An instructor in this study site is responsible for lesson design, teaching, facilitating learning, assessing students, and evaluating the effectiveness of the program (Pediaa, 2016). Learning that takes place to continually increase one's knowledge and skills for a current or future role (Gosselin et al., 2016).
Introduction
Each participant received a copy of their survey responses prior to participating in the focus group portion of the study. Aggregate data were not shared with participants prior to study completion.
Summary
This chapter will also discuss how staff were purposively selected for focus group interviews in the qualitative part of the study. The self-efficacy questions were offered to participants a second time after the focus groups which provide findings related to SQ2 which are reported in Chapter 5.
Literature Review
This support ranged from knowledge sharing, modeling and communicating a vision for the use of technology in the classroom. The instructor receives rewards, often in the form of a salary, for delivering the content as agreed (Bass, 1990).
Summary
This study contributes to the professional development literature in three ways by extending the TPACK framework. First, this study extends the framework by including andragogy as part of the pedagogical knowledge dimension required in the professional, postformal education environment. Second, the enhanced TPACK framework engages department leaders in researching and formulating a professional development plan for training instructors to increase blended teaching skills using data-driven decisions.
Third, this study becomes the starting point for measuring instructor TPACK in a corporate environment, and more specifically in an electric utility, through the integration of 21st century technologies into the learning environment (Valtonen et al., 2017). This study also provides input to the literature on the blended professional development of non-academic teaching staff and the impact that educational planning plays in promoting improved self-efficacy. The concept of self-efficacy was also presented along with a discussion of research related to improving teacher self-efficacy through professional development.
Methodology
This recommendation was applied in this study, where focus groups were formed to facilitate discussion about technology, pedagogy, and content knowledge and how group members would collaboratively conduct professional development to improve their teaching practice. These meetings revealed causal mechanisms that have historically created barriers to professional development efforts and may have been resolved as part of the professional development solution. In grounded theory studies, the researcher aims to derive a general, abstract theory about a process, action, or interaction based on the participants' beliefs (Creswell, 2014).
In this study, grounded theory was not appropriate because the typical sample is larger than the population of the department being studied. It is important that the needs of the two technicians recruited for this study are explored. This approach has not been questioned due to the approved access of the instructional staff to the control center and its technologies.
Demographic Questions
There are many iterations of TPACK instruments available on the Internet and journal searches are conducted through the Athabasca University library. The TPACK-21 questionnaire has been validated using confirmatory factor analysis to ensure high internal reliability (Valtonen et al., 2017). The survey questionnaire consists of four parts described here and available in Appendix B.
Aliases and data aggregation, to maintain anonymity and remove identifiers, were used to prevent possible identification of specific participants when reporting the data and findings in this study.
TPACK Questionnaire
The TPACK questionnaire, modified for the proposed study, is included in Appendix B; it used a six-point Likert scale found in the TPACK-21 instrument. A score of one indicates that the participant needs a lot of additional knowledge about the topic, and a score of six indicates that they have a lot of knowledge about the topic (Valtonen et al., 2017). The overall score of the knowledge area is discussed in more detail in the Processing of data section below.
Different five-point Likert scales used by Depew (2015) and Jang (2012) were deemed inappropriate for this study. A neutral position can create satisfaction for self-protection, ambivalence, or avoidance of deep self-analysis (Cohen et al., 2018; Seale, 2018). The study instruments and invitations communicated that accuracy and truthfulness in answering the survey and focus group questions would provide the most accurate data to support their professional development (Seale, 2018).
Self-Efficacy Questionnaire
Open-Ended Questions
A similar message was reiterated in the focus group invitation (Appendix E) and the focus group informed consent, further articulating that participants should treat me as a student researcher and not a company employee. Each of the focus group participants had and has the right to privacy. To ensure participant confidentiality, names of participants collected through surveys and focus groups were changed to a pseudonym (ie, Participant 1).
My participation was critical to demonstrating leadership support for the professional development efforts present in the data collection and professional development planning steps of this study, as illustrated in Figure 2. Low scores appear closest to the center and were easily identifiable and form the basis of the selection. to a focus group. Focus group transcripts were first examined through open coding, in the form of preliminary codes, to reduce the amount of data into categories and provide interpretation of the responses in conjunction with the survey data (Seale, 2018).
Summary
Questionnaire Data and Findings
At the departmental level, the demographic data tells us that the majority of teaching staff are aged 45 - 55 years. The questionnaire used in this study consisted of six questions in each of the seven TPACK domains (PK, TK, CK, PCK, TPK, TCK, and TPACK) for a total of 42 questions. Such variation in the data requires us to address each participant's TPACK profile individually to determine their professional development in the area of greatest need.
Two questions in the blended learning management section of the OSTES instrument warrant additional examination due to the larger SD reported for each. The mean for this question illustrates that, on average, instructional staff have little knowledge of how to use technology to predict a student's understanding of the learning topic. It is therefore easy to identify that further professional development would help most staff.
Summary
Participants also identified their initial preferences for understanding how corporate technology is used in real-time operations. Two participants were selected for the KP focus group, five for TK and six for CK.
Focus Group Data and Findings
The first question asked of each focus group was, “What were your first thoughts or feelings when you received the results of your TPACK and Self-Efficacy Questionnaire?” The reactions. The second question asked to each focus group was, “What ideas have you generated about specific training you could take to improve your skills as a trainer through professional development?” The responses from each transcript were coded to the (PD) parent node. The fourth question asked to the focus groups was: “The people in this interview all have the same area of development.
What do you think about learning together?” The responses were generally positive, as shown in the selected responses below. The fifth and final question asked of the focus groups was, “What timeline, number of courses, and either campus or online delivery, are you considering for your personal development action plan?” The responses are examined per focus group. Subquestion two of the survey asked, “Does teaching self-efficacy of corporate training instructors change with the development of a personal professional development plan?” The data collected in this study suggests that their self-efficacy generally does not change as a result of examining their questionnaire data or participating in one or two focus groups.
Summary
The focus group discussions should be considered authentic, firstly because few changes were required when member verification was required. The focus group discussion should be seen as valid and credible as participants were seen to build on each other's comments. These data were also collected and enhanced by helpful exchanges between the focus group members and myself, ensuring that each person had the opportunity to contribute to the discussions.
The focus group member who checked the transcripts clearly articulate that the instructional staff believed that their responses to the questionnaire and the way they were grouped together by the data analysis identified their area of greatest developmental need. Quotations were used to give more depth to the answers to the five focus group questions. It is also shown through the comparison of self-efficacy responses before and after the focus group that participants' self-efficacy scores do not change substantially in the short time between data collection.
Study Conclusions, Implications, and Recommendations
Participation in the questionnaire portion of the study by the teaching staff of a utility training department exceeded expectations. The invited instructors had time to complete the questionnaires and actively participated in the focus groups. The participants in the corporate setting appeared to agree to an exploratory assessment of their personal professional development needs by an academic researcher.
First, this study expands the framework by including andragogy as part of the pedagogical knowledge dimension required in the professional. This study identified that some of the focus group participants were not familiar with their questionnaire responses. Future studies using this study's methodology should consider eliminating this step in the data collection, analysis, and reporting process.
Summary
Exploring the technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) and technological leadership capabilities of primary and secondary public school principals [Brandman University]. Technological, pedagogical and content knowledge (TPACK): an educational landscape for the tertiary science faculty [Concordia University]. Online Education Self-Efficacy of Nursing Education in Public Accredited Nursing Programs in the State of Michigan [Western Michigan University].
Final Report on the August 14, 2003 Blackout in the United States and Canada: Causes and Recommendations. This study is part of a dissertation study conducted by Warren Tracz, a doctoral student in the Doctor of Education in Distance Education program at Athabasca University. You can be sure that your identity and your answers to be reported in the thesis will be kept strictly confidential.
Demographic Questions
How many years have you planned training, taught or assessed learners in any role within SOS Training and Development?
Research Ethics Board Approval