Teacher Trainees

A
Seminar paper
On

A Comparative Study of the Techno-stress of B.Ed. Students

Presented by

Fr. Dr. Sibichen K. K. and Dr. Anisha V. Gopalakrishnan
Assistant Professors
St. Joseph’s Training College, Mannanam.

INTODUCTION
Teacher education and teacher professional development are facing important quantitative and qualitative challenges. Teachers’ use of technologies has an important role in education in the 21st century. Technology can provide powerful environments eliciting modern views of learning but may not change teachers’ beliefs and practice. It depends on how teachers interpret the uses of tools and how they use them to transform the learning processes (Niess, 2008).
TECHNO-STRESS
Technology stress or “techno-stress” is a relatively new phenomenon in our society and culture and has affected many individuals. Techno-stress can be defined as a personal stress that occurs because of a reliance on technology or the constant anxiety of being "connected" with technology (Tarafdar, 2007). It is an undeniable fact that technology has become an integral part in today’s society. The term techno-stress was coined in 1984 by a clinical psychologist, Dr. Craig Brod (1984, p. 16). Techno-stress is a modern disease of adaptation caused by an inability to cope with the new computer technologies in a healthy manner. It manifests itself in two distinct but related ways: in the struggle to accept computer technology, and in the more specialized form of over identification with computer technology. Although Brod (1984) looked at techno-stress as a disease, other researchers considered it more as an inability to adapt to changes brought by technology. Teachers have long been concerned with the stress that comes with the occupation. As teachers continue to develop professionally, they find themselves trying to continually adapt to the society in which they teach. Teachers today face many challenges with the ongoing development of technologies. Teachers will always require some amount of support dependent upon the teachers’ own knowledge and motivation to learn and use technology. Some solutions have been offered to teachers as a way to cope with technology induced stress.
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY Many teacher trainees know the content well but have not learned to transform or translate that knowledge into meaningful instruction. Although pre-service teachers do have a degree of knowledge with regard to ICT, they have little know-how or techno-pedagogical ability with which to integrate those technologies into their teaching practice. One of the challenges facing teacher educators is how to ensure that graduate teachers have the necessary combination of skills and pedagogical knowledge that will enable them to both effectively use today’s technologies in the classroom as well as continue to develop and adapt to new technologies that emerge in the future. In order to use technology effectively in the classroom and to gain insight into ways of making academic information more accessible to learners, teacher trainees should have to think critically and creatively. At the same time introduction of new technology into the teaching area creates psychological strain by increasing job responsibilities. In order to facilitate competitive teaching and instructional strategies the teaching profession is expected to implement and improve effectiveness through the use of daily technologies. This use of daily technologies has implications concerning stress within the teaching profession. Therefore, integrating new technology in the classroom requires teacher trainees to be flexible and make adaptations in their instructional strategies as they deem fit. These reflections help them to improve their teaching skills. Teacher trainees have to enact, reflect, examine, and change their beliefs and practices with the introduction of new technology. Successful implementation of these activities in the classroom reduces teacher trainees’ techno stress and increases their teaching competencies. This is a new area that has immense scope in the teaching learning scenario. So the investigators feel that this area of study is extremely significant.
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
A Comparative Study of the Techno-stress of B.Ed. Students
OPERATIONAL DEFINITIONS
Techno-stress: Techno-stress can be defined as a personal stress that occurs because of a reliance on technology or the constant anxiety of being "connected" with technology (Brillhart, 2004). In the present study investigators intend to measure techno-overload, techno-invasion, techno-insecurity, techno-uncertainty, techno-complexity and techno-role confusion.
Secondary teacher education students They are those who are studying Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.) in colleges of education affiliated to Mahatma Gandhi University, Kottayam, Kerala after completing their graduation or post-graduation.
OBJECTIVES
1. To find out whether there is any significant difference in techno-stress of secondary teacher education students in terms of (a) Gender & (b) Optional subject
NULL HYPOTHESES 1. There is no significant difference in techno-stress of secondary teacher education students in terms of (a) Gender & (b) Optional subject. METHOD USED IN THE PRESENT STUDY
The method adopted in the present study is survey.
POPULATION FOR THE STUDY The population of the study was the secondary teacher education students studying in B.Ed. colleges affiliated to Mahatma Gandhi University, Kottayam.
SAMPLE
The investigator has used random sampling technique for selecting the sample. The investigator randomly selected 12 B.Ed. colleges affiliated to Mahatma Gandhi University. The sample consists of 1126 prospective teachers.
TOOLS USED 1. Techno stress assessment scale developed by Sibichen (2009).
Statistical Techniques Used
‘t’ test and ANOVA
DATA ANALYSIS

Table 1
Difference between male and female secondary teacher education students in their techno stress Dimensions of Thinking skills | Male | Female | Calculated Value of ‘t’ | Remarks at 5% level | | Mean | SD | Mean | SD | | | Techno-overload | 28.91 | 5.07 | 29.49 | 4.36 | 2.03 | S | Techno-invasion | 30.63 | 4.9 | 30.44 | 4.39 | 0.67 | NS | Techno-insecurity | 29.60 | 5.27 | 29.53 | 4.67 | 0.21 | NS | Techno-uncertainty | 29.97 | 4.80 | 29.97 | 4.29 | 0.005 | NS | Techno-complexity | 31.19 | 4.81 | 30.94 | 4.37 | 0.89 | NS | Techno role confusion | 29.55 | 5.02 | 29.85 | 4.48 | 1.05 | NS | Techno stress | 179.85 | 24.94 | 180.23 | 21.22 | 0.26 | NS | Note. At 5% level of significance the table value of‘t’ is 1.96
It is inferred from the Table 1 that there is no significant difference between male and female secondary teacher education students in their Techno-invasion, Techno-insecurity, Techno-uncertainty, Techno-complexity, Techno role confusion and Techno stress, but there is significant difference between male and female secondary teacher education students in their Techno-overload.
Table 2
Difference among different optional subject secondary teacher education students in their techno stress Dimensions of Techno stress | Sources of Variation | Sum of Squares | Mean Square Variation | df | Calculated Value of ‘F’ | Remarks at 5% level | Techno-overload | Between groups | 102.13 | 25.53 | 4 | 1.18 | NS | | Within groups | 24257.61 | 21.63 | 1121 | | | Techno-invasion | Between groups | 74.26 | 18.56 | 4 | 0.86 | NS | | Within groups | 24060.98 | 21.46 | 1121 | | | Techno-insecurity | Between groups | 712.52 | 178.13 | 4 | 7.57 | S | | Within groups | 26371.34 | 23.52 | 1121 | | | Techno-uncertainty | Between groups | 298.50 | 74.26 | 4 | 3.73 | S | | Within groups | 22372.69 | 19.95 | 1121 | | | Techno-complexity | Between groups | 164.09 | 41.02 | 4 | 1.99 | NS | | Within groups | 23113.55 | 20.61 | 1121 | | | Techno role confusion | Between groups | 22.80 | 5.70 | 4 | 0.25 | NS | | Within groups | 24784.79 | 22.11 | 1121 | | | Techno stress | Between groups | 3875.62 | 968.90 | 4 | 1.88 | NS | | Within groups | 575820.7 | 513.66 | 1121 | | |
Note. At 5% level of significance the table value of ‘F’ at 4, 995 is 2.38 It is inferred from the above table that there is no significant difference among English, Mathematics, Natural Science, Physical Science and Social Science optional subject secondary teacher education students in their techno overload, techno invasion, techno-complexity, techno role confusion and techno stress but there is significant difference among English, Mathematics, Natural Science, Physical Science and Social Science optional subject secondary teacher education students in their Techno-insecurity and Techno-uncertainty.
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
The study reveals that there is significant difference between male and female secondary teacher education students in their Techno-overload. The study also reveal that there is significant difference among English, Mathematics, Natural Science, Physical Science and Social Science optional subject secondary teacher education students in their Techno-insecurity and Techno-uncertainty. This study aims to explore the issue of the stress experienced by teacher trainees whilst engaging their classes during their practice teaching in real classrooms. This study, therefore, points to an alternative way of thinking about the problems of implementing techno-pedagogy by conceptualizing some of these implementation problems in terms of techno-stress. Most importantly, this study provides a central idea that technology does not improve or change one’s pedagogy, but can alternatively affect the learning environment, as well as the teacher-student relationship.

References American Psychological Association. (2010). Publication manual (6th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
Aggarwal, J. C. (1985). Theory and principles of education. New Delhi: Vikas Publishing House Pvt. Limited.
Brod, C. (1984). Technostress: The human cost of the computer revolution. Reading: Addison Wesley.
Davis-Millis, N. (1998). Technostress and the organization: A manager 's guide to survival in the information age. Paper presented at the 67th Annual Meeting of the Music Library Association, 14 February, Boston, Massachusetts. Retrieved from http://web.mit.edu/ninadm/www/mla.htm
Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2008). Introducing TCPK. In J. A. Colbert, K. E. Boyd, K. A. Clark, S. Guan, J. B. Harris, M. A. Kelly, A. D. Thompson (Eds.), Handbook of technological pedagogical content knowledge for educators (5-16). New York: Routledge.
Niess, M. L. (2008). Guiding pre-service teachers in developing TPCK. In J. A. Colbert, K. E. Boyd, K. A. Clark, S. Guan, J. B. Harris, M. A. Kelly, A. D. Thompson (Eds.), Handbook of technological pedagogical content knowledge for educators (pp. 223-249). New York: Routledge.
Tarafdar, M., Tu, Q., Ragu-Nathan, B. S., & Ragu-Nathan, T. S. (2007). The impact of technostress on role stress and productivity. Journal of Information Management Systems, 24, 1, 301-328. Retrieved from http://www.jmis-eb.org/articles/v24_n1_p301/index.html

References: American Psychological Association. (2010). Publication manual (6th ed.). Washington, DC: Author. Aggarwal, J. C. (1985). Theory and principles of education. New Delhi: Vikas Publishing House Pvt. Limited. Brod, C. (1984). Technostress: The human cost of the computer revolution. Reading: Addison Wesley. Davis-Millis, N. (1998). Technostress and the organization: A manager 's guide to survival in the information age Tarafdar, M., Tu, Q., Ragu-Nathan, B. S., & Ragu-Nathan, T. S. (2007). The impact of technostress on role stress and productivity