Are teachers in China ready to teach in the 21st century?

In the U.S., teachers are being asked to learn new methods of teaching, whileat the same time are facing even greater challenges of rapidly increasing technology changes and greater diversity in the classroom. Given such challenges, relatively few teachers report feeling well prepared to integrate educational technology into classroom instruction (www.pt3.org).

Are teachers in China in the same situation in their careers? This study was conducted to determine how pre- and inservice educators feel about their basic computer skills and their level of competence to integrate technology effectively in their professional career. Several surveys have been conducted in China on hundreds of pre- and inservice educators by using the surveys from the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE). Similar to America in general, teacher-training programs in China do not provide future teachers with the kinds of experiences necessary to prepare them to use technology effectively in their classrooms. The findings in this report should alert and inform teacher-education programs/institutions and policymakers in China.

**********

About a decade ago, it was unlikely that educators in K-12 or teacher education programs would have the motivation or opportunity to apply information technology with their students. The average of about one computer per 100 students in K-12 schools was very low anywhere in the world. Even in the United States, it was about one microcomputer per 125 students in K-12 schools about 20 years ago. In the past 20 years, the amount and quality of technology use in K-12 education have grown so rapidly, that Willis and Mehlinger (1996) described the situation of information technology and teacher education as follows:

   Most preservice teachers know very little about effective use of
   technology in education and leaders believe there is a pressing need
   to increase substantially the amount and quality of instruction
   teachers receive about technology. The idea may be expressed
   aggressively, assertively, or in more subtle forms, but the virtually
   universal conclusion is that teacher education, particularly
   preservice, is not preparing educators to work in a technology-
   enriched classroom.

Willis and Mehlinger indicated that while a large number of students in teacher education programs were taking some coursework in information technology, by and large this instruction was not tied to curriculum, methods, field experience, or practice teaching. In 2001, a National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) study found that only 44% of new teachers (three or fewer years in the classroom) believe they are well-prepared to use technology. Obviously, current inservice and preservice education systems have been struggling to keep up with the rapid pace of change.

Looking back to 1982 in China, five pioneer secondary schools organized together to carry out experiments on computer education focusing on programming. From then on, the development of technology in education has experienced the following three stages (Zhang, 2002).

1. Early explorations took place from 1982 to 1990 in which computers were first introduced into a few experimental schools for students to learn programming, especially Basic.

2. In the expansion from 1991 to 1997, computer literacy was the main content, Computer-Assisted Instruction (CAI) and Computer-Managed Instruction (CMI) started to be more frequently incorporated into the teaching and learning of different subjects. Also, computers started to enter more and more schools.

3. In quick development after 1997, multimedia and computer network were introduced as powerful technologies to help create constructive, supportive, and rich learning environments in schools. With the emergence of such new terms as e-learning, web-based education, and virtual school, technology in education has gained much greater concern than ever.

There is an unbalanced picture, however. In south and east China, large amounts of money have been invested to equip high-level computer laboratories and networks in the 1990s. However, only in recent years have computers started to enter some rural schools, and well-equipped schools are still a dream for many teachers and children in the underdeveloped areas. Based on incomplete statistics, every 99 students had one computer on average in China in 2000, compared with a ratio of 5 students to one computer in the U.S. Further, 98% of U.S. schools and 77% of classrooms were connected to the Internet (NCES, 2001).

In China, the government has put extensive effort on preparing technology-proficient educators. For current inservice college educators, in December 1999, the China Ministry of Education set up the "China Educational Technology in Higher Education Committee," which is to ensure modern educational technology training for instructors in higher institutes. This Committee has approved 122 institutes to form Educational Technology Training Centers (ETTCs), which spread to most parts of China at different level institutes. Since June 2000, the ETTCs have begun training inservice educators in higher institutes. In 2001, there were about 14,000 instructors who attended all kinds of training workshops, and 2,700 of them obtained training certificates. Generally, preservice educators, are instructed by taking certain educational technology courses in higher institutions, which focus mainly on computer literacy.

With regard to K-16 education, in 2000, the China Ministry of Education launched the "Connecting Every School Project." This project is dedicated to, (a) getting at least 90% of the elementary and secondary schools connected onto the Internet by using computer and satellite technologies, and (b) helping all teachers and students access high quality online educational resources within the coming 5 to 10 years. The integration of technology in education has taken various formats in China. For instance, based on the article "Incorporating ICT into K-12 Schools: China's Perspective in the Global Backgrounds" (Zhang, 2002), there are (a) CAI courseware in the forms of tutorial or drill-and-practice, (b) computer-assisted test (CAT) systems, (c) general application software, (d) framework software as tools for learning and teaching, (e) CD-ROM-based and Web-based resources banks, (f) web-based learning platforms, (g) "Web Schools," (h) comprehensive educational websites such as China Basic Education Website (http://www.cbe21.edu.cn) sponsored by the Ministry of Education, and K-12 Educational Website (http://www.k12.com.cn), and (i) computer-managed instruction (CMI) systems. Meanwhile, more than one million students are studying online at 67 higher institutions. However, no investigation has been conducted on current pre- and inservice educators' technology preparation.

This study was conducted to determine how pre- and inservice educators evaluate their basic computer skills and the levels of competence to integrate technology effectively in their professional careers. The participants of this study were pre- and inservice educators in eastern China. The surveys conducted in this study were from the International Society of Technology in Education (ISTE), which were designed specifically for college education-major students to access technology-proficiency by self-assessment. The surveys were: (a) Basic Computer Skills Survey, (b) General Preparation Survey, (c) Professional Preparation Survey, and (d) Student Teaching Profile Survey.

METHOD

Participants

The purpose of this study was to investigate the technology proficiency self-confidence of pre- and inservice educators in China. More specifically, the study was designed to explore the pre- and inservice educators' self-assessments on, (a) basic computer skill levels and (b) how well they could integrate technology into their learning, research, and future teaching. They were pre- and inservice educators (n=489) from east China. The participants were divided into four groups based on their professional development stages: (a) prospective teachers who had finished the general preparation component of their program, (b) prospective teachers prior to their student teaching or internship experience, (c) teachers at the point of initial licensure and after completion of their student teaching or internship experience, and (d) teachers who had completed their first year of teaching. The numbers of participants in these four groups, who took the Basic Computer Skill Survey, were (a) general group n = 151, (b) professional group n = 224, (c) student teaching group n = 36, and (d) inservice educators n = 78. The numbers of participants in these four groups, who also took one of the four surveys based on their professional development stages, were (a) general group n = 99, (b) professional group n = 223, (c) student teaching n = 36, and (d) inservice educators n = 76.

Research Design

All the surveys were conducted as paper-pen based surveys. All the participants were directed to take a Basic Computer Skills Survey. Each question in that survey has four choices, ranging from 1 (unable) to 4 (fluent). By selecting one of the choices, each participant indicated his/her estimated skill or knowledge level about each of the technology-related indicators. Additionally, based on their professional development stages, which were (a) prospective teachers who had finished the general preparation component of their program, (b) prospective teachers prior to their student teaching or internship experience, (c) teachers at the point of initial licensure and after completion of their student teaching or internship experience, and (d) teachers who had completed their first year of teaching, the participants were asked to take one of the following four surveys. Respectively, the four groups filled out (a) General Preparation Survey, (b) Professional Preparation Survey, (c) Student Teaching Profile Survey, and (d) First-year Teacher Profile Survey. Each question in those four surveys has four choices, ranging from 1 (not at all) to 4 (able to teach others). Total scores on these instruments defined the general psychometric properties of the surveys. The total possible score for each survey ranged as follows: (a) Basic Computer Skills Survey from 30 to 120 (30 items), (b) General Preparation Survey from 16 to 64 (16 items), (c) Professional Preparation Survey from 24 to 96 (24 items), (d) Student Teaching Profile Survey from 14 to 56 (14 items), and (e) First-year Teacher Profile Survey from 21 to 84 (21 items).

Instrumentation 

The five surveys conducted in this study were from the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE). The surveys were part of outcomes of the National Educational Technology Standards (NETS) Project, which is an ongoing initiative of the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) and a consortium of distinguished partners and co-sponsors. The primary goal of the ISTE NETS Project is to enable stakeholders in PreK-12 education to develop national standards for educational uses of technology that facilitate school improvement in the United States. The NETS Project is to define standards for students, integrating curriculum technology, technology support, and standards for student assessment and evaluation of technology use. Copyright permission was obtained from ISTE before the surveys were conducted.

Procedure

The participants took the paper-pen based surveys during regularly scheduled class times as groups in classrooms. Each participant took the Basic Computer Skills Survey, and one of the following four surveys: (a) General Preparation Survey, (b) Professional Preparation Survey, (c) Student Teaching Profile Survey, or (d) First-year Teacher Profile Survey, as described previously.

After the participants completed the survey, data were entered into computer files, and incomplete data were taken out before the statistical analysis. The final data were analyzed by using SPSS 11.0. The Basic Computer Skills Survey was analyzed by using descriptive statistics as well as one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) to determine whether a significant difference existed among the four professional development stages. For Professional Preparation Survey, General Preparation Survey, Student Teaching Profile Survey, and First-year Teacher Profile Survey, data were analyzed by using descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

Basic Computer Skills Survey

This survey was to explore the pre- and inservice educators' self-assessments on basic computer skill level across the following four professional development stages. (a) "General-Prep Students" refers to prospective teachers who have finished the general preparation component of their program; (b) "Prestudent-Teaching Students" refers to prospective teachers prior to their student teaching or internship experience; (c) "Initial-Licensure Teachers" refers to teachers at the point of initial licensure and after completion of their student teaching or internship experience; and (d) "Inservice Educators" refers to teachers who have completed their first year of teaching. The results of the descriptive statistics for this survey show that across all participants (N = 489), the basic computer skills overall mean for all the self-estimated indicators was 72.2, with SD = 18.8. The range was 90, from 30 to 120 out of 120 possible points. Each item was rated by the participant as 1=unable, 2=adequate, 3=familiar, or 4=fluent. Accordingly, when the total possible range of 30 to 120 was divided into fourths, 30 to 52 was defined as "unable," 53 to 75 was defined as "adequate," 76 to 98 was defined as "familiar," and 99 to 120 was defined as "fluent." Overall, 13.9% of the participants reported themselves to be unable, 46.2% reported adequate, 29.9% reported familiar, and 10.0% reported fluent. The distribution was a normal curve, with the scores distributed almost evenly around the mean. Based on this same scale (30 to 52 unable, 53 to 75 adequate, 76 to 98 familiar, and 99 to 120 fluent), the following results occurred for the four groups of pre- and inservice educators' self-estimations of basic computer skills.

1. For the 151 General-Prep Students, the overall mean was 68.8, with SD = 17.1. The range was 84, from 31 to 115 out of 120 possible total points. And 15.9% of the participants reported themselves to be unable, 53.6% reported adequate, 25.9% reported familiar, and 4.6% reported fluent.

2. For the 224 Prestudent-Teaching Students, the overall mean was 76.4, with SD = 18.9. The range was 75, from 45 to 120 out of 120 possible total points. And 9.4% of the participants reported themselves to be unable, 41.5% reported adequate, 33.5% reported familiar, and 15.6% reported fluent.

3. For the 36 Initial-Licensure Teachers, the overall mean was 60.0, with SD = 16.5. The range was 81, from 30 to 111 out of 120 possible total points. And 30.6% of the participants reported themselves to be unable, 52.7% reported adequate, 13.9% reported familiar, and 2.8% reported fluent.

4. For the 78 Inservice Educators, the overall mean was 72.2, with SD = 16.0. The range was 73, from 40 to 113 out of 120 possible total points. And 15.4% of the participants reported themselves to be unable, 42.3% reported adequate, 34.6% reported familiar, and 7.7% reported fluent.

A one-way ANOVA was computed to compare the self-estimation across the four levels of professional development. The independent variable was Professional Development Stage (General-Prep Students, Prestudent-Teaching Students, Initial-Licensure Teachers, Inservice Educators). The dependent variable was score on the Basic Computer Skills Survey (of 120 possible). There was a statistically significant difference, F (3,485) = 11.7, p < .05, and the Tukey follow-up test indicated that Prestudent-Teaching Students rated their ability higher than General Prep Students and Initial-Licensure Teachers overall (both p < .05). These findings are illustrated in Figure 1.

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

General Preparation Survey

This survey was to investigate how well the prospective teachers who have finished the general preparation component of their program estimated their abilities for integrating technology into their learning, research, and future teaching (n = 99). The results of the descriptive statistics for this survey indicated a mean of 28.4, with SD = 6.3 at this professional development stage. The range was 32, from 16 to 48 out of 64 possible points. And 50.5% of the participants reported themselves to be "Unable," 45.5% reported "Minimally (need help)," 4.0% reported "Confidently (knowledgeable and fluent)," and 0.0% reported "Able to Teach Others."

Professional Preparation Survey

This survey was to investigate how well the prospective teachers prior to their student teaching or internship experience estimated their abilities on integrating technology into their learning, research, and future teaching (n = 223). The results of the descriptive statistics for this survey indicated the overall mean was 50.8, with SD = 13.2 at this professional development stage. The range was 69, from 24 to 93 out of 96 possible points. And 23.3% of the participants reported themselves to be "Unable," 55.6% reported "Minimally (need help)," 19.3% reported "Confidently (knowledgeable and fluent)," and 1.8% reported "Able to Teach Others."

Student Teaching Profile Survey

This survey was to investigate how well the teachers at the point of initial licensure and after completion of their student teaching or internship experience estimated their abilities on integrating technology into their learning, research, and future teaching (n = 36). The results of the descriptive statistics indicated the overall mean of self-estimation as 27.7, with SD = 6.9 at this professional development stage. The range was 27, from 14 to 41 out of 56 possible total points. And 27.8% of the participants reported themselves to be "Unable," 61.1% reported "Minimally (need help)," 11.1% reported "Confidently (knowledgeable and fluent)," and 0.0% reported "Able to Teach Others."

First-Year Teacher Profile Survey

This survey was to investigate how well the teachers who have completed their first year of teaching estimated their abilities on integrating technology into their learning, research and future teaching (n = 76). The results of the descriptive statistics indicated the overall mean of self-estimation as 50.83, with SD = 9.73 at this professional development stage. The range was 49, from 30 to 79 out of 84 possible total points. And 5.3% of the participants reported themselves to be "unable," 53.9% reported "Minimally (need help)," 39.5% reported "Confidently (knowledgeable and fluent)," and 1.3% reported "Able to Teach Others."

Across the (a) General Preparation Survey, (b) Professional Preparation Survey, (c) Student Teaching Profile Survey, and (d) First-Year Teacher Profile Survey, the results were remarkably similar. With regard to integrating technology effectively into teaching, at the four professional development stages, (a) General-Prep Students, (b) Pre-Student-Teaching Students, (c) Initial-Licensure Teachers, and (d) Inservice Educators, almost no participants reported feeling very well prepared (able to teach others) to integrate educational technology into instruction (0.00%, 1.80%, 0.00%, 1.30%, respectively). As is evident in Figure 2, by far, the greatest proportion of the four groups, responding to four ISTE-recommended instruments appropriate for those four groups, reported their level of competence to be "Minimally." Meanwhile, the percentage of participants across the four professional development stages reporting "Not at all" or "Minimally" (combined) for ability to integrate technology effectively into teaching was extremely high (96%, 78.9%, 88.9%, 59.20%, respectively).

[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]

DISCUSSION

The primary finding of this study demonstrated that pre- and inservice educators in China have very limited technology ability. Overall, only 10% of the pre- and inservice educators reported "fluent" on their basic computer skills. At the three professional development stages, (a) General-Prep Students, (b) Pre-Student-Teaching Students, (c) Initial-Licensure Teachers, and (d) Inservice Educators, almost no participants reported feeling very well prepared to integrate educational technology into their future career (0.00%, 1.80%, 0.00%, 1.30% respectively).

Five years after the China Ministry of Education set up the Educational Technology in Higher Education Committee, although the pre- and inservice teachers are required to take computer literacy courses or training programs, they did not have a specific requirement on integrating technology into teaching and learning. They also showed very limited technology abilities. Some might argue that the situation in China, (such as an average of only one computer for every 99 students in 2000, compared with one for every five students in the U.S.) gives much less opportunity for integration of technology into teaching (Zhang, 2002). It is still a dream for many teachers and children in the under-developed areas in China. One difficulty has been a lack of sound national strategies to guide educational leaders in recognizing and addressing the essential conditions for effective use of technology to support K-16 education. A second limitation has been the budget for education in China. Lessons to be learned from some developed countries include the empowerment of all children to function effectively in their future, a future marked increasingly with change, information growth, and evolving technologies. There is a mandate to better serve the needs of the 21st century work, communications, learning, and life.

Through its National Educational Technology Standards (NETS) Project, the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) has been encouraging educational leaders to provide learning opportunities that produce technology-capable students. The primary goal of the ISTE NETS Project is to enable stakeholders in Pre K-12 education to develop national standards for educational uses of technology that facilitate school improvement in the United States. The following sets of standards have being developed or refined:

1. Technology Foundation Standards for Students, describing what students should know about technology and be able to do with technology (June 1998).

2. Connecting Curriculum and Technology, providing curriculum examples of effective use of technology in teaching and learning (Fall 1999).

3. Educational Technology Support Standards, describing standards for professional development, systems, access, and support services essential to support effective use of technology (in progress).

4. Standards for Student Assessment and Evaluation of Technology Use, describing various means of assessing student progress and evaluating the use of technology in learning and teaching (in progress).

5. Standards for Accreditation of Teacher Preparation Programs, describing specialization in educational computing and technology.

6. Unit Guidelines, describing essential conditions needed to support technology use in teacher preparation programs.

7. General Standards, providing a foundation in technology for all teachers (http://cnets.iste.org/nets_overview.html).

In the United States, the Department of Education's Preparing Tomorrow's Teachers to Use Technology (PT3) grant program has worked to transform teacher education so that technology is integrated throughout teaching and learning. The goal has been to ensure that new teachers enter the classroom prepared to effectively use the computers that await them. Since 1999, PT3 has awarded over 400 grants to education consortia to help address this challenge. These grants include projects designed to transform teaching and learning through: (a) faculty development, (b) course restructuring, (c) certification policy changes, (d) online teacher preparation, (e) Enriched-Networked-Virtual, (f) video case studies, (g) electronic portfolios, (h) mentoring triads, and (i) embedded assessments http://www.ed.gov/teachtech/).

There are many excellent lessons that have been learned through this U.S. Department of Education PT3 grant program. Examples include programs that (a) require students to create products using technology (Texas Women's University), (b) require technology-infused courses and/or make courses available for credit (Wichita State), (c) embed technology workshops within existing teacher education courses; and design curricula with technology in mind, rather than shoehorning technology into existing courses (University of Alaska-Anchorage, University of California-Irvine), (d) provide workshops and one-on-one assistance in addition to online instructions for setting up e-portfolios (Maryland Department of Education, Eastern Kentucky), (e) provide (or loan) hardware to students for use in their field placements (College of William and Mary, Texas A & M), (f) conduct a needs assessment to establish a starting point among students' skills (University of Alaska-Anchorage), (g) extend technology into tools for online study and review, at the student's pace and timing (University of California-Irvine), and (h) facilitate technology internships for preservice teachers (College of William and Mary) (http://pt3.org/stories/lessonslearned.html).

In conclusion, the present research demonstrated that Chinese pre- and inservice educators have not been well prepared to be technology proficient to teach in this digital age. Education leaders and teacher education institutions in China need to develop and implement its national technology strategies and plans that cover faculty professional development, placement of computers and network connections, new or modified curriculum, and expected student outcomes. Low pre- and inservice teachers' rankings on their own technology preparation should alert and inform teacher-education programs/institutions and policymakers in China.

References

International Society for Technology in Education (1999). A national survey on information technology in teacher education--will new teachers be prepared to teach in a digital age? Retrieved March 18, 2003, from http://www.mff.org/publications/publications.taf?page=154

National Center For Education Statistics (2001). Internet access in U.S. public schools and classrooms: 1994-2000. Retrieved March 18, 2003, from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2001/2001071.pdf

National Educational Technology Standards (NETS), International Society for Technology in Education. Retrieved April 18, 2003, from http://cnets.iste.org/

U.S. Department of Education's Preparing Tomorrow's Teachers to Use Technology Grant Program. Retrieved April 18, 2003, from http://pt3.org/

Willis, J.W., & Mehlinger, H.D. (1996). Information technology and teacher education. In J. Sikula, T.J. Buttery, & E. Guyton, (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education (2nd ed., pp. 978-1029). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.

Zhang, J. (2002). Incorporating ICT into K-12 schools: China's perspective in the global backgrounds. Tech Trends, 46(4), 49-57.

JIHUA SONG

Beijing Normal University 

Beijing, P.R. China

[e-mail]

GUOLI LIANG

University of Wisconsin at Whitewater

Whitewater, WI USA

Shandong Normal University 

Jinan, Shandong, P.R. China

[e-mail]

GEPING LIU 

Southwest Normal University

Chongqing, P.R. China

[e-mail]

RICHARD T. WALLS

West Virginia University 

Morgantown, WV USA

[e-mail]

GUOYU LI, ZHOUXIU WANG, AND HUA YIN 

Beijing Normal University

Beijing, P. R. China