A strategy for technology training as part of a Master's program conducted at a school site.

This case study evaluates a field-based strategy for training inservice elementary teachers to use technology. The strategy, which was incorporated into the Long Beach Professional Development School for Educators (LBPDSE), involved a technology course taken by a cohort of students in an onsite M.A. program in Curriculum and Instruction. Participating teachers identified topics of interest and, in teams, taught one another both computer and technology integration skills. Data were collected including beginning-of-course and end-of-course professional development plans and self-assessments, plus postcourse focus group meetings. Prior to the course, teachers' predominant uses of computers were largely peripheral to their subject matter instruction, and their beginning-of-course self-assessments of their technological skills were mostly at introductory proficiency levels. By the end of the course (a) teachers began applying many of the introduced technology integration skills to their teaching, (b) most teachers' technology self-assessments reached intermediate to advanced proficiency levels, (c) the most frequently mentioned means for further professional development in technology was learning from fellow teachers, (d) over one-half of the teachers reported increased confidence or comfort with computers, and (e) about one-third of the teachers reported a substantial shift in their stance towards computers.

**********

As noted by a report of the National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE), information technologies are having a profound impact on society, and a growing research base supports the potential of technology as a resource for contributing to students' learning. Even so, most teacher training programs have considerable work to do in the area of preparing teachers to teach with technology (National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education, 1997). Valuable preparatory skills in using technology can be provided through university-based courses, including technology courses and methods courses with embedded technology components. However, such university-based approaches do not afford the contextual realism of field-based approaches. Thus, there has been increased advocacy for improving linkages between teacher preparation programs and K-12 schools as a way of fostering the direct ties to practice that such approaches make possible (Milken Exchange on Educational Technology, 1999; National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education, 1997). One promising approach is to include technology training in the activities of professional development schools, which are a form of teacher training based in K-12 schools involving a partnership with a university college of education.

This article reports on a project aimed at integrating technology into a professional development school in the greater Los Angeles area, the Long Beach Professional Development School for Educators (LBPDSE). The professional development school in turn is a project of the nationally recognized Long Beach Education Partnership, which includes California State University, Long Beach, regional community colleges, and the Long Beach Unified School District. The technology training took the form of a course that was part of an onsite Master's degree program in Curriculum and Instruction. This article describes the design of the course as well as its role in the LBPDSE. It describes findings from data that were collected in an effort to assess this course. The article describes this particular case with the hope of contributing to national discussions about models for field-based training of teachers in technology.

BACKGROUND

Prior projects incorporating field-based approaches to technology training have targeted both inservice and preservice teachers, but projects for preservice teachers have been more prevalent. Whereas some of these projects for preservice teachers have taken the form of professional development schools, little if any work has been reported using the model discussed in this article that is based in a professional development school for inservice teachers. The sections that follow discuss relevant prior models for incorporating field experiences into technology training.

Although the present model targets inservice teachers, prior work targeting preservice teachers is also relevant. One model, proposed as a kind of "bridge" to field experiences, is to have teacher candidates design and teach technology-based lessons to one another in a lab setting (Dawson, Pringle, & Adams, 2003). A variety of other models have been explored to explicitly incorporate field experiences in teacher preparation programs. These include developing a field placement system that incorporates training in technology (Strudler & Grove, 2002), creating technology courses with substantial field components (Dawson & Norris, 2000), integrating technology into methods courses with substantial field components (Brush et al., 2002), and having teacher candidates team teach technology lessons in schools, either with university faculty or experienced K-12 faculty (Dawson & Norris, 2000; Gimbert & Zembal-Saul, 2002; Norton & Sprague, 2002).

Professional development schools represent a promising type of partnership between universities and K-12 schools for improving teacher training (Darling-Hammond, 1994; Holmes Group, 1990). Researchers have reported examples of several strategies that specifically include technology training as part of the activities of professional development schools for inservice teachers. One strategy, undertaken by a partnership of the University of Nevada Las Vegas and Clark County School District, involves a series of educational workshops for teachers participating in a professional development school for preservice teachers (Strudler & Grove, 2002). Another professional development school for preservice teachers, collaboration between the Pennsylvania State University and State College Area School District, involves a fourth-year component with onsite coursework and extensive mentoring. This latter model also involves an integrated approach in which teachers learn with technology in their content-area courses and proceed through a series of stages leading to teaching using technology (with scaffolding from a mentor), ultimately teaching independently with technology (Gimbert & Zembal-Saul, 2002).

In addition to these university-K12 partnerships focusing on preservice teachers, other partnerships have specifically focused on inservice teachers. Although at least one of the projects in this group offered teachers academic credit, the projects were not structured around an entire academic degree or credential. The E-teams project of the University of Massachusetts paired graduate students proficient in technology with classroom teachers to provide the teachers with mentoring and support (Oh, Maloy, Verock-O'Loughlin, & Hart, 2003). A project affiliated with Indiana University, the Teacher Institute for Curriculum Knowledge about the Integration of Technology (TICKIT), involves partnerships with multiple rural Indiana schools. Teachers participated in a comprehensive set of activities, receiving academic credit for two 3-unit university courses. These activities included attending seminars, reading articles, participating in electronic discussions, designing and teaching classroom projects that integrate technology into the curriculum, writing reflection papers, and other activities (Bonk, Ehman, Hixon, & Yamagata-Lynch, 2002). A survey-based comparison of applicants to completers of the TICKIT program found that completers reported attitudes and practices that were judged to be more favorable to integrating technology into teaching (Keller, Bonk, & Hew, 2004). TICKIT researchers expressed a concern that too much preplanning and structuring by the project designers in earlier implementations of that project may have limited teacher participation. TICKIT was subsequently modified to give teachers more choice, for example, to choose from specified activities (Bonk, Ehman, Hixon, & Yamagata-Lynch, 2002, p. 228-229).

The project of the Long Beach Professional Development School discussed here is perhaps closest to TICKIT. It is distinctive because it not only incorporated credit for university coursework but also was set in the context of an onsite Master's degree program in Curriculum and Instruction for inservice teachers. Also, the Long Beach model takes the notion of emphasizing teacher control even further, as will be discussed in a subsequent section.

The cohort of teachers participating in the Long Beach project came from a small number of schools (three), and this model offers the advantage of providing a means of developing a support system as well as developing a critical mass of teachers with specialized training. One of the design assumptions of this project was that such a critical mass would be particularly beneficial in the area of technology.

The value of such a critical mass was highlighted by a study of factors associated with teachers using technology in an exemplary manner (Becker, 1994). Becker's study of third-through twelfth-grade teachers examined 51 variables related to their working environment. Of these, the single most important variable was simply the number of other teachers at the school who used computers. Further, the total number of computer-using teachers at a school was more closely aligned with exemplary use than was the percentage of computer-using teachers. Although Becker's research was oriented towards identifying factors associated with the exemplary use of technology, rather than investigating a model for developing such expertise, his findings suggest that the notion of a "critical mass" in technology use at a school is significant. He argues that teachers' social networks are of paramount importance to their use of technology.

The present project reflects an effort to engineer the condition that Becker found most important to the exemplary use of technology. One of its explicit strategies is to "seed" the creation of a critical mass of technologically proficient teachers at a school site. An advantage of this approach is that training can be customized to the teachers' pedagogical goals as well as to the hardware and software resources they have available.

Methodologically, the project is in the tradition of a formative educational technology experiment (Newman, 1990) or "design experiment" (Brown, 1992). Rather than controlling a select number of variables in a lab setting, the present project evaluates the effort to foster the development of a critical mass of technology-proficient teachers at a school site.

THE LONG BEACH PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT SCHOOL FOR EDUCATORS

The LBPDSE is based at Bret Harte Elementary, a diverse urban school in Long Beach, California, which serves grades kindergarten through five. The school has a well-outfitted computer lab, with 42 PC-compatible workstations (purchased two years prior to the technology course) and high-speed Internet access. In addition, two computers were available in most first-, second-, and third-grade classrooms, and four computers were available in most fourth- and fifth-grade classrooms. The student population of the school is diverse: of its approximately 1,300 students, 48% are Hispanic, 23% are Asian/Filipino/Pacific Islander, 22% are African-American, and 7% are White. A majority of students (89%) participate in a free or reduced-price lunch program.

In many university/school collaborations, university partners have played the "lead" role, with the school partner having a secondary status. One of the unique guiding principles of the LBPDSE is to ensure a more balanced and reciprocal role between university and school partners. Also, the stance of the LBPDSE emphasizes empowering participating teachers. This orientation made the inclusion of technology training all the more important, since indications were that teachers did not feel empowered in the area of technology.

The present project was based on one part of the LBPDSE, the Curriculum and Instruction Master's. The LBPDSE also includes other components, including another Master's degree program (in Early Childhood Education) and a field component for inservice teachers, known as the Collaborative Onsite for Optimal Learning. Participants involved in the LBPDSE have been enthusiastic about the partnership (Golez, DuCharme, et al., 2003, June).

PARTICIPANTS

The 24 participants in the program were all current teachers. Twenty-three of the teachers were female and one was male. A group of 14 of the faculty were from Bret Harte Elementary, representing approximately 20% of the faculty at the school; 10 additional participants were from two other elementary schools in the vicinity. All participants had received their teaching credentials from a variety of institutions in the Southern California area. To facilitate group interaction and mutual support, participants took all courses as a cohort.

COURSE DESIGN

All courses were conducted at Bret Harte Elementary. The technology training took the form of a course (also taught on site) developed in consultation with other participating university faculty, the school principal, and also, significantly, the participating teachers themselves. The course met once per week at the school site for 16 weeks, from January through May of 2003.

Like other technology courses, the goals of the course included developing teachers' technological skills and their capacity to integrate technology into the curriculum. However, the course differed from traditional approaches in that it also included goals that were more organizational in nature, goals that were directed not toward a particular technological skill or method but to the establishment of patterns of support among the teachers in the area of technology.

A key principle guiding the design of the course was to enlist the participating teachers as collaborators, a philosophy consistent with the overall philosophy of the LBPDSE. It is also consistent with principles of Participatory Design, a field which had its origins in Norway in the 1970s, when software designers worked with members of the Iron and Metalworkers Union to ensure that workers had a strong voice in the direction of computer innovations for the workplace (Winograd, 1996). Participatory Design paradigms for introducing computer innovations into the workplace recognize that workplaces typically involve a good deal of social interaction and collaboration, and work tasks must be understood not in isolation but in relation to the overall work context (Shuler & Namioka, 1993; Winograd, 1996).

In this vein, the present project incorporated a participatory approach in which the instructor and the cohort collaborated in the design and teaching of the course. At the beginning of the course, the instructor led an activity to identify a range of possible topics and to survey the extent of the interest in each. Subsequently, course participants were given substantial responsibility for teaching the course. The class formed teams and each team identified topics that it would learn more about. The instructor worked with teams of teachers to help them learn these new topics, and the teams then introduced the material to the other participants. This strategy was chosen to be consistent with a constructivist philosophy, with the university instructor modeling the role of "facilitator, manager, and coach." Further, the approach is also consistent with social constructivist theoretical frameworks in which the social environment is regarded as integral to learning (Vygotsky, 1978).

A further goal of the process, involving turning over much of the responsibility of teaching the course to the participants, was to foster patterns of support among the teachers and to take seriously the notion of creating a "community of learning" (Brown & Campione, 1990) oriented towards learning to teach with technology. An additional strategy for fostering patterns of communication among the teachers about technology and teaching was the use of ongoing electronic discussions. The major elements of the course are further described below.

1. Professional development plans with self-assessments. The course was conceived of as part of an ongoing process of professional development in technology. As part of this process, teachers used a self-assessment instrument to evaluate their proficiencies in various areas of technology, both at the beginning and the end of the course. They used these assessments in the process of developing professional development plans, also written at both the beginning and at the end of the course.

2. Team teaching assignments. The course assignments included extensive team teaching in both technology skills and in technology integration. Because the teams had the flexibility to choose topics that satisfied the general requirements established by the instructor, teachers also had a mechanism to "control" the direction of the course. This approach also promoted the inclusion of topics that teachers would find most useful. Teachers engaged in two cycles of this team teaching, one on a topic related to developing skills and technology and another on a topic related to integrating technology into teaching. The instructor worked individually with the teams to help them learn more about their chosen topic and prepare to teach it to the rest of the cohort. Since participating teachers were learning from their peers, this process was also designed to promote the view that the topics were accessible, rather than being imposed by an outside "technology expert."

3. Weekly electronic discussions. Throughout each week, participants engaged in online discussions of course readings, using an asynchronous, threaded, web-based online discussion tool. The tool was part of the Beachboard system, which is a CSULB version of the Blackboard system. The readings covered topics including findings from educational technology research; technology and multicultural issues; assistive technologies; technology integration in mathematics, science, social studies, and language arts; classroom management with technology; and emerging technologies. Participants were encouraged to relate topics of the readings to their classroom experiences and local conditions. The electronic format of the discussions was designed to promote broad participation, with discussions extending throughout each week rather than only in a single class session. Teams of teachers were also responsible for facilitating these discussions.

4. Additional assignments. Additional assignments included analyzing technology-based lessons in terms of the thinking skills required and their suitability for diverse learners, observing and analyzing the classroom use of technology, as well as options for attending a professional conference in Southern California on using technology in education (Computer Using Educators) and planning an action research project involving educational technology. The assignment to attend the computer conference was designed to engage students with a broader professional community of technology-using practitioners. The assignment to plan an action research project was designed to help students plan to weave their learning about technology into their overall course of study for their Master's degree, which requires such a project.

DATA SOURCES

Multiple data sources were obtained from these course components. Further information about the data sources follows:

Self-assessments. Beginning-of-course and end-of-course assessments provided information about teachers' development during the course and, by the end of the course, their readiness to integrate technology. This self-assessment, created by the California Technology Assistance Project (CTAP), is widely used in California (http://ctap2.iassessment.org). This online survey has questions in nine categories (General Computer Knowledge and Skills, Internet, E-mail, Word Processing, Publishing, Databases, Spreadsheets, Presentation Software, and Instructional Technology). The survey uses the responses to generate a rating in each category ("Introductory," "Intermediate," or "Proficient"). The survey data for participating teachers were aggregated to provide a picture of their technology proficiency at both the beginning and at the end of the course.

Professional development plans. Beginning-of-course and end-of-course professional development plans provided a narrative account of teachers' views of their proficiency with computers and ways of integrating them into the curriculum. At the beginning of the course, in addition to completing the self-assessment of computer proficiencies, teachers were asked to respond to the following prompt: "Write a short discussion (one-page is fine) about what you would like to learn about using computers in teaching." At the end of the course, teachers were asked to respond to the following questions:

1. Please describe the main ways your knowledge of using computers in teaching has developed during the course.

2. Are there ways of using computers in teaching you would like to try out as a result of the class? Please describe them.

3. Beyond this course, what are specific ways that you can continue your professional development with technology?

Responses to this latter question were tallied to identify the frequency of strategies cited.

In addition, teachers were given a survey listing a set of 19 topics introduced in the course concerning technology integration and the use of technology for administrative purposes and, for each topic, were asked to select a descriptor that best matched the topic. These descriptors are listed:

* I already used this before taking the course.

* As a result of the course, I have already tried this out in my teaching.

* I plan to try this out in my teaching in the next year.

* I would like to try this out in my teaching, but don't have the necessary software/hardware.

* It is good to know about this, but I have no specific plans to use it right now.

* I prefer not to use this in my teaching.

Focus groups. After the course, teachers participated in one of two focus group sessions of approximately 12 teachers per group. To promote candid responses, the focus groups were conducted by a facilitator who was not affiliated with either the technology course or the professional development school. These focus group sessions were held about one month after the technology course ended. The focus groups were part of a program evaluation of the professional development school (Golez, Symcox, et al., 2003). Participants were asked 11 questions about their Master's program, including one specific question regarding their use of technology: "As a result of your participation in the Master's program, do you anticipate any changes to your teaching involving technology? Have you made any changes already?" The full set of questions is provided in the Appendix. The focus group discussions were audio taped and transcribed.

RESULTS

As indicated earlier, the goal of this project was to explore a model for promoting the use of technology in an elementary school. As such, the goal was to conduct a kind of formative technology experiment, rather than to conduct a controlled study of a small number of variables. The data were reviewed to identify themes in the data pertaining to the course goals. The survey data were tabulated to identify the frequency of given responses. The professional development plans were reviewed to identify common categories of responses; in turn, the frequency of responses and these categories were also tabulated. Table 1 summarizes the major findings, which are subsequently discussed in further detail.

Finding #1: Initially, teachers reported that they used computers largely for uses peripheral to their subject matter instruction. Survey results show that, prior to the course, the most frequent uses of computers by teachers were for their own administrative purposes, including keeping track of student progress on standards (23%), creating a newsletter (18%), spreadsheets to keep track of grades (14%), and using PowerPoint for their own presentations (9%). Few teachers reported any kind of integration activity. A small number of teachers reported technology integration activities, including PowerPoint and lessons (9%) and serial storytelling with the word processor (5%), in which groups of students, rotating at computers, create stories. Although the WebQuest concept developed by Dr. Bernie Dodge (http://webquest.sdsu.edu/) is recognized as an exemplary technology integration activity, no teachers reported using WebQuests in their teaching.

In beginning-of-course professional development plans, teachers reported uses of computers that were not tightly integrated into the rest of the teaching, such as learning typing skills, working with drill-and-practice programs, playing games, and using interactive CDs on their own. This pattern is fairly typical for schools in low-SES areas (Becker, 2000). Table 2 provides sample responses.

Finding #2. As measured by the CTAP self-assessment, at the beginning of the course teachers' technological skills were generally at introductory proficiency levels but reached intermediate to advanced proficiency levels by the end of the course. Complete surveys were obtained from 23 of the 24 teachers; one incomplete survey was excluded. As shown by Table 3, at the beginning of the course, the self-assessment ratings of the majority of teachers were "Intermediate" or below in all of the nine categories of the CTAP assessment and "Introductory" in five of the nine categories.

Also as shown by Table 3, by the end of the course the self-assessment ratings of majorities of teachers were "Proficient" or "Intermediate" in all categories, and "Proficient" in seven of the nine categories. Although caution should be used in interpreting self-assessment data, the results suggest that, as a group, teachers' technology proficiencies were at a relatively introductory level prior to the course. This indicates a need to progress a substantial distance to move to more proficient skill levels that would support integrating technology into their teaching. The increase in self-assessment ratings by the post-test suggests that these teachers viewed themselves as making progress in their technological proficiency.

Finding #3. Teachers not only taught one another ways of integrating technology but also began applying many of the technological skills from the course to their own teaching. The teachers themselves, working in small groups, introduced most of the topics to the cohort for integrating computer-related technology into teaching as well as topics concerning using computers for administrative uses. The leftmost column of Table 4 lists the major topics. All topics but those marked with an asterisk (15 out of 19 topics) were initially introduced to the cohort by small group teams. Three topics, initially introduced either by the university instructor or by a guest lecturer, were then elaborated upon by a small group. A topic introduced by the university instructor was Filamentality, a free "fill in the blank" service offered by SBC Pacific Bell for teachers to create their own web pages for use in instruction (http://www.kn.pacbell.com/wired/fil/). Topics initially introduced by guest lecturers were the talking word processor and free software to teach geography (http://yourchildlearns.com/owlmouse.htm).

Although it was hoped that the course would lead to participants making greater use of technology in the long-term, a surprising result was the extent to which they immediately began utilizing course topics in their teaching. The mean number of topics that teachers indicated they had already used in their teaching as a result of the course was M = 5.9 (SD = 4.5). The mean number of additional topics they planned to introduce the next year was similar, M = 6.6 (SD = 3.8). Altogether, the combination of these two values (the number of topics already introduced plus the number of topics they planned to introduce) was M = 12.4 (SD = 3.6). That is, on average, teachers either introduced or planned to introduce about a dozen topics from the course into their teaching.

Table 4 lists the overall results from the survey of teachers' uses of technology. The most frequent uses that they reported they had already incorporated into their teaching as a result of the course were: (a) using PowerPoint for their own presentations (64%), (b) using WebQuests (50%), (c) having students use PowerPoint (50%), and (d) using Filamentality (41%).

The responses for those activities that teachers planned to introduce the subsequent term were added to their responses for activities they had already introduced (Table 4, Column I). These activities (e.g., that teachers had either already used in their teaching or planned to use) included using of computers as administrative tools as well as in teaching. These were: (a) creating hotlists with Filamentality (91%), (b) using spreadsheets for grades (86%), (c) using PowerPoint for their own presentations (82%), (d) creating web pages (81%), (e) and using WebQuests (77%). Similar values were given for ideas gleaned from an assignment to analyze technology-based lessons found on the World Wide Web (77%), using Microsoft publisher for newsletter (77%), and using Microsoft Word with tables and Microsoft Paint in student projects (77%). Next on the list (73%) were uses of a web site (Quia.com) that teachers found, containing many tools for teachers and "serial storytelling," (also 73%), an idea from a popular reading from the course on using computers to teach literacy (Casey, 2000). This idea involved having students write stories collaboratively, working in rotation at the word processor. Having students use PowerPoint was next on the list (68%), followed by having students create "fractured fairy tales" using Microsoft Publisher (67%).

This latter activity illustrates a group of teachers adapting material from the course and working with the software available in the school. The approach was based on one described in a course reading (Casey, 2000) for students to use the word processor to do a take-off on a familiar fairy tale based on the point of view of a minor character. A group of students adapted the idea to Microsoft Publisher, a program they had access to in their classroom, so that students could desktop publish a "book" containing their creative writing.

A substantial majority (91%) of teachers' end-of-course professional development plans included statements indicating they had improved their skills to integrate technology into their teaching. Sample excerpts are given below:

    Before the course, computers were primarily used as a free-time
    activity with little direction. Students were allowed to search the
    Web, play games, do some math using CD-ROMs, and practice their
    keyboarding skills. [Now] in the computer lab, students spend the
    entire time working on lessons that I have pre-planned.

    In the classroom prior to the course, my computers were used only
    intermittently as a reward for "drill and kill." Now, they are up
    and running almost all day long. At this time, my students are
    completing their own PowerPoint presentations in life science.

Finding #4: The most frequently cited method for further professional development in technology was learning from fellow teachers. A design assumption of the course was that developing support networks was an important goal. Consistent with this goal, in professional development plans, the most frequently cited means of continued professional development with technology was learning from other teachers (41% of plans). Taking advantage of school district professional development plans was the second most frequently mentioned method (36% of plans), followed by online resources (23% of plans), taking additional technology courses (18% of plans), and using books (5% of plans). Teachers explicitly noted the value of learning about technology from one another:

    I think the fact that we've taken this course together is very
    powerful. There are a whole group of people at my school that I can
    go to for support. I think we've built up a pretty strong
    "technology-support system" for ourselves over the past semester.

Finding #5: A majority of teachers increased confidence or comfort with computers. In beginning-of-course professional development plans, a teacher explicitly identified the issue of confidence as follows:

    To begin with, I'd like to be more confident when working with
    technology. I am very intimidated with anything that has to do with
    technology. When working on the computer, there's always something
    that stumps me. I can easily get frustrated and sometimes just give
    up. It kills me because I'm not a quitter.... I am very glad this
    was one of our course requirements.

Although teachers were not explicitly asked to discuss their attitudes towards computers, an analysis of the end-of-course professional development plans indicates that 43% of the teachers explicitly referred to an increase in "confidence" and an additional 13% referred to increased "comfort" with computers, yielding a total of 56% of teachers referring to an increase in one or the other.

Finding #6: About a third of the teachers reported a shift in their stance towards the role of computers in their teaching. In end-of-course professional development plans, over one-third of the teachers (35%) reported a shift in their view towards the role of computers in their teaching. One such shift involved changes in lesson planning to incorporate technology:

    As a result of this class I have an entirely different outlook for
    next year's planning. My first goal is to do long-range planning for
    math, reading, writing, science, and social studies, then to
    integrate them with a computer technology plan of appropriate
    supporting, enhancing and extending technology activities.

Finding #7. Focus group discussions indicated that teachers viewed their technology training as having a substantial impact on their teaching and workplace practices. In focus groups, toward the end of the interview, participants were specifically asked whether they had made any changes to their teaching as a result of technology (Question 9). Teachers indicated that technology was an area where they had made substantial changes.

    I think that's the biggest course that's really just changed our
    classroom teaching.

    I didn't know how to bring [technology] into the classroom. And I
    was afraid that ... some kids might get it but then how am I going
    to teach all of 20 kids ... Now it's just like widespread, I have no
    fear of showing them ... I'm so excited to teach them now.

Also significantly, in focus group discussions teachers mentioned technology even prior to the question that was specifically about it. In a question about the impact of the Master's program (Question 2), teachers referred to the impact of technology:

    I know that I am above and beyond more knowledgeable as far as use
    of technology and that is so important because we are a magnet
    school. So I feel as though I have so much more to contribute now as
    a teacher. I get really excited about it because now I know where I
    want to take my teaching from there.

Interestingly, exerting more influence over the computer lab was mentioned as another outcome:

    I think a big thing with this program is that we've learned new
    things with technology and as a result I don't know exactly how it
    happened but they've kind of given us the power where we've kind
    of taken over the computer lab and made it what we want it to be.

Technology was also mentioned in a question about the effects of the Master's program on the ways that teachers worked with one another (Question 4):

Teacher 1: [We] had a lot of conversations about technology though.

Teacher 2: Yeah.

Teacher 3: We really did on the online discussions but that would carry over ...

Interviewer: Even lunchtime maybe sometimes?

Teacher 4: Yeah.

Teacher 3: Lunchtime and grade level meetings. I know [in] grade level meetings we've used that as an opportunity to share with other members at our grade level and come up with some ... ideas as far as things that we want to implement into our classroom.

These kinds of school-wide changes, such as teachers "taking over the computer lab" and having technology more prominent in grade-level meetings, point to the value of the school-based approach of the present study with a cohort of teachers. They are also suggestive of the kinds of dynamics that can occur when a critical mass of teachers at a school begins to develop increased comfort with technology.

DISCUSSION

This case study presents a model for fostering the integration of technology into teaching that explicitly aims to encourage teachers to learn from one another. The technology training itself was not an isolated effort but was incorporated into an overall school improvement effort including an onsite Master's program in Curriculum and Instruction. Further, because the training was held on site, it could be directly tied to the local conditions of the school and to the teachers' particular instructional circumstances.

The findings suggest that, prior to the course, the teachers' use of technology was relatively limited. However, in the process of a course-long intervention, teachers reported not only increasing their skills with computers and technology integration but also reported making changes to incorporate technology into their teaching and making plans for further changes. Although there is still plenty of room for continued development, the project represents a marked step forward for these teachers from their previous uses of technology.

The study has limitations, however, in its reliance on teachers' self-reports as a source of data. Further study, involving additional data sources such as direct observations of teaching, would provide a more comprehensive picture. Also, the data are limited to a time period of approximately four months. Additional study, over longer periods of time, would be helpful to evaluate the nature of any longer-range changes.

Although the participating teachers came from a range of grade levels, the fact that they were all teaching at the elementary level provided common ground. At the secondary level, the model would need some adaptations as there would be more variation in the kinds of subject matter for which the teachers are responsible. For example, the model might be extended to the secondary level by creating interest groups in different subject areas.

The model's participatory pedagogical approach, giving teachers substantial responsibility for their own professional development, was oriented especially for inservice teachers. Many factors may have helped to create "fertile ground" for the overall approach, including the history of collaboration between the university and the school, access to computers and the Internet in both a lab and in classrooms, a principal who was encouraging staff to use technology, and a group of teachers who were interested in learning more about technology. The professional development school collaboration and onsite Master's degree, which involved a cohort of teachers in refining their teaching, was integral to the approach. Future projects could test adapting the pedagogical approaches of the project to situations with differing conditions.

An encouraging finding from this study is that the model described appears to offer promise as a means of promoting productive changes in teachers' use of technology. These gains were made even though most participating teachers' technology use prior to the project tended to be limited to purposes marginal to their subject matter teaching--a condition that may be all too typical. It is also encouraging that the successes of the present project were achieved at an urban elementary school in a low SES area. Compared to students from economically advantaged areas, students in less economically advantaged areas generally have less access to computers at home and may depend more on schools for learning about ways of using computers (Becker, 2000). It is all the more important, therefore, to identify models for teacher development that can be successful in such areas.

APPENDIX: FOCUS GROUP QUESTIONS (GOLEZ, SYMCOX, ET AL., 2003)

1. In what ways has the Master's program affected you as an educator? Please provide examples.

2. What effects has the Master's program had on your school community?

3. In what ways has graduate study affected the way you teach?

4. What effects has the Master's program had on the way you work with other elementary school teachers, school administrators, or university faculty at your site?

5. What effects has graduate study had on your role as a master or mentor teacher (if you are one)?

6. In what ways has graduate study affected your relationship with your students' parents?

7. In what ways have you been able to link research and theory to your teaching practice?

8. What are your reasons for selecting this Master's program?

9. As a result of your participation in the Master's program, do you anticipate any changes to your teaching involving technology? Have you made any changes already?

10. Do you have any suggestions for how the program could be improved?

11. Do you have any comments you would like to make that have not been covered in this discussion?

Table 1 Summary of Main Findings

1. Prior to the course, the predominant uses of computers were largely
     for keyboarding instruction, games and other uses peripheral to
     subject matter in-struction.
2. As measured by the CTAP self-assessment, at the beginning of the
     course teachers' technological skills were generally at
     introductory proficiency levels but reached intermediate to
     advanced proficiency levels by the end of the course.
3. Teachers not only taught one another ways of integrating technology
     but also began applying many of the technological skills from the
     course to their own teaching.
4. The most frequently cited method for further professional development
     in technology was learning from fellow teachers.
5. Over one-half of the teachers reported increased confidence or
     comfort with computers.
6. About one-third of the teachers reported a substantial shift in their
     stance towards the role of computers in their teaching.
7. Focus group discussions indicated that teachers viewed their
     technology training as having a substantial impact on their
     teaching and workplace practices.

Table 2 Teachers' Initial Uses of Computers in Teaching

"Presently my primary computer use in the classroom is through computer
  games for practice."
"At the computer, my students insert an academic-related disk and
  well ... away they go on their own."
"Presently my primary computer use in the classroom is through computer
  games for practice during center time."
"How can I incorporate [computer technology] into my lessons? I tried it
  once."
"At the present time all my students do is play games on the computer or
  use a CD, Living Books."

Table 3 Teachers' Self-Assessments at Beginning and End of Course

                     Beginning of Course          End of Course
                  Intro.  Interm.  Profic.  Intro.  Interm.  Profic.

General Computer  35%     39%      26%       0%     13%       87%
  Knowledge
Internet          17%     61%      22%       0%     26%       74%
E-mail            39%     48%      13%       9%     43%       48%
Word Processing    4%     39%      57%       0%      0%      100%
Publishing        52%     26%      22%       0%     30%       70%
Databases         74%     17%       9%      17%     35%       48%
Spreadsheets      65%     13%      22%       0%     26%       74%
Presentation      74%     13%      13%       4%     22%       74%
  Software
Instructional     52%     48%       0%      13%     39%       48%
  Technology

Table 4 Teachers' Reported Uses of Computers

                          A.      B.        C.    D.     E.     F.
                          Used    Used as   Plan  Don't  No     Prefer
                          Before  a Result  to    Have   Plans  Not to
                          Course  of        Use   H/W    Right  Use
                                  Course          or     Now
                                                  S/W

Creating hotlists etc.     0%     41%       50%    9%     0%     0%
  with Filamentality*
Using spreadsheets for    14%     36%       50%    0%     0%     0%
  grades
Using PowerPoint for       9%     64%       18%    5%     5%     0%
  teacher presentations
Creating web pages         5%     24%       57%   10%     5%     0%
Internet inquiry           0%     50%       27%    9%    14%     0%
  activities using
  WebQuests*
Spreadsheets to track     23%     45%       32%    0%     0%     0%
  progress on standards
Ideas from lesson plan     8%     38%       38%    8%     0%     8%
  analysis assignment
Using Microsoft           18%     36%       41%    5%     0%     0%
  Publisher for a
  newsletter
Using Microsoft Word      14%     27%       50%    0%     9%     0%
  Tables & Microsoft
  Paint
Quia.com tools for         0%     32%       41%   14%     9%     5%
  teachers
Serial storytelling with   5%     23%       50%    5%    14%     5%
  word processor
Having students use        9%     50%       18%   18%     0%     5%
  PowerPoint
Using Microsoft            5%     14%       52%   10%    19%     0%
  Publisher for a
  fractured fairy tale
Number patterns using      0%     23%       27%   14%    18%    14%
  Chartworld (Ploger &
  Della Vedova, 1999)
Having students use        5%      5%       45%    9%    32%     5%
  spreadsheets in a
  lesson
Geography using            0%     29%       14%   24%    33%     0%
  Puzzlemap programs*
Digital microscopes        0%     20%       20%   35%    10%    15%
Talking word processor*    5%     14%       14%   45%    14%     9%
  (Pix Writer)
Concept mapping with       5%      9%       18%   45%    18%     5%
  Inspiration

                          G.      H      I.
                          Absent  Total  B+C

Creating hotlists etc.    0%      100%   91%
  with Filamentality*
Using spreadsheets for    0%      100%   86%
  grades
Using PowerPoint for      0%      100%   82%
  teacher presentations
Creating web pages        5%      100%   81%
Internet inquiry          0%      100%   77%
  activities using
  WebQuests*
Spreadsheets to track     0%      100%   77%
  progress on standards
Ideas from lesson plan    0%      100%   77%
  analysis assignment
Using Microsoft           0%      100%   77%
  Publisher for a
  newsletter
Using Microsoft Word      0%      100%   77%
  Tables & Microsoft
  Paint
Quia.com tools for        0%      100%   73%
  teachers
Serial storytelling with  0%      100%   73%
  word processor
Having students use       0%      100%   68%
  PowerPoint
Using Microsoft           0%      100%   67%
  Publisher for a
  fractured fairy tale
Number patterns using     5%      100%   50%
  Chartworld (Ploger &
  Della Vedova, 1999)
Having students use       0%      100%   50%
  spreadsheets in a
  lesson
Geography using           0%      100%   43%
  Puzzlemap programs*
Digital microscopes       0%      100%   40%
Talking word processor*   0%      100%   27%
  (Pix Writer)
Concept mapping with      0%      100%   27%
  Inspiration

*Topic initially introduced by university instructor or guest lecturer

Acknowledgements

The technology course discussed in this article adapted some assignments from university-based courses taught by Teresa Chen, Jennifer Lamkins, and Linda Larson; Jean Casey and Ali Rezaei gave guest lectures. Diane Brown provided valuable support throughout the project. I am also grateful to Jean Houck, Felipe Golez, Teresa Chen, Ali Rezaei, and Jennifer Lamkins for comments on an earlier manuscript.

Author Note

A shorter version of this article was presented at the 2004 meeting of the Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education (Adams, 2004). The Long Beach Professional Development School for Educators was supported by a grant from the Lucent Technologies Foundation.

References

Adams, S. (2004). A strategy for technology training as part of a Master's program conducted at a school site. Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference, 2004(1), 1899-1906.

Becker, H.J. (1994). How exemplary computer-using teachers differ from other teachers: Implications for realizing the potential of computers in schools. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 26(3), 291-322.

Becker, H.J. (2000). Who's wired and who's not. Retrieved April 24, 2005, from http://www.gse.uci.edu/doehome/DeptInfo/Faculty/Becker/packard/text.html

Bonk, C., Ehman, L, Hixon, E., & Yamagata-Lynch, L. (2002). The pedagogical TICKIT: Web conferencing to promote communication and support during teacher professional development. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 10(2), 205-233.

Brown, A. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(2), 141-178.

Brown, A., & Campione, J. (1990). Communities of learning and thinking, or a context by any name. In D. Kuhn (Ed.), Developmental perspectives on teaching and learning thinking skills. New York: Karger.

Brush, T., Rutowsti, K., Glazewski, K., Sutton, J., Hansen, C., & Bardsley, D. (2002). Strategies for integrating technology into field-based teacher training programs: Perspectives from educational technology and teacher education faculty. Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference, 2002(1), 1182-1188.

Casey, J. M. (2000). Creating the early literacy classroom: Activities for using technology to empower elementary students. Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited.

Darling-Hammond, L. (Ed.). (1994). Professional development schools: Schools for developing a profession. New York: Teachers College Press.

Dawson, K., & Norris, A. (2000). Preservice teachers' experiences in a K-12/University technology-based field initiative: Benefits, facilitators, constraints and implications for teacher educators. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 17(1), 4-12.

Dawson, K., Pringle, R., & Adams, T. L. (2003). Providing links between technology integration, methods courses, and school-based field experiences: A curriculum-based and technology-enhanced microteaching. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 20(1), 41-47.

Gimbert, B., & Zembal-Saul, C. (2002). Learning to teach with technology: From integration to actualization. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education [Online serial], 2(2), 204-217.

Golez, F., DuCharme, C., Heiss, B., Brown, D., Thicksten, M., Burnett, E., Adams, S., Kaye, C., & Anderson, C. (2003, June). A successful professional development school collaboration between a college of education and an urban public school. Presented at the meeting of California K-16 Partnerships and Student Success, Long Beach, CA.

Golez, F., Symcox, L., Whitney, L., Nagel, G., Nakai, K., & Adams, S. (2003). [Professional development school program evaluation data]. Long Beach, CA: California State University, Long Beach.

Holmes Group. (1990). Tomorrow's Schools: Principles for the Design of Professional Development Schools. East Lansing, MI: Holmes Group.

Keller, J., Bonk, C., Hew, K. (2004, April). The TICKIT to teacher learning: What one technology integration effort offers as a professional development model. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.

Milken Exchange on Educational Technology. (1999). Will new teachers be prepared to teach in the digital age? A national survey on information technology in teacher education. Santa Monica, CA: Milken Exchange on Educational Technology.

National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education. (1997). Technology and the new professional teacher: Preparing for the 21st century classroom. Retrieved August 8, 2003, from http://www.ncate.org/accred/projects/tech/tech-21.htm

Newman, D. (1990). Opportunities for research on the organizational impact of computers. Educational Researcher, 19(3), 8-13.

Norton, P., & Sprague, D. (2002). Timber Lane technology tales: A design experiment in alternative field experiences for preservice candidates. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 19(2), 40-46.

Oh, P., Maloy, R., Verock-O'Loughlin, R., & Hart, D. (2003). E-Teams: A collaborative approach to technology integration in the classroom. Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference, 2003, (1), 2066-2073.

Ploger, D., & Della Vedova, T. (1999). Programming dynamic charts in the classroom. Learning & Leading With Technology, 26(5), 38-41.

Shuler, D., & Namioka, A. (Eds.). (1993). Participatory design: Principles and practices. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Strudler, N., & Grove, K. (2002). Integrating technology into teacher candidates' field experiences: A two-pronged approach. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 19(2), 33-38.

Vygotsky (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. (M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman, Eds. and Trans.). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Winograd, T. (Ed.). (1996). Bringing design to software. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

STEPHEN T. ADAMS

California State University

Long Beach, CA USA

[e-mail]