared for a technology-rich learning environment.
MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 5(4), 689-702.

Robinson, S., & Stubberud, H. A. (2012). Student preferences for educational materials: Old
meets new. Academy Of Educational Leadership Journal, 1699-109.

Sardone, N. (2011). Developing information technology fluency in college students: An

investigation of learning environments and learner characteristics. Journal of Information
Technology Education: Research, 10(1), 101-122.

Teclehaimanot, B., Mentzer, G., & Hickman, T. (2011). A mixed methods comparison of teacher
education faculty perceptions of the integration of technology into their courses and student
feedback on technology proficiency. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 19(1), 5-21.
Copyright of Proceedings of the Multidisciplinary Academic Conference is the property of
MAC Praque Consulting s.r.o. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites
or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However,
users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.