Study Plan

My name is Ms. Hnin Nu Nu Hlaing. I am twenty nine years old. I am now serving
for my country as a tutor at Mandalay Education Degree College, Myanmar. First of all, I
would like to express my profound thanks to those who have granted an opportunity to
express my background study, to propose for my further study in China. I would like to
continue my study in order to improve my profession by pursuing research. After I have
completed my studies as a Ph.D. student from China and come back to my country, I will
make an effort in order to fulfill the requirements of our education system and of our society
to the maximum level of as much as I could.

Introduction of My Background
I was born in Tamu, a small town in Sagaing Region. My native town is located in
India-Myanmar Border Area. I passed the Matriculation Examination in 2007 and joined
Sagaing University of Education in 2007. I have successfully graduated [Link]. degree in
2011. I served as a junior teacher in Kale Township for two years, then promoted as a senior
teacher in Homlin Township for two years, then, transferred to Tamu Township. At the
moment, I am now serving as a teacher educator in Mandalay Education Degree College.
When I serve as a teacher transferring from one place to another of my country, I
realize the professional and personal problems of most people in my country due to the lack
of educational qualification. So, I am eager to perform for improving the quality of education
as much as I could. If we wish our society to be improved physically and mentally, research
is very importance in each sector. It is a search for truth and I am very eager to do research
related with psychological factors that are important for the education system. I believe
applying the research results in practice will improve the education system and the quality of
teaching-learning process in my country. So, I want to pursue Developmental and
Educational Psychology field and make the researches related with this field more
specifically and systematically. I think that MEXT will fulfill my desire and help me to
achieve my study goal.
Why do I choose to study in China?
It is my childhood dream to study abroad because I believe it will offer me great
challenges and many exciting international experiences. I choose China because it is a
friendly country with a high ranking education quality and diverse culture. It would be very
rewarding to develop an international network and exchange thoughts and opinions with
teachers and other students from different nationalities. China is investing heavily in higher
education and its universities have high reputation which makes a great aspiration to the
international students. The academic qualifications awarded by Chinese universities are
recognized by most developed countries. Besides, most universities in China offer the
graduate programmes taught in English. So, it will facilitate for international students to
study in China.
Moreover, China's diverse, vibrant and well preserved culture is the important reason
why I choose to study in China. I enjoy meeting new people of diverse cultures and inquiring
their respectable cultures because the experiences polish my interpersonal, communication
skills and also increase my respect and appreciation for other cultures. Therefore, studying in
China will give the opportunity to get sound academic knowledge and international
experiences, and to learn about the exciting Chinese cultures. In addition, I will become more
competitive individual, raise my self-confidence and independence, and go on to bring great
honor to my homeland when I return by studying in China. According to this reasons, I would
like to study in China.

Study Plan

I am now serving as an assistant lecturer in Mandalay Education Degree College. I

want to improve my quality of teaching and professional skills by learning new ideas,
concepts and strategies in one of the most highly ranked universities. Therefore, I would like
to pursue a specialization of Educational Psychology in China. The duration of this study
will be about four years. During these years, I will concentrate on course of study and do the
research related to my selected field, Educational Psychology. I will focus on the study of
technology-related knowledge, skills, and attitudes of student teachers: the current situation
and emerging trends in Myanmar.
1. Introduction
Due to COVID-19 pandemic, there has been a world-wide phenomenon known as
“emergency remote teaching”, resulting in a temporary shift to online teaching (Hodges,
Moore, Lockee, Trust, & Bond, 2020). These exceptional circumstances have brought the use
of technology in education to the attention of a broader public. Regular claims are that
educational technology will improve learning efficiency, facilitate greater focus on the future
professional needs of learners, and foster personality development in a digital society.
However, such claims are often based on ‘myths’ instead of sound research (Kirschner & van
Merrienboer, 2013).
The more digitized the society, the more demand digitally competent teachers, imposing
the need for new approaches when it comes to integration of technology in education.
Teacher education is regarded as a natural place to start this integration (Kay, 2006), but
recent research indicates that there is a mismatch between the digital demands that newly
qualified teachers meet in their profession and the training in use of instructional technology
provided during teacher education (Gudmundsdottir, Loftagarden, & Ottestad, 2014).
Research indicates that in order for technology integration to take place, teachers need access
to relevant equipment, workplace support and positive attitudes towards technology (Ertmer,
1999, Ertmer et al., 2012, Kopcha, 2012).
Being able to integrate and use technology for educational purposes involves having a set
of generic skills suitable for all situations, both personal and professional, as well as specific
teaching-profession skills. This is what is referred to as professional digital competence for
teachers (Lund, Furberg, Bakken, & Engelien, 2014). Teacher educators have a dual
responsibility in this regard; not only should they be able to use technology for their own
teaching, they should also contribute to developing student teachers’ professional digital
competence. In a complex education like teacher education, where preparation of teachers
takes place both on campus and in field practice schools, the question of how technology is
integrated on each of these arenas becomes particularly important.
2. Review of Related Literature
2. Technology-related KSA
Background of the TPACK framework
The concept of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) has emerged over the
last decade, beginning with Pierson’s (2001) initial articulation of the idea, followed by
various other researchers suggesting similar conceptions of a more content-specific
orientation to technology integration (Angeli and Valanides, 2005, Koehler and Mishra,
2005, Lee, 2005, Margerum-Leys and Marx, 2003, Margerum-Leys and Marx, 2004, Niess,
2005, Wallace, 2004).
2.1. Knowledge and skills
Successful problem solvers possess well-organized and flexible reservoirs of knowledge that
they can apply within various contexts (Ericsson & Lehmann, 1996). Based on the work
of Shulman (1986), Park and Oliver (2008), in their literature review, identified four
communalities of teachers’ professional knowledge: pedagogical knowledge (PK), content
knowledge (CK), pedagogical content knowledge (PCK), and knowledge of context. Mishra
and Koehler (2006) added technological knowledge (TK) as a further type. The TPACK
framework has gained broad attention among researchers (Harris, Phillips, Koehler, &
Rosenberg, 2017; Hew, Lan, Tang, Jia, & Lo, 2019; Petko, 2020; Saubern, Henderson,
Heinrich, & Redmond, 2020; Voogt, Fisser, Pareja Roblin, Tondeur, & van Braak, 2013. The
core that emerges from interaction between CK, PK, and TK (Koehler et al., 2013) is
TPACK.
As the name implies, TPACK may refer to knowledge; however, researchers also
conceptualized the components of the TPACK framework as skills or competence
(Willermark, 2018). Although the TPACK framework is well-established, it has been
challenged (Angeli & Valanides, 2009; Graham, 2011): The blocks PK, CK, and TK are
insufficiently (theoretically) conceptualized. In particular, it often remains unclear what kind
of technology TK comprises. The range could be broad, e.g., from chalk boards to social
robots. Besides the underlying constructs themselves, their relationship with each other is an
issue (Petko, 2020). This relationship could be integrative or transformative. A further
criticism of the TPACK framework is its ability to predict meaningful outcomes (Graham,
2011). Available studies in general refer to (self-reported) use (Farjon, Smits, & Voogt, 2019;
Guggemos & Seufert, 2020, this issue; Schmid, Brianza, & Petko, 2020, this issue).
However, in the end, the desired outcome would be gains in student learning. In other
contexts, studies that rely on student learning are available.
2.2. Attitudes
Besides professional knowledge and skills, teachers' attitudes, especially the beliefs that form
such attitudes (Instefjord & Munthe, 2017), have received much attention. Empirical
evidence lends support to the important role of beliefs in the process of technology
integration (Cheng & Xie, 2018; Ertmer, Ottenbreit-Leftwich, Sadik, Sendurur, & Sendurur,
2012; Petko, 2012; Tondeur, van Braak, Ertmer, & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2017).
Unsurprisingly, attitudes also play an important role in predicting the adoption of technology
by teachers. Scherer, Tondeur, Siddiq, and Baran (2018) showed that attitudes towards
technology can be an important predictor for the level of TPACK in student teachers.
2.3. Assessment of technology-related KSA
Quantitative research about technology integration depends on instruments to measure the
constructs of interest; the validity of the findings heavily depends on the quality of the used
instruments. Moreover, for professional development, instruments are necessary to identify
potentials for improvement. In general, assessment instruments in the realm of teachers'
technology-related KSA can be separated into self-assessment and external (objective)
instruments (Kaplon-Schilis & Lyublinskaya, 2020). Scherer, Tondeur, and Siddiq
(2017) pointed out five advantages of self-assessment instruments. First, they are a cost-
efficient, reliable, and valid indicator for teachers' self-efficacy beliefs. Second, they are
important predictors for teachers’ intention to use technology. Third, they are geared towards
future behavior. In summary, self-reports and objective measures might capture different
constructs (self-efficacy beliefs vs. performance) that are both important; hence, they may be
regarded as complementary (Drummond & Sweeney, 2017).
For a valid assessment, both curriculum and instruction have to be taken into account
(Pellegrino, DiBello, & Goldman, 2016). The curriculum specifies the kind of knowledge
(student) teachers are expected to possess. Hence, if teachers' technology-related KSA are to
be assessed, the pertinent standards have to be considered. Sailer et al. (2020) and Rubach et
al. (2020) also considered the pertinent curricula for developing self-assessment instruments.
2.4. Fostering technology-related knowledge, skills, and attitudes
Adopting technology for learning purposes is a complex endeavor (Straub, 2009). We
cannot expect prospective teachers to possess technology-related knowledge and skills simply
because they grew up with digital technology (Kirschner & Bruyckere, 2017). Rather,
training and professional development might be necessary. Based on a systematic review of
qualitative studies, Tondeur et al. (2012) developed a Synthesis of Qualitative Evidence
(SQD) model for preparing student teachers to include technology in their classroom
practices. They identified six themes on the micro level concerning the preparation of student
teachers. A questionnaire that operationalizes these six themes is available (Tondeur, van
Braak, Siddiq, & Scherer, 2016). Moreover, there is evidence for a positive association
between the perceived occurrence of the SQD strategies and TPACK (Tondeur, Scherer,
Siddiq, & Baran, 2020). Table 1 summarizes the themes of the SQD model.
Table 1. Micro-level themes of the SQD model.

Theme Manifestation in teacher training

Role model Pedagogical meaningful use of technology is embedded in all kinds of

activities, e.g., in lectures and seminars

Reflection Reflection and discussion on the use of technology is an integral part

Theme Manifestation in teacher training

Instructional Students receive help in preparing lessons that include technology

design

Collaboration Students have opportunities to work together with fellow students,

supporting each other, and sharing experiences

Authentic Students receive opportunities to test themselves using technology in

experiences the classroom (in internships)

Feedback Students receive feedback about their use of technology and about
further improvements

Note. The SQD model as presented by Tondeur et al. (2012; 2016).

The SQD model may not only be helpful for training student teachers, but also for
professional development in general. Yurtseven Avci, O'Dwyer, and Lawson
(2020) reviewed thirty-two studies about professional development in the realm of
technology in education. Overall, they identified categories that are consistent with the SQD
model.
3. Methodology
Quantitative research method will be used in this study. The design adopted in this
study will be descriptive survey method. It will be cross-sectional [Link] will
be selected from a population of high school students from government and private high
schools in Myanmar. The sample will be chosen by simple random sampling technique.
Prosocial Reasoning Objective Measure (PROM), developed by Carlo et al. (1992), will
be used to assess self-report of five types of prosocial moral reasoning. Prosocial Tendencies
Measure (PTM), originally developed by Carlo & Randall (2002) to assess self-report of six
types of prosocial behaviours among college individuals, was revised by Carlo et al., (2003)
to use with early and middle adolescents. Prosocial Tendencies Measure – Revised (PTM-R)
will be used in this study. All items in these instruments will be on the four-point Likert
scale.
Literature survey will be conducted from several available resources. Research proposal
will be reported. Then required instruments for the study will be prepared. Pilot test will be
administered. Then, actual testing will be conducted. The obtained data will be analyzed by
using descriptive statistics, independent sample t test and Pearson product-moment
correlation by SPSS version 21 for quantitative data.
According to situation, time to do research will be allocated.
4. References
Carlo, G., Eisenberg, N., and Knight, G. P. (1992). An objective measure of adolescents’
prosocial/ moral reasoning. J. Res. Adolesc. 2: 331– 349.
Carlo, G., Fabes, R. A., Laible, D., & Kupanoff , K. (1999). Early adolescence and prosocial/
moral behavior II: The role of social and contextual influences. Journal ofEarly
Adolescence, 19, 133-147.
Carlo, G., Hausmann, A., Christiansen, S., & Randall, B. A., (2003). Sociocognitive and
Behavioral Correlates of a Measure of Prosocial Tendencies for Adolescents. Journal
of Early Adolescence, 23(1), 107-134.
Carlo, G.,&Randall, B. A. (2002). The development of a measure of prosocial behaviors for
late adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 31, 31-44.
Consortium on the Promotion of Social Competence. (1994). The school-based promotion of
social competence: Theory, research, practice, and policy. In R. J. Haggerty, L. R.
Sheroud, N. Garmezy, & M. Rutter (Eds.), Stress, risk, and resilience in children and
adolescents: Processes, mechanisms, and interventions (pp. 268-316). Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press.
Crandell,T.L., Crandell, C.H., & Zanden, J.W.V. (2012). Human Development (9 th ed.). New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Eisenberg, N., Carlo, G., Murphy, B., & Van Court, P. (1995). Prosocial development in late
adolescence: A longitudinal study. Child Development, 66, 1179-1197.
Eisenberg, N., & Mussen, P. H. (1989). The Roots of Prosocial Behavior in Children.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fry, D.P. (2006). Reciprocity: the foundation of stone of moral development.
Kohlberg, L. (1984). Essays on Moral Development: The Philosophy of Moral Development:
Moral Stages and the Idea of Justice (Vol. 1). San Francisco: Harper & Row.
Nansel, T. R., Overpeck, M. D., Haynie, D. L., Ruan, J., & Scheidt, P. C. (2003).
Relationships between bullying and violence among US youth. Archives of Pediatrics
and Adolescent Medicine, 157. 348-353.
Schonert_Reichl, K.A. (1996). Peer relationships and moral reasoning during early
adolescence: the influence of peer status, social participation, and friendship quality.
Shaffer, D.R., & Kipp, K. (2010). Developmental Psychology: Childhood and Adolescence.
(8th ed.). Wadsworth. Canada.

After graduation, I hope to be able to take part in conducting my country's educational

researches and to improve the teaching-learning process of the students in my country. I
believe that study in China will benefit me more and give me a better insight about how to
bring better development in my country.