A process model for faculty development: individualizing technology learning.

Participants (N = 156) were involved in the teacher preparation program at a large Research 1 university located in the mid-west. The faculty (n = 21) participated in a two-year individualized professional development process to: (a) develop technology knowledge and skill efficacy and (b) integrate technology in teaching. The preservice teachers (n = 135) were enrolled in the courses taught by the faculty participants. Evaluation of the professional development process included a pre/post questionnaire that yielded data for faculty's development of technology knowledge and skill efficacy, integration of technology into courses, and change in teacher practices. The preservice teachers completed a survey that examined the frequency of technology use during the course in which they were enrolled. Analysis included computing frequencies, means, standard deviations, and significance levels. Results indicated change in faculty skill efficacy in the areas of communication (p<.05), inquiry-based learning (p<.01), feedback and metacognition (p<.01), and problem-solving (p<.05). Results related to technology integration indicated significant change in inquiry-based learning (p<.01), feedback and metacognition (p<.05), problem-solving (p<.01), and content knowledge (p<.05). Results related to changes in teaching practices indicated that the faculty significantly reduced the frequency of lecture (p<.05) and integrated problem based learning (p<.001) more frequently. Preservice teachers reported using a variety of technology applications during the courses.

**********

Since 2000, most K-12 public schools in the United States have had technology access, and 98% of them are Internet connected (Cattagni & Farris, 2001). However, a majority of K-12 teachers report being unprepared to use instructional technologies or to teach their students to use technology (Hasselbring et al., 2000). In addition, beginning teachers report that their teacher preparation programs did not adequately prepare them to incorporate technology into instructional practice (Office of Technology Assessment, 1995; Sprague, Kopfman, & Dorsey, 1998). Technology and its applications can change the very ethos of schools as we have known them for more than a century, but, for that change to occur, teachers must have the technology knowledge and skills necessary for a, perhaps, different style of teaching and demonstration of learning. To overcome the problem of teachers being inadequately prepared to use technology, teacher educators must assume the responsibility of preparing preservice teachers to use technology. Preservice teachers--tomorrow's teachers--must learn to integrate technology into their teaching practices in ways that engage students in learning and increase achievement. The purpose of this article is to describe a three-year funded project that focused on a professional development process aimed at helping teacher education faculty develop technology skill efficacy and integrate technology into teaching methods courses.

Teacher education programs are challenged to prepare graduates who are capable and committed to using technology as a learning tool. Yet both preservice teachers and teacher education faculty are new to technology uses and have no personal experience as students themselves in technology-infused classrooms (Jacobsen, Clifford, & Friesen, 2002). To prepare tomorrow's teachers as technology-using teachers, teacher education faculty must first be equipped with the knowledge and dispositions to support preservice teachers' learning. To accomplish this goal, one institution's Preparing Tomorrow's Teachers to Use Technology (PT3) grant first set out to answer this question: "What factors affect successful professional development?" Next, a research-based faculty development process for technology learning was designed and implemented with teacher education faculty. The goals for faculty development included outcomes that would ultimately result in the preservice teachers learning technology skills and dispositions.

LITERATURE AND BACKGROUND

First, existing professional development models are discussed. Next, the basis for the project's professional development process design is defined. Last, the context in which this project took place is described.

Professional Development Models

Past experience has consistently shown that the traditional workshop model for delivering professional development does not often result in changes in actual practice (National Staff Development Council, 1995). Successful professional development allows educators to exert control over the type and content of experiences they have (Wilson & Berne, 1998) and includes practice and follow-up support for what is being learned (Joyce & Showers, 1995). Increasingly, researchers indicate that technology should be integrated into professional development experiences (Hasselbring et al., 2000; Isaak & Ward, 2000; Pan, 2000) to ensure the effective integration of technology in teaching and learning (Reed & McNergney, 2000). Furthermore, ongoing professional development programs in technology integration--such as the one described in this study--increase preservice teachers' comfort levels and assist in changing their philosophies regarding the value of technology use in teaching and learning (Hasselbring et al., 2000; McDermott & Murray, 2000).

Several researchers suggested that teacher education faculty modeling technology use in teaching methods courses is the best means for preparing preservice teachers to integrate technology in their own teaching (Zehr, 1997; Handler, 1993, Munday, Windam, & Stamper, 1991). In order for the modeling to be effective, the teacher education faculty must first learn appropriate technology skills and uses. Unfortunately, many faculty development efforts approach this challenge with two questionable assumptions: (a) the development efforts should focus on a pre-defined set of technology applications and associated skills; and (b) the technology applications will not change significantly over time.

The basis for the professional development designed for the project reported in this article was a process-oriented perspective (Sprague, Kopfman, & Dorsey, 1998). Tenets of the process-oriented perspective are that effective faculty development models related to technology should include: (a) awareness of what the technology can offer, (b) opportunity to explore technology integration, (c) time to learn the technology, (d) application of technology to teaching, and (e) reflection on teaching. Professional development processes that include these elements combined with access to hardware and software equip teacher education faculty to model technology as a teaching and learning tool.

Perspectives

The project adopted a research-based vision for faculty and preservice teachers' development of technology skills and for the integration of technology in both university and K-12 classrooms. The perspectives used to guide the vision were based on Chickering and Ehrmann's "Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education: Technology as a Lever" (1996) and on the Technology Learning Cycle described later. The Seven Principles were consistent with effective schools research, adapted for technology applications (Chickering & Ehrmann, 1987) and were updated by incorporating cognitive psychology related to teaching and learning (Glatthorn, 1994; Gardner, 1999). The Seven Principles for Good Practice in Technology include the following areas: Communication, Social Learning, Inquiry-based Learning, Feedback and Metacognition, Problem-solving Skills, Content Knowledge, and Diversity of Learners and Learning Styles.

Wedman and Diggs (n.d.) conceptualized the Technology Learning Cycle (TLC), a learning model for faculty development that is based on the views of Sprague et al. (1998) and the Seven Principles for Good Practice. The TLC is a conceptual framework that provides users with a model for keeping abreast of emerging technology. It is based on learning phases that encourage purposeful decision-making about learning and using new technology tools and software. Preliminary results suggest that the TLC is successful in advancing technology use (Pfannenstiel & Treffeisen, 2002; Marra, Howland, Wedman, & Diggs, 2003).

The TLC grew out of dissatisfaction with the "techno-centric" view of a technology-using teacher and is grounded on the principle that faculty must be lifelong learners of educational technology. Accordingly, rather than concentrating on learning specific technologies, the TLC's focus is on helping faculty develop a personal process for learning and using new technology (Wedman & Diggs, n.d.). Thus, the TLC supports individualized faculty development needs that will continue to evolve as new technologies emerge and as individual interests and goals determine user choices.

Rather than viewing technology as a set of skills to be acquired, the concept of lifelong learning must be applied to educational technology, with teacher education faculty and preservice teachers developing self-concepts of themselves as technology users. The TLC views the ability to learn and use new technologies as the core competency for technology-using educators. The TLC model demonstrates the belief that profound changes must be made in teacher education and provides a workable, individualized approach that meets learners at their particular level of knowledge regarding various technologies and their uses. It supports faculty's learning and modeling of technology use with a non-threatening, realistic approach.

The TLC has five major phases (Figure 1) including (a) Awareness; (b) Exploration and Filtration; (c) Learning; (d) Personal and Professional Application, and (e) Sharing and Reflection. Each phase contributes to the other phases and each is essential for completion of the cycle. Movement through the phases is dependent on an individual user's interests, needs, abilities, motivation, application, and critical thinking, respectively.

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

In the Awareness phase, a learner wishes to be exposed to new technology and is open to new innovations. During Exploration and Filtration, the learner considers the functions, availability, and usefulness of different innovations discovered in the Awareness phase and selects a technology to learn. The Learning phase includes mastering technical skills as well as gaining pedagogical ability that allows effective integration of technology for learning. In the Application phase, learners integrate instructional technology into teaching methodologies, using their newly acquired knowledge to support teaching and learning. Finally, in the Sharing and Reflection phase, participants reflect on and evaluate the integration of technology in the curriculum. In this phase, learners grow professionally in the area of technology literacy to support teaching and learning. The TLC is not a linear model; rather, it recognizes that individuals may be positioned in multiple phases concurrently in relation to different technologies. (For additional explanation and discussion of the TLC, see http://tiger.coe.missouri.edu/~tlc and Marra, Howland, Wedman, & Diggs, 2003)

Context

To better understand the impact of the TLC as the conceptual framework for faculty development in technology, it is useful to know the context in which the TLC was implemented. Schrum, Skeele, and Grant (2002) noted the importance of a technology-using culture within colleges of education. To achieve such an environment, the College of Education in which this study was conducted intentionally designed and developed a technology infrastructure that both supported and encouraged technology use among faculty, staff, and students. This infrastructure included physical, financial, and human resources. A key physical resource was the Reflector, an educational technology and curriculum resource center that was envisioned not as a computer lab, but as a learning space infused with technology to support ones work. The Reflector offered print, digital, and manipulative instructional materials including computers and software, textbook series, manipulative kits, audio and video materials, and SmartBoards. Laptops, digital still and video cameras, and projectors were available for College of Education students and faculty to borrow. Teacher education classrooms connected to the Reflector with windows and glass doors, allowing high visibility; thus, observing technology use and modeling by faculty happened spontaneously. Reflector staff was available for assistance at all times. Housed within the Reflector was the Student Wizards Assisting Teachers (SWAT) team, a group of undergraduate and graduate students who provided technology training and support for preservice teachers and education faculty.

In addition to the human resources embedded in the Reflector, the College of Education's Learning and Performance Support (LAPS) team provided technical assistance such as computer set-up, networking support, and troubleshooting. The philosophy behind technology support within the college was a Right-Time, Right-Place, Right-Form model (Wedman et al., 1998). This model recognized the effectiveness of one-on-one assistance--providing individualized support and teaching when the person is using technology with a purpose and is using the computer normally used. Wedman et al. noted that this type of technology support has resulted in increasingly sophisticated questions and requests for help, evidence of growth in technology learning.

Objectives

This article will describe summative data for a three-year technology implementation grant project, Preparing Tomorrow's Teachers to Use Technology (PT3) that focused on developing teacher educators' technology skills and their integration of technology into the teacher preparation program. Specifically, we will describe the extent to which teacher education faculty: (a) became fluent with technology knowledge and skill efficacy; and (b) exhibited teaching practices that were conducive to technology use and reflected student-centered, active learning processes. That is, did faculty acquire technology skills and appropriately integrate technology more frequently in their courses at the end of the PT3 grant?

METHODOLOGY

Participants

Participants (N=98) included College of Education faculty members (n=21) and preservice teachers (n=77) who voluntarily participated in the study. The faculty members taught content methods courses in the undergraduate teacher education program of a large mid-western Research 1 university. The rank of these 21 faculty members included eight assistant professors, 9 associate professors, and four full professors. The group consisted of nine males and 12 females. Overall, the faculty was a well-experienced teaching faculty with years of university teaching ranging from six to 16.

The faculty participants were divided into two cohort groups. Cohort 1 participated during the first grant year and included 12 faculty members who taught Language Arts, Social Studies, Early Childhood, and Foundations courses. Cohort 2 participated during the second grant year and included 11 faculty members who taught Mathematics or Science methods courses. The faculty work responsibilities included teaching, research, and service activities, with teaching being composed of two courses per semester. One course was taught at the undergraduate level and the other was taught at the graduate level. Teaching responsibilities also included advising undergraduate (juniors and seniors) and graduate (masters and doctoral) students.

Each faculty participant received a one-course reduction in teaching load for one winter semester and four weeks summer salary for his or her participation in the professional development portion of the project (technology skill development and technology integration into methods courses). All faculty had an office computer, and prior to participating in the professional development provided by the PT3 grant, many faculty used e-mail, list-serves, presentation software, and the Internet. Relatively few used technology in their classrooms.

The preservice teachers enrolled in the methods courses that the faculty taught were juniors or seniors. These students had been enrolled in the teacher preparation program throughout the two-year project. Each preservice teacher met the minimum program requirements, which were a GPA of 2.75 and an ACT score of 21. They had also successfully completed seven credits of field experiences, which were paired with the content methods courses.

Procedures

The professional development component of the project took place throughout two academic years with faculty participating in the professional development process during either the first or second year. For the professional development activities to meet individual faculty interests and training needs, it was necessary to divide the group; therefore, some faculty participated during year one while others participated during year two. The information gathered from the faculty participants is combined into one data set, and because the professional development plans were based on individual faculty's interests and needs, the plans were different for each faulty member. Over the two year period, the professional development process adhered to the following timeline: (a) during the fall semester, the project team collected base line data from faculty and used it to develop individual professional development plans, (b) during the winter semester, the faculty worked individually with technology specialists and were provided small group "awareness building" seminars which they attended if interested, (c) during the summer semesters, faculty worked to revise undergraduate methods courses by designing instruction and developing learning experiences that included technology tools, and (d) during the ensuing fall semester, the faculty implemented the revised undergraduate courses.

The professional development process was based on the Seven Principles and TLC described earlier. The planned professional development activities were implemented during two successive winter semesters for faculty participants; however, professional development was ongoing. Throughout the two years, technology support and additional learning opportunities were available for all faculty participants.

The planned professional development process was purposefully designed to meet each faculty member's technology interests and needs. Therefore, multiple activities were developed, with faculty making individual choices about the technology experiences in which they would participate. First, base line data were collected that included an analysis of syllabi to determine the extent to which technology was already integrated into courses and a questionnaire that examined faculty technology proficiency based on the Seven Principles of Good Practice. These data allowed the research team to develop individual user profiles, determine needed hardware/software, and identify learning needs. The information was then used to develop individual professional development processes based on the TLC.

Second, a plan for individual professional development was designed and implemented whereby each faculty, working with an education technology specialist, developed a technology integration plan for revising their content methods course.

Third, each participant was teamed with a SWAT (Student Wizard Assisting Teachers) Team member who met one time per week for 2-3 hours in each faculty person's office for individual teaching sessions. Each session focused on the faculty member's learning goals (e.g., learning basic skills, developing web pages, graphics). Syllabi for each faculty participant's courses helped to identify possible opportunities for technology integration.

Fourth, the TLC provided a framework for implementing one-on-one teaching sessions, awareness, and learning opportunities that included Brown Bag sessions where technology hardware and software were demonstrated, field trips to K-12 schools where faculty could observe technology being used by children in the classroom, learning communities among the faculty cohorts to share developing skills, and optional workshops held in on-campus computer labs where faculty were provided with hands-on training to use technology hardware and software. Throughout this professional development, faculty engaged in metacognitive processes such as reflecting and journaling on their position(s) in the TLC stages relative to various technologies with which they were experimenting.

Fifth, postevaluation instruments were administered that included a questionnaire measuring faculty's integration of technology into courses after participating in the professional development process. This evaluation data was based on the Seven Principles of Good Practice and examined the faculty member's integration of technology into methods courses as well as the distribution of faculty TLC stages.

Sixth, preservice teachers who were enrolled in the revised courses completed a questionnaire at the end of the semester to examine the extent to which students rated the integration of technology into coursework. This questionnaire was also based on the Seven Principles of Good Practice, and students were asked to rate the frequency that each identified skill was used during the course.

Data Sources

This is an evaluative study that examined the effectiveness of a yearlong professional development plan experienced by teacher education faculty during the federally funded PT3 project. The evaluation was designed using a pre/posttest one-group design.

The data sources described in this study provide the long-term growth reported by the faculty and include self-reports of skill development, values associated with technology tools, and teaching practices. A self-report instrument was administered as a pre/posttest that was based on the Seven Principles of Good Practice described previously. The instrument included 55 technology tools, each one subsumed under the appropriate principle. For example, the principle Communication included 14 practices such as Listservs, Chat Rooms, and e-mail, the principle Social Learning included 14 practices such as group problem-solving, sharing student web pages, and audio/video conferencing. The principles and practices are provided in the Appendix of this article.

The instrument measured two different aspects of the project: knowledge and skills efficacy, and integration. The responses were recorded in two separate columns. Responses in Column 1 indicated personal knowledge by the response choices corresponding to each phase of the TLC as follows: N = No knowledge, A = Awareness, L = Exploration and Learning, Ap = Application, S = Sharing and Reflection. A written definition was provided for each response choice and directions asked participants to circle the one that best described their knowledge and skill for each technology tool.

Responses marked in Column 2 indicated the skill efficacy of each technology tool for teaching and learning by the following response choices: Not Important, Somewhat Important, Very Important. The directions asked the faculty member to circle the response choice that best described how she or he perceived the value of each technology tool to teaching and learning.

Responses were also recorded regarding the frequency with which the faculty member used 16 teaching practices consistent with effective teaching research (e.g., problem-based learning, performance-based assessment, co-operative group work, active involvement in class). Response choices were as follows: Almost Never, Several Times a Year, Weekly, and Almost Daily. Directions asked participants to circle the response that best described how frequently they used each of the 16 teaching practices.

To substantiate the information gained from the faculty member instrument, individual interviews were conducted with the faculty members during the end of the professional development process. Faculty interviews provided information to further explain results. In addition, the preservice teachers who were enrolled in five of the methods courses completed a student survey, Flashlight[TM] Current Student Inventory, which asked them to identify the technology they used to complete learning experiences or assignments in the course. This instrument was obtained through a site license. (For additional information regarding Flashlight[TM] see http://www.learner.org/edtech/rscheval/).

Cronbach alpha reliability coefficients were computed for the hypothesized good practices/technology efficacy scales. Acceptable coefficients, meeting or exceeding the .70 criteria for reliability, were obtained for each of the good practice scales. Reliability coefficients for most good practices used to measure faculty integration of technology had acceptable reliability coefficients; however, the metacognition and content knowledge integration scales did not meet the acceptable criterion for demonstration of reliability.

Analysis

Data were analyzed by computing the mean, standard deviation and significance test for each technology tool in the areas of knowledge and skill efficacy development, and use of teaching practices on pre and post measures. Change variables for good practices/technology skill efficacy were computed by subtracting measures obtained by faculty at the end of the project from baseline measures of their technology skill efficacy prior to the project. Data were further tested with a paired comparisons t-test. Analysis of the faculty members' responses to specific elements within each of the Seven Good Practices/technology skill efficacy and the student survey was accomplished by computing frequencies and percentages.

RESULTS

Technology Knowledge and Skill Efficacy

In response to the first evaluation question regarding the extent to which participating faculty members became fluent with technology knowledge and skills efficacy, findings indicate that faculty did significantly increase their technology skill efficacy in the areas of communication (p<.05) inquiry-based learning (p<.01), feedback and metacognition (p<.01), and problem-solving (p<.05).

In the Communication area, all faculty indicated the two highest levels of proficiency in the use of word processing, e-mail, and e-mail to collaborate with others. In fact, two-thirds of the faculty rated themselves at the TLC sharing and reflection phase prior to participating in the professional development process. Most faculty members (89%) indicated high levels of proficiency in the use of listservs. Many faculty members (75%) reported high levels of proficiency in creating web sites and using course management tools. The faculty were least proficient in using multi-user class discussion groups, chat rooms, and newsgroups, and creating tables on web pages.

In the Social Learning and Cooperation area, most faculty (88%) reported high levels of proficiency using e-mail for students to link with peers, and many (75%) reported high levels of proficiency using study groups and group problem-solving. Some faculty (45%) were highly proficient using e-mail to link students with experts or mentors. The faculty members were least proficient in sharing student web pages and using audio/video conferences.

In the Inquiry-Based Learning area, many faculty (75%) reported high proficiency using on-line reference tools, accessing primary sources on the web, using efficient search strategies to locate resources on the Internet, and using web-based advanced organizers. About half the faculty (49%) were highly proficient using online research databases and CD-ROM electronic databases. The faculty was least proficient in using online mentors to support active inquiry-based learning.

In the Feedback and Metacognition area most faculty (80%) reported high proficiency in using criteria for good student work. Many faculty (60%) reported high proficiency in using student journaling. About one-half (51%) reported high levels of proficiency in using online homework assignments, WebQuests, and journaling. The faculty were least proficient in using electronic distribution of grades, web-based quizzes and surveys, and electronic student portfolios. However, one faculty member reported during an interview of allocating additional time in the revised methods course to teach students to use Inspiration and digital videotaping to produce QuickTime movies for web-based portfolios.

In the Problem Solving and Decision Making area, some faculty members (45%) reported high proficiency in using spreadsheets, incorporating Internet-based learning exercises, and research projects. For example, during the interview, several faculty members described classes held in the Reflector so students could gain experience using spreadsheets, graphics, and modeling software. Some faculty (35%) were highly proficient in using a video production unit. The faculty was least proficient in using decision-making technology resources, using multi-media authoring packages, graphics packages, and web publishing.

In the Content Knowledge area most faculty members (90%) reported high levels of proficiency prior to participation in PT3 in identifying high-quality content area websites. Seventy percent reported they were highly proficient in incorporating internet-based learning exercises or research projects into course curricula. However, during the interview, faculty reported that after participating in the professional development process, they learned about and integrated new technologies. For example, they learned to use and integrate QuickTime movies, Midi musical computer interface, Probes (a device that determines temperature and pressure, measures light, and detects motion), PolyCom (a video camera that links the campus to public schools), Geometer's Sketchpad, and the library's electronic reservation system. Software that was integrated included Inspiration, Netscape Composer, Finale (an instructional music program), Fathom (statistics software), and Macro Logo.

In the Diversity of Learners and Learning Styles area, most faculty members (80%) reported high levels of proficiency in scanning images into documents, and 70% reported high levels of proficiency in the use of presentation software and a video projection unit. Half of the faculty members rated themselves at the TLC application phase in web publishing. Forty percent rated themselves highly proficient using graphics packages and a digital camera. While 19% of the faculty members did not model software, 57% rated themselves at the TLC application or sharing phase. For example, one faculty member reported using technology to model good pedagogy, such as modeling what a good math teacher should do when discussing a technology-centered assignment and using the SmartBoard to help students make connections between student strategies and teaching strategies. The faculty members were least proficient in using multimedia authoring packages, data analysis and display, file management, and incorporating audio into files.

Teaching Practices and Integration

In response to the second research question regarding the extent to which faculty members exhibited teaching practices that were conducive to technology use and reflected student-centered, active learning processes, the findings indicate that technology was integrated into the targeted courses and that teaching practices encouraged active and student-centered learning. The faculty members significantly increased their integration of technology in areas of inquiry-based learning (p<.01), feedback and metacognition (p<.05), problem-solving (p<.01), and content knowledge.

In the area of Communication, the faculty members indicated considerable increases in the integration of technology applications in their targeted courses after one year of the professional development process. Only 25% of the faculty members indicated that web-based course management was well integrated in their courses prior to the professional development process, but 80% indicated that it was well integrated on the post-evaluation measure. A few faculty members (25%) reported that creating and maintaining a web site was well integrated prior to the professional development process, and many (40%) reported that this technology was well integrated after one year of participation. Faculty members reporting that other communication indicators were well integrated increased by 10% after participation in the professional development process.

In the area of Social Learning and Cooperation, 30% of the faculty members reported the use of e-mail for students to link with peers prior to participating in the professional development process. After one year of participation, all faculty members reported that e-mail was used as a communication tool among students. Most faculty members (90%) reported that group problem solving was well integrated in their course, and many faculty (63%) reported the integration of study groups.

In the area of Inquiry-based Learning, 33% of the faculty members reported using Internet searches in their courses. After one year, 70% of the faculty members reported that Internet searches were highly integrated. One-half of the faculty members reported that use of online reference tools, accessing primary sources on the web, and using web-based advanced organizers were well integrated after one year of participation. The percentage of faculty members who reported that online research databases and efficient search strategies to locate resources on the Internet were well integrated increased by 20%.

In the area of Feedback and Metacognition, many faculty reported highly integrating criteria for good student work (81%), student journaling (67%), and online homework assignments (53%) in their courses. Some faculty reported that electronic student portfolios (40%), web-based surveys (34%) and WebQuests (28%) were highly integrated.

The greatest increase in technology integration after one year of participation was the use of course-management tools to promote faculty-student communication (increasing from 25% to 80%). One tool in particular, CourseInfo, was used to make syllabi and other educational information more accessible to students. The students used this web-based tool to communicate with faculty members and other students, as well as to obtain assignments and generate a variety of documents for use in field experiences. In connection with CourseInfo, SWAT Team members developed special applications, such as a web-based lesson plan format and a web-based literature inventory system. Students used these applications to obtain feedback on lesson plans and to select literature for use with students in field experiences.

One area of technology integration that faculty members tended to rate as not applicable was the use of the Internet to test and provide feedback to students. Both prior to and at the end of one year of participation, about half of the faculty members reported that use of the Internet for web-based quizzes/tests was not applicable, 30% reported similarly for web-based surveys and electronic distribution of grades. Faculty members did not change their perceptions of the applicability of these technologies to their courses as a result of participation in the professional development process.

In the area of Problem-Solving and Decision-Making, the faculty members who reported modeling software as well-integrated in their courses increased from 10% to 57%. Many faculty reported highly integrating problem-solving technology resources (40%) and spreadsheets (48%). These faculty members reported being more focused on how to facilitate learning more effectively through technology use of Internet searches, spreadsheets, graphics, digital video, Inspiration, interface software, and SmartBoards. Both prior to and after one year or participation, high percentages of faculty members reported they did not integrate decision-making technology resources (67% and 60% respectively).

In the area of Content Knowledge, many faculty members (75%) reported that Internet-based learning exercises or research projects were highly integrated in their courses compared to 40% who reported this technology as well integrated prior to the professional development process. The practice of incorporating Internet-based learning exercises (67%), using high quality content area websites (66%), and evaluating software for quality (67%) were reported as being integrated.

In the area of Diversity of Learners and Learning Styles, about 30% of faculty members reported that the use of a video projection unit was well integrated prior to PT3, and about 40% reported some use of presentation software. About 80% never incorporated audio into documents prior to participating in the professional development process, and about two-thirds never integrated multimedia authoring packages, graphics packages, data analysis and display, or file management technologies. After participating in the professional development process, faculty indicated that presentation software (59%), use of digital cameras (50%), video projection units (39%), and scanning images into documents (39%) were integrated in their courses.

To further substantiate the extent to which faculty members integrated technology into methods courses, 135 preservice teachers enrolled in five courses contributed feedback regarding their use of technology in the course. Results indicated that most students used technology.

The preservice teachers identified which technologies they used in their course. Almost all students indicated they used word processing and e-mail. Three-fourths of students used the Internet and accessed course materials online. Nearly 60% of students indicated they used presentation software and search engines/tools. About one-third of students used SmartBoard technology. Almost one-fourth used software for creating web pages. Digital cameras and concept mapping software were used by about 15% of students. Ten percent of students in all courses used video cameras. Less than 10% used multimedia authoring tools, spreadsheets, graphing calculators, or audio or video conferencing. No students used a database program.

The responses that focused on changes in the faculty members' teaching practices indicated that, other than frequency of lecturing, faculty did not significantly change the frequency with which they employed most of the research-based teaching practices measured by this study. Findings indicate that faculty participants significantly reduced the frequency that they lectured or presented to their classes (p<.05).

Prior to participating in the professional development process, only 11% of the faculty indicated that they never or almost never lectured or presented during their class sessions. By the end of the professional development process, 40% of the faculty indicated that they never or almost never lecture or present to their class. Prior to professional development, about 75% of the faculty lectured or presented to the class at some class sessions, but at the end of PT3 only 55% did so. Only one faculty member indicated at the end of the grant that they lectured or presented at almost every class session.

Faculty members who more frequently used project-based learning prior to the professional development process gained greater skills in technology applications that promote problem-based learning ([r.sub.s] = .60, p <.01, n = 20) and integrated problem-based technology more frequently in their courses at the end of PT3 ([r.sub.s] = .68, p < .001, n = 20). For example in an interview, one faculty member stated that because of her participation in the professional development process, results in the classroom had been "beyond all expectations." She reported that after students learned to use the Internet to obtain more current information, dramatic changes in students' engagement and interest in class discussions occurred. She summarized perceptions of the course by saying, "This is no longer an out-of-date course." In addition, 75% of the faculty members reported that course objectives are increasingly being met through the use of technologies since their participation in the professional development process. During an interview, one faculty member stated, "while the syllabus hasn't changed, the delivery of the course and students' production of products has changed. They are now primarily technology based."

Faculty members who more frequently employed conventional teaching practices such as student evaluation based on paper and pencil tests prior to participating in the professional development process acquired significantly lower levels of technology skills supporting faculty-student communication ([r.sub.s] = -.46, p< .05, n = 20) and were much less likely to integrate these communication technologies in their courses at the end of professional development ([r.sub.s] = -.70, p< .001, n = 20).

In summary, during interviews faculty members' overall discussion indicated that they had gained an increased awareness of meaningful ways to integrate technology into course content. Some of them reported applying the knowledge and expertise gained through the professional development process to other courses. Almost all faculty members reported that the professional development process reinforced their commitment to the value of technology in the classroom and increased their comfort level with its use. Almost all faculty members reported that the process helped them reflect on new uses of technology and assisted with determining which uses would enhance student learning. Some faculty interviewees reported that their courses had become more student-directed and collaborative since their participation in the professional development process.

DISCUSSION

While the faculty members reported a variety of challenges implementing the PT3 project objectives, indicators gained from this evaluation study attest to their growth in the use and integration of technology in their preservice teacher methods courses. Some faculty reported needing more time and energy to learn and apply new knowledge to course content in order to help preservice teachers use technology. Other faculty mentioned logistical difficulties such as complexities of digitizing videotapes, collaborating with team-teaching members, reserving and transporting equipment for use in practicum classrooms, keeping up with students' online discussions about practicum experiences, and handling the reluctance of many faculty members to take risks with technology.

Most of the faculty, however, viewed the PT3 grant challenges as motivating opportunities. Some cited specific plans for developing proficiency in the use of technology and integrating technology into their classroom practices. In spite of the challenges, faculty members indicated a desire to expand their knowledge of technology to implement new applications (e.g., web pages for the purpose of recommending appropriate software for students, creating class web pages, developing mentoring web sites).

Some cohort faculty members specifically credited the faculty development process as a factor in preservice teachers' development of higher quality products. More than half of the faculty reported being particularly focused on how to facilitate preservice teachers' learning more effectively through technology use. Faculty also cited increased integration of technologies specific to their content areas and reported an increased awareness of meaningful ways to integrate technology into the course content of other courses.

Almost all faculty reported that what they gained from participating in the professional development process had reinforced their commitment to the value of technology in the classroom, increased their comfort level with its use, helped them reflect on new uses of technology, and assisted them with determining which uses would enhance student learning.

The prevelence of technology use in methods courses influenced the preservice teachers' perceptions of technology, with more than 60% of students disagreeing with the statement that the technology(ies) used in this course did not work in the way they were supposed to. Two-thirds disagreed that the technology used in this course was overrated. Over three-fourths of students agreed that the instructor was excited about the technology used in this course. Almost all agreed, and half strongly agreed, that the technology used in this course was appropriate for performing the tasks required. Based on preservice teachers' indications, the faculty development process employed in this study led to instructors who positively modeled effective and successful uses of instructional technology.

While the majority of faculty strongly believed in the value of technology in the classroom prior to PT3, these faculty members reported that they were now more focused on how to facilitate learning more effectively through technology use. As a result of this grant, additional resources were developed to support the continuation of a technology-using culture within the College of Education. Among the elements deemed necessary for successful professional development is follow-up support, and the technology support staff, SWAT, was cited as influencing faculty's technology use by providing opportunities to participate in technology activities. SWAT continues to provide ongoing technology assistance to all College of Education faculty and students. Likewise, the College of Education continues to encourage faculty technology use through initiatives such as desktop enhancement, which provides upgraded computer systems on a three-year rotational basis.

CONCLUSION

Developing and implementing effective technology training is challenging in any institution, with higher education perhaps posing a greater challenge than many organizations due to disparate faculty interests, high autonomy, and wide variance in technology expertise. Yet the importance of preparing new teachers to exploit technology's power as a learning tool is undeniable. This preparation rightly begins with preservice teacher education faculty who are both knowledgeable and comfortable with using technology themselves. Technical ability is a necessary component for this use, but the key to success may lie in modeling and infusing technology into preservice teachers' curriculum through effective, pedagogically sound methods.

The faculty development described in this article indicates positive results through use of a research-based model that incorporates faculty control over the type and content of experiences in which they choose to participate, opportunities for practicing and applying learning in meaningful ways, and human and physical resources to support ongoing technology use and sustained learning. The Technology Learning Cycle offers a metacognitive tool with which individuals may assess and monitor their progress in technology learning--a process designed not only for the duration of this PT3 grant, but for continual growth and renewal throughout ones professional life.

APPENDIX A

SEVEN PRINCIPLES OF GOOD PRACTICE AND TECHNOLOGY SKILLS INCLUDED ON THE FACULTY MEMBER'S SELF-REPORT EVALUATION INSTRUMENT

Practice 1:        Word Processing, Listservs, Multi-user class
Communication      discussion groups, Chat Rooms, Newsgroups, Use of
                   e-mail, E-mail with students in my classes, Create
                   and maintain a web site, E-mail to collaborate with
                   other faculty, Personal web page, Class web pages,
                   Use graphics on web page, Create tables on web page,
                   Use course management tools
Practice 2:        Study groups, Group problem solving, Sharing student
Social Learning    web pages, Students use of e-mail to link with peers
                   in my classes, Students use e-mail to link with
                   experts/mentors, Audio/video conferencing
Practice 3:        Internet searches, Online reference tools, CD-ROM
Inquiry-based      electronic databases, Online research databases,
Learning           Access primary sources on the web, Efficient search
                   strategies to locate resources on the Internet, Use
                   web based advanced organizers, Online mentors
Practice 4:        Online homework assignments, Criteria for good
Feedback &         student work, Electronic distribution of grades,
Metacognition      Web-based surveys, Electronic student portfolios,
                   Web-based quizzes/tests, WebQuests, Flashlight[TM]
                   Current Student Inventory, Student journaling
Practice 5:        Decision-making technology resources, Modeling
Problem-Solving    software, Problem-solving technology resources,
and Decision       Spreadsheets
Making
Practice 6:        Incorporate Internet-based learning exercises or
Content Knowledge  research projects into course curricula, Identify
                   high-quality content area websites, Evaluate
                   software for quality
Practice 7:        Presentation software, Multimedia Diversity of
Learners and       authoring packages, Graphics packages, Publishing on
Learning Styles    the web, Data analysis and display, Use digital
                   camera, Use video projection unit, Scanning images
                   into documents, Incorporating audio into documents,
                   File management

Table 1 Pre and Posttest Means, Standard Deviations, and Significance
Test Regarding Faculty Members Change in Technology Skill Efficacy.
(N = 21)

Good Practices             Mean           Mean
                           Pretest  s.d.  Posttest  s.d.   t     p

Communication               42.9    10.4    46.5    8.9   2.21  <.05
Social learning             18.6     5.1    19.4    4.0   0.86  ns
Inquiry-based learning      25.2     6.5    28.1    4.8   2.89  <.01
Feedback and                15.1     5.6    17.9    4.9   2.75  <.01
metacognition
Problem-solving skills       6.1     3.1     7.8    3.4   2.26  <.05
Content knowledge            6.9     1.8     7.1    2.1   0.40  ns
Diversity of Learners and   22.5     8.0    24.4    7.5   1.44  ns
Learning Styles

Table 2 Pre and Post Scale Means, Standard Deviations, and Significance
Test of Faculty Members Technology Integration into Methods Courses
(N=19)

Good Practices             Mean           Mean
                           Pretest  s.d.  Posttest  s.d.   t    p

Communication               24.2    5.4     26.5    5.6   1.86  ns
Social learning             10.9    3.0     11.1    2.8   0.22  ns
Inquiry-based learning      13.0    4.1     15.6    3.4   3.23  <.01
Feedback and                 8.7    2.6     10.0    1.8   2.20  <.05
metacognition
Problem-solving skills       4.0    1.8      4.9    1.8   2.62  <.01
Content knowledge            3.4    1.2      4.2    1.2   2.35  <.05
Diversity of Learners and   13.1    5.4     13.4    3.9   0.26  ns
Learning Styles

Table 3 Percentage of Preservice Teachers Who Used Specific Technology
Applications in Targeted Methods Courses (N = 132)

% Used
Technology    Technology Applications

90            Word Processor
87            E-mail
 4            Spreadsheets
 0            Database programs (e.g. Access)
17            Digital cameras
<1            Video Conferencing
74            Course materials delivered online (e.g. Courseinfo)
59            Presentation software (e.g. Powerpoint)
23            Software for creating web pages (e.g. Netscape Composer)
75            Internet or Browser (e.g. Netscape)
 6            Multi-media authoring tools (e.g. Hyperstudio)
32            SmartBoard
58            Internet search engines/tools
13            Concept mapping software (e.g. Inspiration)
 2            Graphing calculators
10            Video cameras
 1            Audio conferencing

Table 4 Percentage Distribution of Faculty Teaching Practices Prior to
and Following Professional Development (N = 20)

                                                     Pie
                                           Never   At some   At almost
Teaching Practices                         or      class     every
                                           almost  sessions  class
                                           never             session

 1. Inquiry/problem-based learning            0      42        58
 2. Project/based learning                    0      63        37
 3. Research/Scientific process              21      63        16
 4. Interdisciplinary/thematic
    strategies                               32      37        32
 5. Performance based assessment             11      58        32
 6. Student portfolios                       47      42        11
 7. Evaluation based on paper and
    pencil test                              68      32         0
 8. Students assess their own work           11      74        16
 9. Students assess peers' work              16      79         5
10. Students work in cooperative
    groups or teams                           5      37        58
11. Teacher lecturing, presenting            11      74        16
12. Students raise their hands for
    permission to speak                      47      53         0
13. Student active involvement in class       0       5        95
14. Student choice in learning activities    11      74        16
15. Students plan what they will learn       11      79        11
16. Collaborative planning and teaching
    with other faculty                       42      32        26

                                                    Post
                                           Never   At some   At almost
Teaching Practices                         or      class     every
                                           almost  sessions  class
                                           never             session

 1. Inquiry/problem-based learning            0      30        70
 2. Project/based learning                   10      55        35
 3. Research/Scientific process              15      65        20
 4. Interdisciplinary/thematic
    strategies                               30      45        25
 5. Performance based assessment              5      63        32
 6. Student portfolios                       25      65        10
 7. Evaluation based on paper and
    pencil test                              65      35         0
 8. Students assess their own work           10      55        35
 9. Students assess peers' work              20      65        15
10. Students work in cooperative
    groups or teams                           0      50        50
11. Teacher lecturing, presenting            44      55         5*
12. Students raise their hands for
    permission to speak                      60      30        10
13. Student active involvement in class       0      15        85
14. Student choice in learning activities    10      80        10
15. Students plan what they will learn       40      50        10*
16. Collaborative planning and teaching
    with other faculty                       30      40        30

Note

Funding provided by the Preparing Tomorrow's Teachers for Using Technology grant:

Agency Funding: $1,438,234-31% includes F & A (overhead)

MU Funding: (Matching or Cost-sharing) $2,922,179-62% includes F & A and MOREnet 

In-Kind Matching: Governmental (MO DESE) $4,800-.1%

Non-governmental (Apple, Microsoft, MPER) $319,000-6.9%

Total Project Cost: $4,684,213

References

Cattagni, A., & Farris, E. (2001). Internet access in U.S. public schools and classrooms: 1994-2000. (NCES 2001-071). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.

Chickering, A.W., & Ehrmann, S.C. (1987, October). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. American Association of Higher Education Bulletin.

Chickering, A.W. & Ehrmann, S.C. (1996, October). Implementing the Seven Principles: Technology as Lever. AAHE Bulletin. Retrieved February 7, 2003, from http://www.tltgroup.org/programs/seven.html.

Flashlight[TM] Current Student Inventory. (1997). Corporation for Public Broadcasting. (Version 1.0).

Gardner, H. (1999). Intelligence reframed: Multiple intelligences for the 21st century. New York: Basic Books.

Glatthorn, A.A. (1994). Constructivism: Implications for curriculum. International Journal of Educational Reform, 4(4), 499-455.

Handler, M.G. (1993). Preparing new teachers to use computer technology: Perceptions and suggestions for teacher educators. Computers and Education, 20(2), 147-156.

Hasselbring, T.S., Smith, L., Glaser, C.W., Barron, L., Risko, V.J., Snyder, C., Rakestraw, J., & Campbell, M. (2000). Literature review: Technology to support teacher development. Retrieved February 7, 2003, from www.ericsp.org/pages/digests/techteachdev.htm. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 448 159)

Isaak, T., & Ward, J. (2000). Living with technology diffusion confusion. Paper prepared for the Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference: Proceedings of SITE 2000, San Diego, CA, February 8-12, 2000. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 444 570).

Jacobsen, M., Clifford, P., & Friesen, S., (2002). Preparing teachers for technology integration: Creating a culture of inquiry in the context of use. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 2(3). Retrieved January 24, 2003, from http://www.citejournal.org/vo12/iss3/currentpractice/article2.cfm.

Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (1995). Student achievement through staff development: Fundamentals of school renewal (2nd ed.). New York: Longman.

Marra, R.M., Howland, J., Wedman, J., & Diggs, L. A little TLC (Technology Learning Cycle) as a means to technology integration. Tech Trends, 47(2), 15-19.

McDermott, L., & Murray, J. (2000). A study on the effective use and integration of technology into the primary curriculum. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 445 669)

Munday, R., Windham, R., & Stamper, J. (1991). Technology for learning: Are teachers being prepared? Educational Technology, 31(3), 29-31.

National Staff Development Council, (1995). Standards for staff development. Oxford, OH: National Staff Development Council.

Office of Technology Assessment, U. S. Congress. (1995). Teachers and technology: Making the connection. (OTA-HER-616). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

Pan, A.C. (2000). Effective means of integrating technology into the school of education. Paper prepared for the Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference: Proceedings of SITE 2000, San Diego, CA, February 8-12, 2000. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 444 569)

Pfannenstiel, J., & Treffeisen, S. (2002) U.S. Department of Education PT3 Grant, performance report evaluation of the University of Missouri's preparing tomorrow's teachers to use technology grant.

Reed, D.S., & McNergney, R.F. (2000). Evaluating technology-based curriculum materials. ERIC Digest. Washington, DC: ERIC Clearing-house on Teaching and Teacher Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 449 118)

Schrum, L., Skeele, R., & Grant, M. (2002). One college of education's effort to infuse technology: A systemic approach to revisioning teaching and learning. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 35(2), 256-271.

Sprague, D., Kopfman, K., & Dorsey, S. (1998). Faculty development in the integration of technology in teacher education courses. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 2(14), 24-28.

Wedman, J.F., & Diggs, L. (n.d.). Technology learning cycle. Retrieved January 15, 2003, from http://www.coe.missouri.edu/~tlc/

Wedman, J., Laffey, J., Andrews, R., Musser, D., Diggs, L., & Diel, L. (1998). Building technology infrastructure and enterprises in a college of education: Increasing performance capacity. Educational Technology, 5(38), 12-19.

Wilson, S., & Berne, J. (1998). Teacher learning and the acquisition of professional knowledge: An examination of research on contemporary professional development. Review of Research in Education, 24, 173-206.

Zehr, M. (1997). Training the teachers. Education Week. Retrieved February 20, 2003, from http://www.edweek.org/sreports/tc/teach/te-n.htm

JANE HOWLAND AND JUDY WEDMAN

University of Missouri

USA

[e-mail] wedmanju@