Exploring the Effectiveness of the Gradual Release of Responsibility on Graduate Teacher Education Candidates\u27 Self-Efficacy with iPads

Many educational institutions struggle to keep up with technological innovations in order to engage students and prepare them to be competitive in the workforce. Those given the charge to prepare future teachers (undergraduate students) and continue the education of current teachers (graduate students) feel this pressure even more, because of the impact teacher colleges has on teacher quality in K-12 schools. Technology integration is an overwhelming task for educational leaders that extends beyond which technological device to purchase, Consideration must be spent on what pedagogical approaches are effective when implementing technology. Due to the increase of popularity of mobile technology, this study examines barriers to iPad integration in higher education and how the gradual release of responsibility method of instruction can be used to increase graduate teacher candidates’ self-efficacy with iPads

The Impact of the Gradual Release of Responsibility on Graduate Teacher Education Candidates’ Self-Efficacy with iPads

Keeping up with technological innovations is a challenge for educational intuitions as they strive to prepare students to be competitive in a future workforce. This is an overwhelming task for educational leaders that extends beyond which technological device to purchase. This study examines the barriers to iPad integration in education and how the gradual release of responsibility method of instruction can be used to increase participants’ self-efficacy with iPads. The participants (N = 41) were teacher education graduate candidates enrolled in a Children’s Literature course in which they were provided access to iPads. Survey results revealed that candidates’ efficacy prior to the course was relatively high at above the midpoint on the 5-point likert scale with 5 being the highest score (M = 3.51, SD = 0.86). Even with a fairly high efficacy with iPads at the beginning of the study, the post-test espoused efficacy showed significant growth (M = 4.27, SD = 0.53). The results of the pre-test indicated a clear divide between the level of experiences with iPads. Based on this division, a two-way ANOVA was run to analyze how the group of candidates with low experience with iPads grew in efficacy in comparison to the group of candidates with a high level of experience with iPads. The repeated measures two-way ANOVA indicated that there was a significant difference amongst candidates’ espoused experience with iPads on the pre-test. In addition, both groups experienced significant growth throughout the course as demonstrated by the post-test scores for time F(1, 38), p\u3c .01, η2 = 0.49. However, the gap between the groups’ espoused experience levels started to close by the end of the course, as indicated by the interaction between time and experience F(1, 39) = 10.32, p \u3c .01, η2 = 0.21. Even though the lower experienced candidates did not reach the espoused level of experience that the higher experienced candidates F(1, 39) = 52.64, p \u3c .01, η2 = 0.57, their growth was encouraging. These results support the benefits of eliminating barriers to technology integration in order for the use of technology to take place in classrooms at all levels. Study conclusions demonstrate the benefit of the implementation of carefully planned, research-based technology integration professional learning for teachers at all levels of education in order to increase student engagement and preparation for a 21st century workforce

Teacher Educators’ Professional Development in the 21st Century: Practicing What We Preach

As teacher educators encourage teacher education candidates to incorporate new technologies (SmartBoard, hardware, software, web tools) into teaching, there is a need for them to serve as role models for their students. To move beyond a paper and pencil approach, teacher educators should advance their own technological knowledge and apply it in their teaching. The focus of this brief paper is on the steps taken to encourage teacher educators at a Midwest institution to incorporate new technologies into their teaching. This professional development is still a work in progress, as teacher education faculty work in collaboration with an instructional technology professional for training and practical applications in their courses

Avian Influenza Risk Perception, Hong Kong

A telephone survey of 986 Hong Kong households determined exposure and risk perception of avian influenza from live chicken sales. Householders bought 38,370,000 live chickens; 11% touched them when buying, generating 4,220,000 exposures annually; 36% (95% confidence interval [CI] 33%–39%) perceived this as risky, 9% (7%–11%) estimated >50% likelihood of resultant sickness, whereas 46% (43%–49%) said friends worried about such sickness. Recent China travel (adjusted odds ratio 0.35; CI 0.13–0.91), traditional beliefs (1.20, 1.06–1.13), willingness to change (0.29, 0.11–0.81) and believing cooking protects against avian influenza (8.66, 1.61-46.68) predicted buying. Birth in China (2.79, 1.43–5.44) or overseas (4.23, 1.43–12.53) and unemployment (3.87, 1.24–12.07) predicted touching. Age, avian influenza contagion worries, husbandry threat, avian influenza threat, and avian influenza anxiety predicted perceived sickness risk. High population exposures to live chickens and low perceived risk are potentially important health threats in avian influenza

Breaking Down Barriers: The Impact of Access to iPads and Scaffolded Instruction in a Graduate Teacher Education Course

Mobile devices are not being utilized to their full potential in P-12 education. In response to this phenomenon, researchers have identified various barriers that prevent educators from creating effective mobile learning environments, such as resources, attitudes, and beliefs (Ertmer, 1999; Hew & Brush, 2007). How can higher education, teacher education programs help P-12 educators breakdown these barriers to create powerful 21st Century, learner-centered classrooms? This brief paper will describe a survey research study at a Midwestern University that has addressed these mobile learning barriers with graduate teacher education candidates (GTEC)

Comparing versions of the memory binding test: Predictive validity for incident aMCI and incident dementia

Background The Memory Binding Test (MBT) Version 1 demonstrated significant predictive validity for incident amnestic MCI (aMCI) and incident dementia. Version 2 of the MBT was developed to be briefer because brevity is essential for screening. Herein we aimed to compare the two versions in terms of predictive validity for aMCI and dementia, separately. Method As sub‐studies of the Einstein Aging Study (EAS), the two MBT versions were administered to two independent study samples between May 2003 and December 2007 at baseline, and these participants were followed up to Jan 2017 (For differences in versions see Table 1). The EAS enrolls a systematically recruited community sample of adults age over 70. The two versions were evaluated in parallel using the same methodologies. We evaluated a range of cut‐scores on the MBT score of choice, the Total Items in the Paired condition (TIP), including the empirical optimal cut‐score which maximized the sum of sensitivity and specificity from the cross‐sectional discriminative analyses. The predictive validity was assessed by Kaplan‐Meier curves, log‐rank tests and Cox regressions. Result Predicting incident aMCI: Both versions were strong predictors of incident aMCI (Table 2): For the empirical optimal scores for TIP, hazard ratio (HR)=2.33, 95% CI: (1.26, 4.29), p=.007 for Version 1, HR=3.38, 95% CI: (1.09, 10.5), p=0.04 for Version 2; for a range of TIP scores (17−22): HR range: 2.27−6.07, p ≤ .01, for Version 1, and 2.67−5.91, p≤.04 for Version 2. Predicting incident dementia: Both versions were strong predictors of incident dementia (Table 3): For the empirical optimal scores for TIP, HR=8.32, 95% CI: (3.51, 19.7), p<.0001 for Version 1, HR=9.30, 95% CI: (3.43, 25.2), p<.0001 for Version 2; for a range of TIP scores (17−23): HR range: 3.09−8.32, p ≤ .003, for Version 1, and 6.40−9.30, p<.0001 for Version 2. Conclusion The predictive validity for incident aMCI and incident dementia was strong and similar for the two versions of the MBT based on the overlapping confidence intervals. These results strongly support the hypothesis that poor performance on memory binding is an important marker for the early detection of aMCI and dementia

Optimizing the memory binding test for detection of aMCI and dementia

Background The Memory Binding Test (MBT) Version 1 demonstrated good discriminative validity for distinguishing persons with dementia and amnestic mild cognitive impairment (aMCI) from cognitively normal elder controls (CN). Version 2 of the MBT test was developed to improve brevity, which is essential for screening. We aimed to compare these two versions in terms of cross‐sectional discriminative validity to distinguish A. aMCI vs. CN, B. aMCI and dementia vs. CN, and C. dementia vs. CN and aMCI. Method Version 1 and Version 2 (for differences see Table 1) of the MBT were administered to independent and systematically recruited samples between May 2003 and December 2007 (Age: 70+; Version 1: 20 dementia cases, 31 aMCI, 246 CN; Version 2: 13 dementia cases, 29 aMCI, 236 CN). Scores on the MBT indices were compared between the versions. The partial area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC AUC) for specificities ≥ 0.70 was compared between indices and versions (Table 1). Specificities were compared between versions when the sensitivity values were comparable. Result The MBT indices were not significantly different between versions for the diagnosis groups of aMCI and dementia. In CN, Version 2 yielded higher scores on number of items Cued Recall for List 1 (CR‐L1), number of Pairs In the Paired condition (PIP), and number of Total Items recalled in the Paired condition (TIP) (14.8±1.5 vs. 14.4±1.7, 11.0±3.2 vs. 9.9±3.8, 26.3±4.0 vs. 24.9±5.0, respectively, p=0.005) and PIP and TIP remained higher (p=0.02) when adjusting for potential confounders of age, gender, education and global cognitive function. Partial AUC comparison shows that TIP was the optimal index for Version 1 and TIP partial AUCs were not significantly different between two versions (Figure 1, Table 2). The specificities were higher in Version 1 vs. Version 2 in Comparisons A and B, while the specificities were comparable in Comparison C (Table 3). Conclusion MBT Version 1 is better at distinguishing aMCI, or aMCI and dementia combined, from cognitively normal elderly. To distinguish dementia vs. cognitively normal elder controls and aMCI, Version 1 and Version 2 are comparable. We recommend using Version 1 for future studies

Memory Binding Test Distinguishes Amnestic Mild Cognitive Impairment and Dementia from Cognitively Normal Elderly

We aimed to assess reliability and cross-sectional discriminative validity of the Memory Binding Test (MBT) to distinguish persons with amnestic cognitive impairment (aMCI) and dementia from cognitively normal elderly controls. The MBT was administered to 20 participants with dementia, 31 with aMCI and 246 controls, who received the first administration of the MBT from May 2003 to December 2007, as a substudy of the community-based Einstein Aging Study (age range: 70+). The optimal index resulted from comparing the partial area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (ROC AUC) of four major MBT indices for specificities ≥0.70. Optimal cut-score of the optimal index was selected by maximizing the sum of sensitivity and specificity. Age and education effects were assessed using stratified cut-scores and adjusted logistic regression. Reliability was computed as intraclass correlation between scores at baseline and 1-year follow-up for participants who remained cognitively normal. Total number of Items recalled in the Paired condition (TIP) was elected the optimal index. TIP cut-score was ≤22 for differentiating aMCI alone (sensitivity = 0.74, specificity = 0.73) and aMCI and dementia combined (sensitivity = 0.84, specificity = 0.73) from controls. It was ≤17 for differentiating dementia from aMCI and controls (sensitivity = 0.95, specificity = 0.87). Age and education adjustments did not materially improve discriminative validity. The reliability of TIP was 0.77. MBT achieved moderate to good reliability. TIP had superior cross-sectional discriminative validity than the other MBT indices. We recommend using the empirical cut-score of TIP ≤22 for discriminating aMCI and dementia and ≤17 for discriminating dementia alone