Developing a new technology infusion program for Preparing Tomorrow's Teachers.

Many schools, colleges, and departments of education across America are currently rethinking the manner in which they are preparing tomorrow's teachers to use technology. Responding to new standards established by the National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) and the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE), higher education faculty and administrators are searching for new models to support technology integration. This new or renewed focus is significant as institutions of higher education have an important responsibility to provide leadership for the infusion of technology into U.S. schools and to model appropriate use of technology in their own teaching (Jolly, Davis, Strader, & Denton, 1999). In the area of preservice teacher education, it appears logical, as Wheatly (2003) pointed out, that the increased use of technology-enhanced learning practices in PK-12 teaching is more likely when prospective teachers experience and practice a variety of computer uses in the majority of their undergraduate courses. This observation is supported by the research of Thomas, Larson, Clift, and Levin (1996) who argued that training in technology use must coincide with course goals and be seen as an integral course component. While there is no single program plan or model for accomplishing such a goal, there clearly are many obstacles to overcome.

**********

PURPOSE

The purpose of this article is to report on a technology infusion program being developed in the School of Education and Allied Professions at the University of Dayton (UD). Specifically, it describes how the program was developed with funding from a Preparing Tomorrow's Teachers to Use Technology (P[T.sup.3]) grant and implemented in collaboration with the Public Broadcasting Corporation's (PBS) TeacherLine Program. In addition to describing the planning and implementation stages of the project, the writers describe the philosophical foundations and design parameters for the initiative, emergent model building, project results to date, and implications for other preservice teacher education programs.

BACKGROUND AND SETTING

The University of Dayton is a comprehensive, Catholic university annually enrolling approximately 7,000 undergraduate students and 3,000 graduate students. UD's School of Education and Allied Professions' Department of Teacher Education is one of the largest in the state of Ohio enrolling over 800 students in four teacher licensure programs including Early Childhood, Middle Childhood, Adolescent-Young Adult, and Intervention Specialist. The department employs 21 full-time, tenure track professors and five clinical faculty members. UD's School of Education and Allied Professions supports The Institute for Technology-Enhanced Learning (ITEL), which provides leadership for the school's technology initiatives, including graduate and undergraduate academic programming, information technology planning and management, and faculty development.

In the fall of 2001, ITEL leadership, using the CEO Forum's School Technology and Readiness (STaR, 2001) teacher preparation framework, completed an institutional needs assessment to support the writing of a P[T.sup.3] Implementation Grant. The STaR process provides an interactive self-assessment tool designed to help school personnel evaluate their current technology integration efforts and plan for meaningful change. This assessment tool can be accessed at www.iste.org/starchart/index.cfm. The institutional profile generated by the assessment revealed the greatest needs to be in the areas of faculty development and curriculum integration.

SETTING THE DESIGN PARAMETERS

Using the results of the STaR needs assessment, ITEL identified five design parameters to guide its efforts to plan a technology infusion program for UD's Department of Teacher Education. Those parameters were:

1. The program must be anchored to the International Society for Technology in Education's (ISTE's) National Educational Technology Standards (NETS, 2000) for teachers.

2. The program must be supported by a faculty training and support program specifically designed to meet the developmental needs of faculty members at various stages of technology knowledge and skill (Sandholtz, Ringstaff, & Dwyer, 1997).

3. The program should encourage faculty to move away from the belief that technology education is something that happens in a computer lab with the guidance of a technology expert.

4. The program should provide both preservice teachers and faculty with an expanded vision of how technology can shape new learning environments in which time and space, as well as teacher and student behaviors can be reconsidered in light of current research from the cognitive sciences on how people learn (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 2000).

5. The program should encourage both faculty and preservice teachers to experiment with designing learning experiences grounded in problem-based and project-based learning theory (Duch, Groh, & Allen, 2001; Torp and Sage, 1998).

DEVELOPING A STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIP

While developing a plan to meet the design parameters outlined, ITEL leadership discovered, and began exploring a new teacher development program being introduced by PBS. TeacherLine is a comprehensive, online professional development program specifically designed to support PK-12 teachers in acquiring new knowledge and developing new skills in technology-enhanced learning (FIGURE 1). Of immediate appeal was the fact that the TeacherLine online modules were developed in partnership with ISTE and included content based on the National Educational Technology Standards (NETS). An initial review of the titles of the 67 TeacherLine modules invited further interest as they appeared to be congruent with the needs and interests expressed by many faculty members.

Each TeacherLine module is a structured online learning experience focused on a specific technology-enhanced learning topic such as Internet research, or on a generic topic with technology integration implications, such as problem-based learning. Many modules contain streaming videos, simulations, and animations designed to help students explore the pedagogical issues and strategies of technology-enhanced learning.

In the spring of 2001, ITEL leadership approached the director of the PBS TeacherLine program and proposed that UD partner with PBS in submitting a 2001 P[T.sup.3] Implementation Grant. An agreement to collaborate was reached and a proposal subsequently submitted. Under the terms of the agreement, PBS provided UD's Department of Teacher Education with free access to all TeacherLine modules for a period of three years. PBS provided a one-day, onsite orientation workshop for faculty as well as a six-week online class designed to prepare faculty to facilitate TeacherLine Modules. In return, ITEL leadership agreed to conduct the relevant research necessary to document the impact of the TeacherLine program on both preservice teachers and faculty. In addition, ITEL agreed to document the methods and processes used to engage faculty and to promote the integration of the TeacherLine modules across the preservice curriculum. The expressed goal of the projevct was to design and implement a technology-enhanced learning infusion model driven by the systematic integration of TeacherLine modules across the professional development curriculum. The proposal was funded in the summer of 2001. At the time of this writing, the University of Dayton's Department of Teacher Education was the only preservice teacher preparation program in the nation using the TeacherLine program in the manner delineated in this article.

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

P[T.sup.3] funding was awarded for three years beginning with the fall semester of the 2001/02 academic year. Implementation was planned to occur in the four phases described below:

* Phase One: Faculty Recruitment and Training

* Phase Two: Curriculum Integration Planning

* Phase Three: Model Building

* Phase Four: Evaluation & Planning

Faculty Recruitment & Training

One of the first challenges was to recruit faculty to take part in the project. This was done by inviting them to participate in a six-week Online Facilitator Training (OFT) course provided by PBS TeacherLine. As an incentive, professors were offered a $500 stipend for successfully completing the course and earning the certification of completion that would permit them to begin using TeacherLine modules in one or more of their courses.

In addition, participating faculty were offered a $1,000 stipend in return for integrating a TeacherLine module into one of their professional education classes. To receive payment, faculty were asked to revise their respective course syllabi to reflect the specific ways in which their students would interact with module content. Finally, ITEL assigned a staff member to support faculty with technical as well as curriculum integration issues.

Fifteen tenure track and five clinical faculty expressed interest in taking the OFT training during the 2001-2002 academic year. Six tenure track and two clinical faculty volunteered to participate in the first OFT training program, which was offered during the 2002 winter semester. The remaining 12 professors agreed to take the training in the spring of 2002.

TeacherLine modules were originally designed to be fully-facilitated, online learning experiences delivered in a learning anytime, anywhere model. This design was based on PBS's commitment to meet the needs of adult learners with numerous time constraints by structuring an asynchronous learning environment. Because of this commitment, TeacherLine leadership believed it was critically important that faculty learn how to be effective facilitators of online learning by becoming online learners themselves.

OFT training took place in three stages. First, the professors participated in a one-day, face-to-face orientation in which they were given a comprehensive introduction to the TeacherLine program and enrolled in the online training course. In the second stage, they participated in the six-week OFT course. This experience required each professor to dedicate approximately five to seven hours a week to completing the online course assignments. The purpose of the OFT course was to familiarize professors with the TeacherLine navigational structure and to prepare them to be effective online facilitators. Specifically, the module taught the professors communication and assessment strategies for online learning. The module also assisted them in gaining a basic understanding of the Blackboard online learning platform and HyperText Markup Language (HTML). Finally, in the third stage, faculty received ongoing technical support from the ITEL staff.

Curriculum Integration Planning

The process of planning for the integration of the TeacherLine modules across the preservice curriculum involved planning at both the macro and micro levels. Macro-planning involved the matching of TeacherLine modules with specific undergraduate courses. This process began in the spring of 2002 as ITEL facilitated Department of Teacher Education faculty and students in the process of examining the content of the TeacherLine modules with an eye toward aligning the modules with the professional courses in the four teacher licensure programs.

Macro-planning involved numerous faculty members and students in examining module content. For example, two faculty members who had completed the OFT training volunteered to have their students examine, interact with, and provide feedback on a specific module they were interested in integrating into EDT 109, Personal Aspects of Teaching. Second, ITEL hired eight preservice teachers, two from each licensure program, and compensated them for examining multiple modules and providing written evaluations and recommendations on where the modules might most appropriately fit in their respective professional program. Graduate research assistants supervised this process while conducting their own analyses of the modules. Finally, ITEL leadership met with the program coordinators for each of the licensure programs to begin building the curriculum matrices for each program. Table 1 illustrates the evolution of the curriculum planning process to date.

Micro-planning, in contrast, involved the work of individual professors designing specific integration plans for their respective courses. During the fall and winter semesters of the 2003 academic year, ITEL staff supported and worked with professors to revise their course syllabi to include a TeacherLine module. Personal consultations were held to monitor progress and to provide professors with technical assistance in posting assignments, creating discussion forums, and modifying class announcements.

The following three vignettes describe how this process varied across three teacher education classes, EDT 109, The Personal Aspects of Teaching, EDT 110, The Profession of Teaching, and EDT 401, Advanced Technology in Education. The professors of these three classes volunteered to pilot test the integration of a TeacherLine module during the 2003 fall semester. The TeacherLine module selected for EDT 109 was Communicate and Collaborate Online. EDT 109 provides new students with an in-depth orientation to the University of Dayton and the School of Education and Allied Professions.

Specifically, it is part of the university's first-year program and is designed to help students deepen their knowledge of the university's history and resources as well as their selected fields of study. Students, for example, are assisted in building their four-year academic plans and are connected with a peer advisor. In addition, they view videotapes of outstanding veteran teacher representatives of the four licensure areas discussing their professional lives and interacting with students in their classrooms. The TeacherLine module, Communicate and Collaborate Online provides students with a comprehensive introduction to an array of communication and collaboration tools available for teachers. Integrating the content of this module into the undergraduate course required moving to the micro-planning level.

ITEL staff consulted with the two EDT 109 professors and crafted four new class assignments designed to require students to apply the new knowledge they were acquiring about communicating and collaborating online. The assignments were specifically designed to reinforce content from the TeacherLine module and were posted on the assignment board for the module. Each new assignment was customized to require students to make a practical application of technology skills in the context of the course.

For example, students were required to:

* e-mail their peer advisors and attach documents;

* explore the teacher and student collaboration websites introduced in the module and bookmark the sites most relevant to their areas of interest;

* complete their four-year academic plan by completing an online planning template; and

* share their reflections on the in-class video cases using the TeacherLine discussion board.

The second course impacted in the pilot semester was EDT 110, The Profession of Teaching. Two other OFT trained professors agreed to integrate the TeacherLine module The Smart Chalkboard: Using the Computer for Dynamic Presentations. EDT 110 is designed to provide first-year preservice teachers with a comprehensive survey of the teaching profession. In recent years, it has increasingly focused on helping students understand beginning teacher competencies as defined by the PRAXIS III framework developed by the Educational Testing Service. Students begin to shape their professional portfolio, which they will continue to build across their four-year programs.

The Smart Chalkboard module provides students with a comprehensive introduction to presentation software used by many teachers. For example, students learn how to create and use Inspiration and PowerPoint presentations in the classroom setting. What is especially powerful about the module is that students, regardless of their prior knowledge with PowerPoint for example, can move to higher levels of technical skill. In this particular case, the professors decided to require students to use Inspiration to outline their portfolio structure and PowerPoint to support their end-of-course oral presentations.

The third course impacted in the pilot semester was EDT 401, Advanced Technology in Education. In this case, the professor decided to integrate the TeacherLine module Utilizing Technology in Creating Problem-Based Curriculum. As the course title suggests, this senior-level course is designed to help preservice teachers develop their technology-enhanced learning knowledge and skills. The selected module was chosen because the ITEL staff believes that problem-based learning provides students with rich opportunities for making authentic uses of technology resources. In this particular case, the connection between the undergraduate course and the TeacherLine module was so strong that the professor decided to have students complete all module activities and assignments in a fully-facilitated fashion. Because of the extra time associated with completing the module, the professor released students from two normally scheduled class sessions.

Model Building

As ITEL staff reflected on the three courses described they began to conceptualize a three-model framework to support professors in thinking about alternate ways of using TeacherLine modules to enhance a face-to-face preservice education class. The three models that emerged were: the Supplemental Resource Model, the Custom Integration Model, and the Full-Integration Model (Table 2).

The first model, the Supplemental Resource Model, is best illustrated by the EDT 110 class and the use of The Smart Chalkboard module. In this case, the professors viewed the TeacherLine module as a supplemental resource that students could access on their own time, and at their own level of interest to acquire basic or advanced skill in developing and delivering electronic presentations. In this case, the professors did not facilitate the module and made no significant adjustments to their class assignments. Nonetheless, this model had value in that it offered professors an alternate vehicle for helping students acquire technology skills. Traditionally, EDT 110 professors would schedule one or more class sessions in the computer lab and arrange for someone from the technology staff to train students in Inspiration and PowerPoint. In addition to using class time for technology training, the effectiveness of the sessions was often affected by the fact that students were often at very different levels of skill and experience. In contrast, the TeacherLine learning environment allowed for more efficient use of class time as it helped students to individualize their learning based on prior knowledge and experience.

The second model identified was the Custom Integration Model. This model is represented by the application made in EDT 109, Personal Aspects of Teaching. In this model, the professors tailored specific course assignments consistent with the content of the TeacherLine module Communicating & Collaborating Online. As described earlier, professors crafted new learning experiences specifically designed to require students to apply their new knowledge and skills gained from the TeacherLine content.

The final model, the Full-Integration Model was observed in EDT 401, Advanced Technology in Education. As described earlier, Utilizing Technology in Creating Problem-Based Curriculum was the TeacherLine module selected for integration. In this case, the course and module goals were highly congruent and students were assessed, in part, on their completion of the TeacherLine assignments. This model took full advantage of the diverse online tools that constitute a TeacherLine module including threaded discussion board, chat, and streaming video.

RESULTS TO DATE

After two years of working with the PBS TeacherLine program, ITEL staff is encouraged by the promise that this approach to technology infusion seems to hold for preservice teacher education. The application of the TeacherLine program at the University of Dayton does however, represent a use of TeacherLine that was not intended by PBS instructional designers.

As previously stated, the modules were originally designed to be delivered as fully facilitated online modules, not as enhancements to traditional, time-synchronous, college courses. ITEL, in collaboration with the Research Center for Educational Technology located at Kent State University is conducting a comprehensive evaluation of the project described in this article.

1. To date, 20 out of 26 faculty members (80%) in the Department of Teacher Education have successfully completed the PBS TeacherLine OFT course. Of the 20 trained professors, 15 are full-time, tenure track faculty and 5 are clinical faculty members.

2. To date, 19 of the 20 TeacherLine trained faculty members (95%) have or are in the process of integrating a TeacherLine module into one or more of their courses.

3. To date 17 undergraduate and 6 graduate courses have integrated a TeacherLine module.

4. To date, of the 19 professors who have incorporated a TeacherLine module, 13 professors (68%) have used the Custom Integration Model, 1 professor (5%) has used the Full Integration Model, and 5 professors (26%) have used the Supplemental Resource Model.

Report on Faculty Perceptions

In the spring of 2003, data were collected from 15 University of Dayton faculty members. Each of the professors had just finished an academic term in which they had incorporated a TeacherLine module into one or more of their courses. Data were collected by a four-part online survey.

Part I of the survey was structured as a five-point Likert scale with 1 representing Strongly Disagree and 5 representing Strongly Agree. The 14 items that constituted this part of the survey were designed to collect information across seven construct variables of interest. Collectively considered, responses were considered to be a measure of faculty satisfaction with the TeacherLine program as applied in this project. The seven variables of interest were:

1. disposition toward future use;

2. willingness to recommend to colleagues at other institutions;

3. belief that TeacherLine enhanced professor/student communication;

4. feeling that the use of TeacherLine program was worth the time invested;

5. openness to participate in future training on TeacherLine integration;

6. belief that TeacherLine use enhanced their own technology skills; and

7. belief that TeacherLine enhanced their course.

Table 3 reports the mean instrument score as well as mean scores for each construct variable. A test of internal consistency using the Cronbach's Alpha test revealed an alpha of .93 suggesting a high degree of reliability.

Part II of the instrument collected data to gain insight into how each faculty member used TeacherLine. In this case, professors self-reported by identifying one of the three models of use described earlier. Analysis of Part II data revealed that 67% of the professors indicated that they were using the Custom Integration Model, 30% reported using the Supplemental Resource Model, and 5% reported using the Full Integration Model.

Part III surveyed professors about their perceptions of the specific ways they used TeacherLine to enhance their respective courses. Analysis of data from this section of the survey revealed that 53% of faculty believed that using TeacherLine helped their students build their technology skills. Of the surveyed faculty, 80% reported modifying TeacherLine assignments to match their course goals. Sixty-seven percent (67%) of the professors partially assessed their students on their completion of TeacherLine module assignments. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, 93% of the professors reported that they used the TeacherLine module to enhance the content of their course.

Part IV concluded the survey by gathering faculty perceptions on the potential of TeacherLine as a tool for preservice teacher education. Faculty responded to six items by choosing one of five responses ranging from no potential to significant potential. Data analysis revealed that 62% of the surveyed faculty believed that TeacherLine held good potential for helping preservice teachers develop their technology-enhanced teaching skills. Twenty-four percent (24%) saw significant potential with 14% undecided. Fifty-eight percent (58%) of the professors reported that TeacherLine had good potential for driving technology infusion across the preservice teacher education curriculum. Thirty-eight percent (38%) reported significant potential and 4% were undecided. Regarding the ISTE/NETS standards, 56% of the professors reported that TeacherLine had significant potential for helping teacher education programs meet those standards. Seventeen percent (17%) reported good potential, with 28% remaining undecided. Faculty were equally divided with 43% seeing significant and 43% seeing good potential for TeacherLine as a tool for enhancing communication and collaboration, leaving 14% undecided. Of particular interest to the researchers was the fact that 45% percent of the faculty reported that TeacherLine held good potential for helping them model technology-enhanced teaching. Thirty-nine percent (39%) saw significant potential while 16% were undecided. Finally, 52% expressed that TeacherLine had significant potential for helping them develop their own personal technology skills, 37% percent reported good potential in developing their personal technology skills and 11% were undecided.

Report on Student Perceptions

Part I of the student survey, which was also administered online, included a fourteen-item Likert Scale instrument designed to closely mirror the faculty inventory described in the preceding section. It also was designed to collect data on seven construct variables. The variables were:

1. desire to experience TeacherLine in a future class;

2. willingness to recommend to other students;

3. feeling that their communication with the professor was enhanced;

4. feeling that TeacherLine helped them connect better with classmates;

5. belief that their use of TeacherLine was worth the time invested;

6. a sense that they increased their technology skills as a result of TeacherLine; and

7. a belief that they acquired practical ideas from TeacherLine that they would use in their teaching careers.

Table 4 reports the mean instrument score as well as the mean scores for each construct variable listed. Once again, the instrument was constructed as a five-point Likert scale with 1 representing Strongly Disagree and 5 representing Strongly Agree. Data analysis revealed that responses were not as positive as faculty responses but trended positively in the range between Undecided (=3) and Agree (=4). The researchers are hopeful that student perceptions will improve next academic year as professors become more skilled in the module integration process. The researchers are fully aware that they are endeavoring to use TeacherLine in manner that is different from that which was originally intended. Consequently, they believe student satisfaction scores will increase as they develop better applications and continue to support professors with their integration efforts.

In an effort to determine if student scores on the Likert scale were influenced by the professor they had and the model of use that the professor employed, a one-way analysis of variance was performed on the student data. The results of this analysis were not statistically significant suggesting that there was not a "professor effect" of significance (F = 0.20, 2, 332df; p = 0.8206).

Part II of the survey asked students to respond to three statements by choosing yes, no, or unsure. Statement one asked students whether using TeacherLine helped them improve their personal technology skills. Fifty-five (55%) of the students responded yes, 32% responded no, while 13% chose unsure. Statement two asked students to indicate whether they were partially assessed on their completion of TeacherLine module assignments. This query was important to the researchers because they believed that assessing students based on TeacherLine content was an important indicator of integration. Seventy-four (74%) responded yes, 9% chose no, while 16% were unsure. Finally, the third item asked students whether they believed the TeacherLine module they experienced enhanced the content of the course. Fifty-six (55%) chose yes, 30% chose no, while 15% were unsure.

In Part III of the survey, students were invited to provide written responses to the following three narrative response questions:

1. What possibilities does TeacherLine hold for students in teacher education?

2. What was the greatest challenge or problem you faced in using TeacherLine this semester?

3. Please feel free to share additional comments about your use of TeacherLine.

The researchers began the data analysis process by coding student responses to each of the three questions. In step one of this process, each response was coded as a negative or positive response. Consider the following student responses that the researchers coded as positive:

    I feel that TeacherLine helps students discuss ideas and respond to
    each other more than in a regular class.

    TeacherLine exposes teachers to online and technological resources
    they might not otherwise know about.

    TeacherLine helps future teachers plan ways to include technology in
    their classroom.

In contrast, consider the following examples the researchers coded as negative:

    We did not use it as often as I would have like.

    The videos were a little confusing to run.

    The site was a little hard to navigate at times.

In step two of the process, the researchers created categories within the positive and negative data sets. For example, the following three categories emerged from the analysis of the positive data set: Enhanced Communication, Source of New/Practical Ideas for Teachers, and Valuable Web Resources. Comparatively, the following three categories emerged from the negative response data set: Technical Difficulties, Not Used Enough, and Lack of Clear Directions from the Professor.

In step three, the researchers coded the negative and positive responses by professor and searched for themes. This analysis led to the identification of the following three themes:

1. Student satisfaction with their TeacherLine experience appeared to be a function of the way in which their professor used the module. Students who reported positively tended to be in classes where the professor used the module content and tools on a more regular basis. Students who sensed their professor was not fully invested or totally comfortable with TeacherLine tended to have less positive, and in some cases, negative observations.

2. Students of professors who were more structured in their use of the TeacherLine module had more positive dispositions toward their TeacherLine experience as reported in the narrative responses.

3. Students who experienced technical difficulties (often due to their own errors) tended to be less positive in their assessment of TeacherLine.

ONGOING DEVELOPMENT

Several important goals will guide the ongoing development of this technology infusion model. Chief among these goals will be to continue collecting and analyzing the data necessary to make informed decisions about the future of this initiative and its implications for the PBS TeacherLine program and its value in preservice teacher preparation. High priority will also be given to continuing support for faculty in developing thoughtful applications of the three models of use that emerged from this study. While the Custom Integration Model appears to hold the greatest promise for driving curriculum integration, the Supplemental and Full Integration Models also have value depending on the instructional context. In addition, there will be a concerted effort to move toward broader coverage of the preservice curriculum. This will hopefully occur as participating professors choose to integrate TeacherLine modules into additional courses. Based on current trends, this appears to be a realistic possibility.

Another goal for the ITEL staff will be helping faculty become independent users of the TeacherLine tools. In the first 18 months of the project, ITEL staff members provided one-to-one technical assistance to some professors who were less technology savvy. As professors become more comfortable with the program's online tools, ITEL looks to provide less technical support and increased curricular support focused on problem-based and project-based learning.

IMPLICATIONS

One of the most promising implications of this project may be how the integration of TeacherLine modules can provide preservice teachers and faculty with access to high quality, technology-enhanced learning content. The TeacherLine program was federally funded for nearly 40 million dollars and employed some of the nation's top instructional designers in creating the modules. With this kind of quality content tied to the ISTE/NETS standards, professors can concentrate on making creative applications and planning for meaningful integration instead of feeling pressured to create content.

Finally, another implication of this project may be that using TeacherLine modules to enrich a traditional course may help preservice teachers experience the power of using online resources to enhance traditional classroom instruction. In this project, ITEL staff eventually hopes to help the Department of Education connect a TeacherLine module with every professional education course thus providing students with a coherent online learning environment that spans their undergraduate program.

Reflecting on the design parameters that guided the development of this infusion model, there is growing evidence that the TeacherLine program holds promise as a vehicle for helping integrate technology-enhanced learning content across the preservice curriculum. Perhaps the most powerful evidence to date is the number and quality of conversations occurring among faulty, and between faculty and students, about technology and the role it can play in creating and supporting dynamic learning environments.

Table 1 Curriculum Integration Matrix

Course Number  Course Title                    TeacherLine Module

EDT 109        Personal Aspects of Teaching    Communicate and
                                               Collaborate Online
EDT 110        The Profession of Teaching      The Smart Chalkboard:
                                               Using the Computer for
                                               Dynamic Presentations
EDT 207        Child and Adolescent            Gender Equity in
               in Education                    the Mathematics Class
                                               room
EDT 208        Teaching and Learning           Using the Computer for
                                               Cooperative Experiences
                                               and Class Discussions
EDT 212        Early Childhood Theory          Using the Computer
               and Practice                    for Cooperative
               Experiences and Class           Discussions
EDT 350        Teaching Reading                Children's Authors on
               Through Literature              the Web
EDT 352        Reading/Language Arts           Integrating The Internet
               Methods for Middle Childhood    into the Lang. Arts
                                               Curriculum
EDT 491        Advanced Technology in          Utilizing Technology in
               Education                       Creating Problem-Based
                                               Learning Units
EDT 429        Social Studies for Middle       Enhancing Multicultural
               Childhood                       Education with Technology
EDT 444        Student Teaching--              The Computer for Personal
               Intervention Specialist         Productivity
EDT 453        Introduction to Literacy in     Integrating the Internet
               Early Childhood                 into the K-2 LA
                                               Curriculum
EDT 474        Student Teaching--Middle Years  The Computer for Personal
                                               Productivity
EDT 452        Reading in Context              Meeting Academic
                                               Standards with the
                                               Internet
EDT 431        Language Arts Methods           Using Assessment and
                                               Evaluation
EDT 321        Class Environments for          Constructivism in the
               Middle Childhood                Classroom
VAE 232*       General Education Art Study     Searching and Researching
                                               on the Internet
VAE 483        Teaching Visual Arts            Searching and Researching
                                               on the Internet

Note. *VAE 232 is a general art education class that middle childhood
education majors are required to complete.

Table 2 ITEL Models for TeacherLine (TL) Applications

Model                            Description

                                 * TL module is used as an online
                                   supplement to help students build
                                   technology skills.
The Supplemental Resource Model  * Students are responsible for
                                   accessing TL content to meet
                                   individual needs.
                                 * Professors do not attempt to align TL
                                   content and course content.
                                 * TL module is used as an enhance ment
                                   to the course content.
The Custom Integration Model     * Students utilize online discussion
                                   board or chat room to facilitate
                                   communication and collaboration.
                                 * Professors craft specific course
                                   assignments that integrate TL module
                                   content and course content.
                                 * TL module content is fully integrated
                                   with course content.
The Full Integration Model       * Students are partially assessed on
                                   their completion of the TL module
                                   assignments.
                                 * Students utilize online discussion
                                   board or chat room to facilitate
                                   communication and collaboration.
                                 * Professors develop course goals
                                   congruent with TL module goals.

Table 3 Mean Instrument and Construct Variable Scores for Faculty N=15

Label                         Mean  Standard Deviation

Mean Instrument Score         4.13          0.56
Future Use                    4.33          0.65
Recommend to Colleagues       4.23          0.75
Enhanced Communication        3.73          0.73
Time Worthy                   4.06          0.82
Future Learning of Use of TL  4.23          0.49
Technology Skills             4.17          0.79
Course Enhancement            4.10          0.76

Table 4 Mean Instrument and Construct Variable Scores for Students.
N=318

Label                     Mean  Standard Deviation

Mean Inspiration Score    3.39       0.56
Future Use                3.39       0.64
Recommended to Others     3.57       0.75
Enhanced Communication    3.12       0.73
Connect with Classmates   3.23       0.82
Time Worthy               3.34       0.50
Technology Skills         3.41       0.79
Practical Ideas           3.56       0.76

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the P[T.sup.3] program staff, especially program officer Pariece Wilkins for her support of this project. Thanks also to the PBS TeacherLine program staff. Finally, we extend a very special thank you to the faculty and students of the Department of Teacher Education at the University of Dayton for their willingness to participate in this project.

References

Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (2000). How people learn. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Duch, B. J., Groh, S. E., & Allen, D. E. (Eds). (2001). The power of problem-based learning. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.

International Society for Technology in Education. (2000). National Educational Technology Standards for Teachers. [Brochure].

Jolly, D. V., Davis, T., Strader, A., & Denton, J. (1999). Issues related to technology in teacher education programs and K-12 public schools in Texas. Educational Technology and Society, 2(3), 91-96.

Sandholtz, J. H., Ringstaff, C., & Dwyer, D. (1997). Teaching with technology: Creating student-centered classrooms. New York: Teachers College Press.

STaR chart. (n.d.). Retrieved December 3, 2003, from: http://www.iste.org/starchart/index.cfm.

Thomas, L., Larson, A., Clift, R., & Levin, J. (1996). Integrating technology in teacher education programs: Lessons from the teaching teleapprenticeships project. Action in Teacher Education, 17(4), 1-8.

Torp, L., & Sage, S. (1998). Problems as possibilities: Problem-based learning for K-12 education (1st ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Wheatley, K.F. (2003). Increasing computer use in early childhood teacher education: The case of a "computer muddler." Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 2(4). Retrieved from http://www.citejournal.org/vol2/iss4/general/article1.cfm

JAMES ROWLEY, GINA DYSARD, AND JACKIE ARNOLD

University of Dayton

Dayton, OH USA

[e-mail]