Enhancing collaboration and skill acquisition through the use of technology.

The research study presented here was conducted by two educational technology faculty members, one from special education and the other from general education, and their respective undergraduate classes. This study applied an action research model (Hubbard & Power, 1999; Mills, 2000), coupled with a pre and posttest design, in examining the professional development of preservice teachers in the areas of collaboration and technology. As instructors examined their courses in comparison to the NETS-T, a void within the required technology classes for both special education and general education majors was discovered. Three primary outcomes were sought: (a) Provide special education teacher candidates with more exposure to multimedia technologies for P-12 classrooms; (b) provide general education teacher candidates with more exposure to assistive technologies for P-12 students; (c) create an environment in which special education and general education teacher candidates could build collaboration skills through mutually beneficial activities. Pre and postsurveys were administered to 42 students enrolled in the participating classes. Data positively supported each of the project's outcomes. The major implications of this study are three-fold, encompassing the domains of teacher candidate technology expertise, collaborative practice, and the feasibility of replicating the model described here into other teacher education programs.

**********

As students with special needs continue to be included in general P-12 classrooms, teachers (both general education and special education) are challenged to work together to meet the educational needs of every student. In addition, state and national standards require that teachers use computer technologies to support teaching and learning (Kelly, 2002). Teacher preparation programs, in an effort to address these areas, traditionally have required students to complete courses with technology components, with mixed results (Pope, Hare, & Howard, 2002). Often times, preservice teachers graduate from their programs with little experience in how to collaborate with their peers, integrate technology into their daily lessons, or how to plan instruction for students with special needs.

This study focused on these issues, applying an action research model (Hubbard & Power, 1999; Mills, 2000) in examining the professional development of preservice teachers in the areas of collaboration and technology. Teacher-researchers began with an interest in strengthening student achievement in their educational technology courses, as well as students' abilities to collaborate with their general education/special education counterparts. Instructors brainstormed strategies, implemented these strategies, and continued to adjust these processes throughout the semester. Specifically, teacher candidates in special education were partnered with those in early and middle childhood education, as part of their assistive technology/classroom technology courses, respectively. The experiences of these students are described in this article, as well as their reactions and subsequent development of knowledge, skills, and dispositions in the areas of multimedia and assistive technologies in P-12 classrooms.

CONTEXT

The university courses participating in this study are part of a Doctoral I university located in the Midwest. Student enrollment each year is approximately 20,000. The university is highly committed to student and faculty integration of computer technologies, as indicated by the continued maintenance and expansion of its technology infrastructure. The campus was recently wired for high-speed, high-volume Internet access and the use of this system for innovative teaching and learning strategies has been emphasized. Electronic classrooms are provided in most university buildings and over 20 computer labs are available for student use, in addition to computer labs provided in residence halls. A specially-designed technology tutoring lab is also provided, giving students a place to find personal, hands-on instruction and assistance with computer-related assignments. This type of university interest and support in computer technology served as a helpful backdrop for emphasis of technology integration in the College of Education.

The college serves 4,500 undergraduate students; 3,220 of these students are teacher education majors. The four teacher education programs (early childhood, middle childhood, adolescent-young adult, and special education) graduate over 700 students each year. As a result, this university is the largest producer of teacher-education graduates in the state.

Because of the number of teacher candidates at the university, and the differences in the expectations for the various majors, special education (SE) majors and general education (GE) majors rarely cross paths. Teacher candidates participate in parallel experiences, but normally are in classes with those of the same major. Concerning technology standards, students pursuing degrees in GE are required to take a computer utilization course that emphasizes classroom technology integration and multimedia skills (digital video, web design, etc.). SE majors are required to complete an assistive technology course that focuses on assistive technology explorations, web accessibility, and universal design for learning. Both of these courses are three-hour, one-semester courses, usually taken during the student's junior year.

A FRAMEWORK FOR TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION

The International Society for Technology in Education (Kelly, 2002) asserted that preservice teachers must complete a sequence of experiences that develop an indepth understanding of how technology can be used as a tool in teaching and learning. In addition, they must see technology modeled by faculty in their university classes and in field placements. Research has found that graduates from typical teacher education programs lack the skills and knowledge to model technology use and/or teach their students how to effectively infuse technology into the learning environment (Beyerbach, Walsh, & Vannatta, 2001; Edyburn, 2000; Ferris, Roberts, & Skolnikoff, 1997; Kemp, 2000). As a result, the National Educational Technology Standards for Teachers (NETS-T, 2000; http://cnets.iste.org/teachers/index.shtml) provided a closer look at technology within the preservice curriculum. As instructors examined their courses in comparison to the NETS-T, a void within the required technology classes for both SE and GE majors was discovered. This void pertained to the following three categories: (a) SE students were not receiving exposure to multimedia development tools and issues, (b) GE students were not gaining experience in the domain of assistive technologies, and (c) Students were not participating in experiences that fostered collaboration across their disciplines. The subsequent paragraphs elaborate on these categories of need.

First, the assistive technology course did not include exposure to and practice in using multimedia tools. The majority of the SE students enrolled in the course possessed minimal computer skills, and the need to spend time addressing basic skills superseded the need to incorporate graphics, digital video, and web authoring. Once basic skills were obtained, students spent the majority of their time exploring and demonstrating various assistive technology software and hardware resources, and learning the essentials of universal design. Thus, little time was left for any additional topics or learning activities. Appendix A provides a list of projects completed by SE students during the semester.

Second, GE students received little instruction in and exposure to assistive technologies. Moving through word-processing, spreadsheet, presentation, and database software applications, they were required to develop projects for their future teaching. Appendix B provides a list of projects students completed during the course; more complete projects descriptions and course details can be found at http://edhd.bgsu.edu/~sbanist/mc/. Students designed technology-integrated lesson plans, created presentations based on their research of current technology issues (Figure 1), and produced digital videos related to educational technology. Designing and assembling a web-based professional portfolio that incorporated various multimedia products (Figure 2) consumed a good portion of their time. Working with technologies to accommodate students with special needs was a lower priority.

Figures 1 and 2 provide examples of student projects in the educational technology course. Additional examples can be found at http://edhd.bgsu.edu/~sbanist/mc/profweb.htm

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]

Finally, since the SE teacher candidates and the GE teacher candidates participated in coursework related to their chosen disciplines, they had little interaction with each other. This reality posed a broader concern to faculty, who realized that collaboration across these disciplines was essential to effective inclusionary strategies in the P-12 settings. If teacher candidates were to be successful in designing instruction that accommodated and supported student needs, then special and general educators had to possess skills in communicating with each other.

This research study sought to fulfill three primary outcomes--(a) provide SE teacher candidates with more exposure to multimedia technologies for P-12 classrooms, (b) provide GE teacher candidates with more exposure to assistive technologies for P-12 students, (c) create an environment in which SE and GE teacher candidates could build collaboration skills through mutually beneficial activities. With these in mind, initial plans were made that were critiqued and modified throughout the semester. The faculty members observed, recorded, and reflected on the new work occurring in their classrooms. They met regularly with each other, discussing the processes and made decisions regarding their activities. While pre and postsurveys were a source of data in this study, the research process was more of a hybrid model of action and quantitative research designs. Thus, allowing the researchers to become active participants in the study by critiquing, and modifying the research environment (course content) throughout the semester.

IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

The research study presented here was conducted by two educational technology faculty members, one from SE and the other from GE, and their respective undergraduate classes. Once the needs of both classroom technology courses were identified, the instructors brainstormed possible methods to fill the void noted. Constraints considered in this process included time, effort, and practicality. Both courses were already brimming with assignments and activities that were considered essential in assuring student achievement of specific course objectives. Neither faculty, nor students would be able to take on additional responsibilities for the courses without suffering repercussions of fatigue and frustration. The instructors approached their syllabi with eyes towards adapting course assignments in a way that would address the needs identified without drastically altering the existing course structures. A careful evaluation of the course activities yielded some interesting connections between the assistive technology and early/middle childhood technology courses.

Student Assignments

An overview of collaborative class projects to promote peer interaction and the development of technology application skills is shown in Figure 3. SE students were required to present a piece of assistive technology software or hardware, in a demonstration format, for their classmates. GE students were assigned a digital video project that involved creating a movie about educational technology for their websites. Instructors brainstormed, "What if the GE students videotaped an assistive technology demonstration and edited the footage to publish on their web pages?" This process would allow SE students to experience the use of digital video and give GE students some exposure to examples of assistive technology. These assignment modifications would require some communication and planning among the students, but would not significantly increase the time and effort needed to complete the projects.

[FIGURE 3 OMITTED]

On another note, GE students would be constructing professional portfolio websites in their computer utilization course. GE and SE students would be studying 508 compliance and web accessibility issues, with SE students delving into these topics in more detail. Again, the instructors inquired, "Couldn't SE students evaluate GE students' websites in light of these accessibility concerns?" In this way, GE students would receive feedback based specifically on considerations of populations with special needs, and SE students would be exposed to the process of webpage construction while putting their knowledge of 508 compliance to use. Again, this process would require communication among the SE and GE students, but not an overwhelming amount of additional time.

Finally, SE students would be focusing on elements of universal design for learning; GE students would be developing multimedia tutorials for specific curricular objectives. SE students could evaluate these products, giving GE suggestions on how to better design such tutorials to meet the needs of diverse learners. These modifications in student assignments would require minimal changes in either course practices, yet would target the needs articulated by the faculty.

Student Communication Structure

To modify the SE and GE technology classes to include the activities previously delineated, students needed a structure that would facilitate productive communication and collaboration. Students' busy schedules prevented most of them from being available to meet during the scheduled class times of their SE or GE counterparts. While some components of their blended assignments would require face to face meetings, the course instructors realized that much of the necessary dialogue could be conducted online. An asynchronous Computer Mediated Discussion (CMD) model was chosen to support the project (Bonk, 2003-2004; Fauske & Wade, 2003-2004; Schallert & Reed, 2003-2004). Students were placed in small groups (two SE and two GE students in a group) and given discussion forum space on one of the course online shells available through the university's courseware system. This arrangement did require each instructor to add 10 or 11 students from the other's course list to create the groups. As a result each faculty member hosted five discussion forums.

Final Modified Curriculum

When SE and GE students began their respective technology courses, they were given course syllabi that had incorporated the project revisions previously explored. They found themselves placed in a small group consisting of two SE and two GE students who would be their partners for the semester. As partners, they would be collaborating to complete the following assignments:

1. Assistive Technology Demonstration

SE: Research and Demonstrate Selected AT

GE: Video tape, edit and publish AT on the web

2. Professional Website Evaluation

GE: Edit professional portfolio websites to meet accessibility guidelines 

SE: Examine GE websites based on 508 compliance guidelines and offer suggestions for better accessibility

3. Multimedia Tutorial Usability Test

GE: Create an interactive tutorial that could be used by learners with various needs

SE: Conduct usability tests on tutorials and provide feedback on revisions that would make product more beneficial to learners with special needs

Appendix C includes the descriptions of these projects, as shared with the GE teacher candidates. Students were shown how to contact their group members that were not physically enrolled in their particular class through the small group discussion forums. They were asked to post an introduction of themselves during the first week of class, and then begin making plans to complete their first project: making a movie about a specific type of assistive technology. Throughout the semester, the instructors fielded questions from students concerning their group work, if asked, but strategized that allowing the students' autonomy in negotiating how their projects were completed would give them the most authentic experience in collaboration. By the end of the semester, all students had successfully completed the projects assigned.

DATA COLLECTION

Pre and postsurveys (see Appendix D and E) were administered to the SE and GE students enrolled in the participating classes (SE n=21; GE n=21) through the survey/ assessment manager in Blackboard. These surveys have been used over a five-year period for the GE computer course, and contained items related to educational technology skills/knowledge that could yielded useful data both in general and assistive technologies. Both surveys consisted of 14 open-ended response items (i.e., "What

types of presentation software have you used?"; "List specific software that can be used to benefit the learning of students with special needs.") and 12 Likert scale items exploring students' knowledge and skill of various multimedia and assistive technologies. A final open response questions targeted students' aspirations for the course, in the pre survey, and in the postsurvey students' had the opportunity to reflected on their professional development and collaborative work. The last two open response items were added to the postsurvey specifically for this study. Those questions were:

1. In thinking about teaching in an inclusive classroom, how will you approach meeting the needs of all your students, assuring them a successful learning environment?

2. You have learned many aspects of collaboration online with other professionals throughout the semester. Share how these activities will support your work with colleagues in the future."

Appendices D and E provide a complete list of survey items. These surveys were administered electronically, through the course software systems (Blackboard). Students completed the first survey during the first week of classes and the postsurvey was conducted during the last week of classes. Thus, the findings below are indicative of student achievement over a one semester period of time.

FINDINGS

A total of 42 students participated in the study. Each student submitted a complete pre and postsurvey online. The results in Table 1 provide insight to overall perceptions of confidence ratings for using technology for both GE and SE students. Students' confidence level of technology use rated as agree or strongly agree had increased in all areas from the beginning to the end of the semester.

For example, students' ratings of agree to strongly agree in reference to being familiar with Pk-12 educational software had increased from zero to 71% for GE students and zero to 64% for SE. Overall, perceptions of computer skills had also increased. For the item, "In general, I have excellent general computer skills (i.e., using menus, managing files, navigating operating systems, etc.)," 48% GE students and 33% of SE students responded on the presurvey as strongly disagree or disagree. Thirty-three (33%) GE and 29% SE students responded with agree and strongly agree. In the postsurvey GE and SE students responded to the same question with 0% responded to the same item as strongly disagree or disagree and 94% GE students and 60% SE students rated this item as agree and strongly agree.

Students' knowledge base of technology had also increased. For example, in the presurvey, students were asked to list some educational software programs that they were aware of, 48% of the SE and 38% of the GE students could not list a single software program (stating a response of no idea or N/A). In the postsurvey, 100% of all students could list at least one educational program and many listed three or four software programs.

When asked to list software that can be used to benefit the learning of students with special needs, the presurvey revealed that 57% of the SE and 76% GE students could not list a software program (making responses such as not sure, ?, or N/A). Postsurvey findings revealed that 100% of the SE and 76% of the GE students could list one or more programs that could benefit students with disabilities. This increased awareness of software applications that could be used to meet the needs of students with disabilities reflected another area of growth for SE and GE students.

In addition, when asked to list specific assistive technology devices that addressed the needs of students with disabilities, the presurvey revealed that 48% of SE and 71% GE could not list a single device (making responses such as I don't know any, not sure, ?, or N/A). Postsurvey revealed that 100% SE and 88% GE listed at least one or more assistive technology devices. Thus, indicating that awareness in assistive technology devices had increased.

Survey results that closely relate to the three primary outcomes for this study are shown in Table 2. Data positively supported each of the project's outcomes: (a) provide SE teacher candidates with more exposure to multimedia technologies for P-12 classrooms, (b) provide GE teacher candidates with more exposure to assistive technologies for P-12 students, and (c) create an environment in which SE and GE teacher candidates could collaborate in mutually beneficial activities.

When looking at the outcome of more exposure to multimedia technologies for SE students, survey results indicate that 15% SE and 20% GE students rated the item, I am very experienced in creating and using digital graphics, as somewhat agree to strongly agree on the presurvey. An increase in ratings was revealed on the postsurvey; 68% SE and 89% GE students rated this same item as somewhat agree to strongly agree. Thus indicating that students had gained confidence and increased their perceptions of creating and using multimedia technologies.

The item involving web page design, provided insight to students' confidence in putting together a webpage. Twenty-four (24%) GE and 19% SE responded on the presurvey as somewhat agreed that they were very proficient in putting together a webpage. In the postsurvey GE and SE students responded to the same question with 100% GE and 48% SE students responded with somewhat agree to strongly agree.

When examining the item, I know how to use various technologies to address specific special needs of students, 19% GE and 34% SE responded on the presurvey as somewhat agree to strongly agree. In the postsurvey GE and SE students responded to the same question with 95% GE students and 96% SE students responded with somewhat agree to strongly agree.

In addition, responses to the short answer/essay question; In thinking about teaching in an inclusive classroom, how will you approach meeting the needs of all your students, assuring them a successful learning environment? GE students provided the following responses:

GE1: I will personally learn how to use any assistive technology that a students might need so I can be an expert and help them use it. If the assistive technology is not available to the students, I will fight to get it for them or explore options that are out there for students so everyone can learn to their fullest.

GE2: I think this answer goes closely with my answer to 28. I think collaboration is the most important way to meet the needs of students in an inclusive classroom. I don't believe that I know enough myself to assure all students a successful learning environment, but through collaborating with knowledgeable colleagues, my hope is to be able to grant students that assurance.

GE3: Look at their IEP's and adapt my lessons and classroom accordingly. If a child is unable to participate in an activity based upon their special needs I will adapt it so they will be included.

GE4: With being computer literate about many applications in which I hope to someday incorporate into my classroom, I will be allowing my students to advance in their computer education skills. I will explore the many different programs that could be very helpful in the classroom. While exploring them, I will try to meet the needs of each of my students.

GE5: I will work with the special education teacher to determine what my particular student's disabilities and areas of concern are, and then try to incorporate changes into my lesson plans to allow for those technologies and strategies.

GE6: By adding appropriate material (software, hardware, design matters, etc) to help them learn as much as possible.

These student ratings and open comments provide evidence indicating that the outcome to provide GE teacher candidates with more exposure to assistive technologies for P-12 students had been successful.

The outcome for creating an environment in which SE and GE teacher candidates could collaborate in mutually beneficial activities was revealed through comments students had written to response to the following postsurvey item; You have learned many aspects of collaboration online with other professionals throughout the semester. Share how these activities will support your work with colleagues in the future. A few students shared their insight of the fact that teaching goes beyond just working with the students:

GE1: I know that the ideas of the others working around me will help to better me as a teacher. It also shows me that talking with others could give me insight on students or things to do with a certain lesson. It has helped me to realize that we are not just there to teach the students but to teach other teachers and to learn ourselves.

SE1: Collaboration is a huge aspect of special education because there are a lot of people who are a part of the student's life, and every opinion matters. The collaboration activities allowed me to experience a different kind of collaboration where we had to share our knowledge of technology with each other and make a final project out of it. Collaboration is about sharing ideas and knowledge and coming together to make a final objective.

A few other students shared that although the collaboration wasn't easy it was productive:

GE2: This was an example of regular teachers working with special education teachers. I found it difficult but possible to collaborate with these individuals in order to accomplish the tasks needed to be done.

SE2: These activities have shown me that not everyone is going to agree every time but it is important to listen to one another and respect the other person. This will help me to collaborate and communicate with colleagues in the future.

GE3: Working with colleagues, has provided me with new ideas. I have learned that there are many different types of teachers and that everyone has different ideas of what is important. For school to be successful, teachers need to discuss ideas that they have for projects and other activities in the classroom that are relevant to students of all kinds. I have already learned a great deal from others from these collaborations.

SE3: The collaboration used during this class really helped me to realize that there are aspects that special educators and regular educators need to come together in order to produce a better classroom for every student. Going through and seeing how the AT class could improve some work of the regular educators really helped a lot!

GE4: I think no matter what you do or how much time you have, you will always have time to talk to others. Sometimes it was a little rough to get the group together, but when we finally did everything worked out. I think that when I do become a professional teacher, I am going to try very hard to meet with all the colleagues that I need to meet more on a computer than face to face.

Other students commented on the use of technology for collaboration:

SE3: These activities have made me realize that teachers can exchange ideas or tips without meeting face to face. I will use something similar to this when I am a teacher.

GE5: Working and collaborating online with colleagues will become more and more important in the future. This class provided an opportunity to get a taste of that and learn what works and what does not work in an online environment. By taking these experiences and learning from them, I can learn to communicate and collaborate more effectively with colleagues in the future.

SE5: I think it is great that you can interact with colleagues without even knowing them. It allows you to communicate with a broad range of people that you wouldn't usually have any sort of interaction with.

IMPLICATIONS

The major implications of this study are three-fold, encompassing the domains of teacher candidate technology expertise, collaborative practice, and the feasibility of replicating the model described here into other teacher education programs. These areas are explored next.

Teacher Candidate Technology Expertise

This study indicates that preservice teachers can gain significant skills and knowledge related to multimedia and assistive technologies within the span of a semester's time. While the data gathered were self-reports of GE and SE student computer skills and understanding, the gains documented have significant implications. If students believe that they are competent in using various types of multimedia and assistive technologies in the classroom, then they are more likely to choose to integrate these resources into their teaching.

Furthermore, students indicated that they gained experience and understanding of technologies NOT DIRECTLY TAUGHT in their respective GE or SE courses. For example, GE students expressed knowledge of specific types of assistive technology software and hardware that were not presented in the GE computer course. It is probable that they gained this knowledge through their work in video-taping, editing, and publishing online demonstrations of these assistive technology resources, presented by their SE partners. Conversely, SE students demonstrated growth in the areas of digital graphics and webpage construction, even though their SE course did not target these skills. Conversations and activities in which SE teacher candidates explored GE teacher candidate websites and multimedia tutorials piqued their interest in these constructions, and led to their acquiring skills and understandings in these areas.

Collaborative Practice

Partnering SE and GE teacher candidates in collaborative, mutually-beneficial cohorts can strengthen their understandings of what inclusion means in the K-12 classroom, and highlight the power of working across disciplines. Authentic activities that forced GE and SE teacher candidates to NEED each other in order to prepare better presentations and products resulted in positive experiences of collaboration. Synergies developed that caused teacher candidates to passionately affirm the value of working with their SE or GE counterparts in the schools.

SE and GE faculty who worked to create this environment for students also experienced renewed commitment to inclusionary strategies and practices. The modeling teacher candidates witnessed, as a result of faculty collaboration, further enhanced their understanding and belief in these types of partnerships. Therefore, to truly develop strong collaborative opportunities for teacher candidates, the SE and GE faculty must first take steps to openly and effectively collaborate.

Because of the incompatibility of schedules for SE and GE students involved in this project, the online component of the partnerships was the essential component. Teacher candidates had a venue that transcended the constraints of time and space, allowing for dialogues and plans to evolve in a relaxed, rather than forced, manner. While SE and GE teacher candidates did have face-to-face meetings, much of the richness of their communication occurred online. This type of experience provides them with collaborative strategies that will extend into their life as educators. The hectic schedules of both GE and SE teachers often preclude deeper dialogues regarding student needs. Realizing that online tools such as e-mail, newsgroups, and list-procs are effective alternative forums for teachers dedicated to practicing inclusion is noteworthy.

FEASIBILITY OF REPLICATION 

Offering positive, authentic opportunities for GE and SE students to collaborate during their preservice education is manageable. The process described was undertaken with only minimal changes in efforts of faculty and students. Many colleges already have a separate technology course for special education and general education majors. Some have both types of program majors in the same course. In either case, partnering GE and SE students can be done face-to-face or virtually to encourage the development documented here. If GE and SE programs do not coexist on the same campus, partnerships could be arranged in online environments.

Replicating this model is dependent on strong SE and GE faculty collaboration, a relationship that must be actively pursued and nurtured. If GE and SE teacher candidates are to embrace a philosophy of inclusion, they need to see the comradery of SE and GE faculty come to life in their teacher education programs. Perhaps, a simple beginning to such a model could be achieved through discussions between GE and SE courses to brainstorm connections and issues that could be used to develop meaningful partnerships.

Use of Course Software System

The use of the existing course software systems such as Blackboard provided faculty and students with easy and convenient ways of accessing and disseminating materials and information. For the most part, the use of such technology was very beneficial. Students and faculty used the technology to retrieve course materials, discuss course content, check grades, and take surveys.

However, it should be noted that one major disadvantage of using the existing technology was the use of the survey manager within the Blackboard environment and its default method used to aggregate the data. Obtaining descriptive statistics other than item percentages and number of respondents (N) were not possible. Responses for each item were collected as a group and then reported as percentages. Individual student responses could not be obtained unless it was an open ended format question. Unfortunately this was not discovered until after administering the postsurvey. Researchers inquired about obtaining each participant' individual survey responses but Blackboard administrators indicated that the reporting of individual responses for each item was not possible. The surveys used in this study were set up as multiple choice selections where the student selects a rating of 1-5 or open ended questions where students filled in the blank. If other statistics were to be calculated caution must be taken in the use of such technologies.

CONCLUSION

Collaborative projects across university courses are often equated with extra work and challenges for both the students and faculty. Nontenured faculty are especially cautious about taking risks associated with their courses in fear of lower course evaluation ratings given by their students. This project illustrates that collaborative efforts if creatively integrated across syllabi and using available online technologies can provide students with positive and meaningful learning experiences without increasing an already seemingly unbearable workload for faculty and jeopardizing course scores. Through these interactions, students become motivated to initiate collaborative efforts and share their knowledge and skills. In the same respect they begin to appreciate efforts shared by others. Likewise, faculty enjoy the benefits of sharing in the teaching process and collaborating on ideas and methodology that is often not discussed in the typical semester.

References

Beyerbach, B., Walsh, C., & Vannatta, R. (2001). From teaching technology to using technology to enhance student learning: Preservice teachers changing perceptions of technology infusion. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 105-127.

Bonk, C. (2003-2004). I should have known this was coming: Computer-mediated discussions in teacher education. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 36(2), 95-102.

Edyburn, D. L. (2000). 1999 in review: A synthesis of the special education technology literature. Journal of Special Education Technology, 15(1), 7-18.

Fauske, J., & Wade, S.E. (2003-2004). Research to practice online: Conditions that foster democracy, community, and critical thinking in computer-mediated discussions. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 36(2), 137-153.

Ferris, A., Roberts, N., & Skolnikoff, W. (1997). Technology and preservice education: Models that work, models that don't. Educational Technology Review, 7, 13-19

Hubbard, R.S., & Power, B.M. (1999). Living the questions: A guide for teacher-researchers. York, ME: Stenhouse Publishers.

Kelly, M.G. (Ed.). (2002). National educational technology standards for teachers: Preparing teachers to use technology (1st ed.). Eugene, OR: International Society for Technolgoy in Education.

Kemp, L. (2000). Research in teacher education. Technology competencies in teacher education: An evaluation to guide implementation of beginning teacher technology competencies. (A research report prepared for Minnesota State Colleges and Universities and the Council on Professional Education No. BBB36098). Mankato, MN: Minnesota State University, College of Education.

Mills, G.E. (2000). Action research: A guide for the teacher researcher. Columbus, OH: Merrill.

National Educational Technology Standards for Teachers (2000). Retrieved November 28, 2005, from http://cnets.iste.org/teachers/index.shtml

Pope, M., Hare, D., & Howard, E. (2002). Technology integration: Closing the gap between what preservice teachers are taught to do and what they can do. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 10(2), 191-203.

Schallert, D.L., & Reed, J.H. (2003-2004). Intellectual, motivational, textual, and cultural considerations in teaching and learning with computer-mediated discussion. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 36(2), 103-118.

APPENDIX A SPECIAL EDUCATION CLASS PROJECTS</p> <pre> AT Student Presentation 20 points You will sign up to learn and present a specific device or software program. You will be required to make a 20 minute informative presentation, a sample lesson plan integrating the product, and obtain vendor information/ resources for the entire class. A handout and rubric will be provided to guide you in planning and organizing this presentation. AT Demonstration Videotaping 20 points In your EDTL/EDIS partner groups you are to present the AT device or software program that you had signed up to present to class. You and Your EDTL partner groups will plan to meet and discuss details involved so that your EDTL partners can video tape you. Plan a 15-20 minute presentation (just as for the class presentation) although after editing the actual video tape will be 30-60 seconds in length. As team members, you should work together and share ideas in how to make the presentation informative and interesting. It might be helpful to provide a teacher-friendly introduction and summary to your AT product and share ideas of how it can be implemented in the classroom. You will be critiqued on your group involvement and team work as well as your presentation style and accuracy of the AT product. Group Forums 10 points As special education teachers you will be expected to provide a quality education to all your students, many who will come to you with special needs. Learning to communicate and cooperate with your colleagues in regular education will help your students be successful in the classroom. This semester you will have an opportunity to collaborate with students majoring in Educational Technology Teaching & Learning, and, hopefully, gain valuable skills and knowledge that will better prepare you as an educator. You will be assigned to an group (2 EDTL students from EDTL 302, and 2 EDIS students from this class). Below is a schedule of online discussion forums and activities that you will be participating in together. You will need to meet a few times outside of class in order to present your demo of assistive technology and get videotaped and preview EDTL students' final Hyper Studio projects and provide feedback on making adaptations or considerations for students with disabilities. Otherwise, most of the interaction will be online. AT Resource Notebook 10 points Throughout this course you will be given great resources through student presentations, instructor handouts and notes! You are required to organize these resources into a useful electronic notebook so in the future you can simply reach and grab resources on the run! This assignment should be compiled through the duration of the course and not at the last minute. You may use any headings or organizational system that makes sense to you and that you can easily justify. Tips for Teachers (in class activities) 20 points After a fun and meaningful class discussion or reading the week's chapter assignment--we will reflect and generate a teacher tip or idea on how to design, create or implement Assistive Technology in the classroom. These tips will be completed in class and serve as a participation/attendance check. Note- If absent these tips cannot be turned in nor will a make up assignment be given, therefore points will be lost. </pre> <p>APPENDIX B GENERAL EDUCATION CLASS PROJECTS

Projects and Assignments</p> <pre> Project/Assignment Possible Points Date Due * Reading Assignments 100

all semester * Survey (in my.bgsu.edu) 20 8/25 * Essay (Part II of survey) 30 8/25 * E-mail Assignment 10 8/25 * Tech Proficiency Exam

80 9/15 (must have 70 or higher to receive credit) * Website Evaluation 30 9/15 * Software Fair 40 9/29 * ERIC PowerPoint Project

40 see sign-up sheet * PowerPoint Feedback

30 following each

presentation * Database Project 40

10/20 * Integrated Lesson Plan 50 10/27 * Digital Video Project 40 11/10 * Professional Web Site 100 12/1 * Sample project in eZzediaMX 100 12/15 & 17 </pre> <p>APPENDIX C WEBPAGE INDICATING GE AND SE COLLABORATIVE PROJECTS FOR THE SEMESTER

EDIS Partners

Click here to see group members

As classroom teachers you will be expected to provide a quality education to all your students, many who will come to you with special needs. Learning to communicate and cooperate with your colleagues in special education will help your students be successful in the classroom.

This semester you will have an opportunity to collaborate with students majoring in intervention services, and, hopefully, gain valuable skills and knowledge that will better prepare you as an educator. You will be assigned to an group (2 EDTL students from this class, and 2 EDIS students from EDIS 421). Below is a schedule of online discussion forums and activities that you will be participating in together. You will need to meet a few times outside of class in order to finish the movie on assistive technology and complete the usability test for your final project. Otherwise, most of the interaction will be online.

Forums and/or activities are expected to be completed by 1:00 on the date indicated below, but continued conversations related to these topics and others are encouraged throughout the semester.</p> <pre> T-1/28 * Online discussion with EDIS partners (introductions:

accessibility & web issues): Forum I R-2/20 * Online discussion with EDIS partners (EDIS student demos of assistive technologies-video plans): Forum II T-3/18 * Digital Video Project on Assistive Tech T-4/8 * Online discussion with EDIS partners (EDIS critiques of EDIL 

websites related to accessibility issues): Forum III R-5/1

* Final Project * Usability testing done with EDIS partners (Forum IV) </pre> <p>APPENDIX D PRE SURVEY ADMINISTERED TO BOTH GE AND SE TEACHER CANDIDATES

Beginning Survey [Fill in the Blank]

1. Name

2. Teaching Area or Grades of Interest

3. List some educational software programs that you are aware of.

4. List specific software that can be used to benefit the learning of students with special needs.

5. List specific technology aids (hardware or assistive technology devices) that address specific needs of students with special needs.

6. What bibliographic databases have you used?

7. What browsers and search engines do you use?

8. If you have constructed a webpage, what tools did you use?

9. What database software have you used?

10. What email applications do you use?

11. What presentation software have you used?

12. What spreadsheet applications have you used?

13. What technology-related journals are you familiar with?

14. What types of graphics construction have you done?

15. What word-processing software do you use?

Multiple Choice

Please indicate your current knowledge, skill, and use of the following technologies. Use the numerical scale to indicate your comfort and/or proficiency with each facet. 5 indicating "strongly agree" and 1 indicating "strongly disagree."

1. I feel very confident using e-mail.

2. I am confident using bibliographic databases.

3. I am quite familiar with various software programs for the K-12 class rooms.

4. I am very experienced in creating and using digital graphics.

5. I am very proficient at putting together a web page.

6. I can always find the information I need on the Internet.

7. I can set up and use my own databases very well.

8. I effectively use electronic spreadsheets.

9. I frequently read articles in technology-related journals.

10. I frequently use word-processing software.

11. I know how to use various technologies to address specific special needs of students.

12. In general, I have excellent general computer skills (i.e. using menus, managing files, navigating operating systems, etc.)

Fill in the Blank

1. From this assessment of your current technology expertise, please describe the areas in which you would like to develop additional knowledge and skill this semester.

APPENDIX E POSTSURVEY ADMINISTERED TO BOTH GE AND SE TEACHER CANDIDATES

Multiple Choice

Please indicate your current knowledge, skill, and use of the following technologies. Use the numerical scale to indicate your comfort and/or proficiency with each facet. 5 indicating "strongly agree" and 1 indicating "strongly disagree."

1. I feel very confident using e-mail.

2. I frequently use word-processing software.

3. I can always find the information I need on the Internet.

4. I am quite familiar with various software programs for the K-12 class rooms.

5. I am confident using bibliographic databases.

6. I am very experienced in creating and using digital graphics.

7. I am very proficient at putting together a web page.

8. I know how to use various technologies to address specific special needs of students.

9. I effectively use electronic spreadsheets.

10. I frequently read articles in technology-related journals.

11. I can set up and use my own databases very well.

12. In general, I have excellent general computer skills (i.e. using menus, managing files, navigating operating systems, etc.)

Fill in the Blank

1. If you have constructed a webpage, what tools did you use?

2. List some educational software programs that you are aware of.

3. List specific software that can be used to benefit the learning of students with special needs.

4. List specific technology aids (hardware or assistive technology devices) that address specific needs of students with special needs.

5. What bibliographic databases have you used?

6. What browsers and search engines do you use?

7. What database software have you used?

8. What email applications do you use?

9. What presentation software have you used?

10. What spreadsheet applications have you used?

11. What technology-related journals are you familiar with?

12. What types of graphics construction have you done?

13. What word-processing software do you use?

Short Answer/Essay

1. Explain how this evaluation of your educational technology expertise relates to your development and practice as a classroom teacher. For your own professional development, what areas will you be targeting for growth?

2. In thinking about teaching in an inclusive classroom, how will you approach meeting the needs of all your students, assuring them a successful learning environment?

3. You have learned many aspects of collaboration online with other professionals throughout the semester. Share how these activities will support your work with colleagues in the future.

TARA JEFFS

East Carolina University 

Greenville, NC USA

[e-mail]

SAVILLA BANISTER

Bowling Green State University 

Bowling Green, OH USA

[e-mail]

Table 1 Perceptions of Preservice Teachers' Confidence Ratings for Using
Technology

Technology     Total N =  5 =               3 =                 1 =
Topic          (42)       Strongly   4      Somewhat  2         Strongly
Confident in   21 GE      Agree      Agree  Agree     Disagree  Disagree
Using ...      21 SE      %          %      %         %         %

E-mail         General    Post 100%   0%     0%        0%        0%
               Education  Pre 81%    14%     0%        5%        0%
               Special    Post 96%    0%     0%        0%        4%
               Education  Pre 81%    10%     5%        0%        5%
Word           General    Post 100%   0%     0%        0%        0%
Processing     Education  Pre 67%     5%    14%       10%        5%
               Special    Post 76%   16%     0%        4%        4%
               Education  Pre 43%    48%     5%        5%        0%
Bibliographic  General    Post 29%   47%    12%        6%        6%
Databases      Education  Pre 14%    24%    10%       24%       38%
               Special    Post 4%    24%    44%       28%        0%
               Education  Pre 5%      5%    48%       29%       14%
Internet       General    Post 65%   12%    24%        0%        0%
               Education  Pre 24%    48%    14%       14%        0%
               Special    Post 36%   56%     4%        0%        4%
               Education  Pre 5%     62%    24%        5%        5%
Setup &        General    Post 35%   47%    18%        0%        0%
Using          Education  Pre 0%      5%    24%        5%       67%
Databases      Special    Post 0%    28%    20%       36%       16%
               Education  Pre 0%      5%    33%       24%       38%
Familiar with  General    Post 0%    71%    24%        6%        0%
PK-12          Education  Pre 0%      0%    29%       19%       52%
Software       Special    Post 20%   44%    32%        4%        0%
               Education  Pre 0%      0%    19%       29%       52%
Electronic     General    Post 24%   53%    18%        6%        0%
Spreadsheets   Education  Pre 14%     5%    24%       33%       24%
               Special    Post 4%    60%    28%        4%        4%
               Education  Pre 0%     10%    29%       33%       29%
Frequently     General    Post 0%    18%    35%       24%       24%
read           Education  Pre 0%      0%    14%       19%       67%
technology-    Special    Post 8%    12%    32%       32%       16%
related        Education  Pre 5%     10%    14%       29%       43%
journals
In general, I  General    Post 53%   41%     6%        0%        0%
have           Education  Pre 19%    14%    19%       24%       24%
excellent      Special    Post 16%   44%    40%        0%        0%
computer       Education  Pre 5%     24%    38%       33%        0%
skills

Table 2 Perceptions of Confidence Ratings that Closely Relate to the
Projects' Three Primary Outcomes

Technology    Total N =  5 =              3                   1 =
Topic         (42)       Strongly  4      Somewhat  2         Strongly
Confident     21 GE      Agree     Agree  Agree     Disagree  Disagree
in Using ...  21 SE      %         %      %         %         %

Using and     General    Post 24%  53%    12%       12%        0%
creating      Education  Pre 5%    10%     5%       29%       52%
digital       Special    Post 4%   20%    44%       24%        8%
graphics      Education  Pre 0%     5%    10%       43%       43%
Putting       General    Post 12%  70%    18%        0%        0%
together a    Education  Pre 5%     5%    14%       29%       48%
webpage       Special    Post 0%   20%    28%       28%       24%
              Education  Pre 0%     5%    14%       19%       62%
Technology    General    Post 18%  53%    24%        6%        0%
to address    Education  Pre 5%     0%    14%       29%       52%
special       Special    Post 20%  44%    32%        4%        0%
needs of      Education  Pre 0%     5%    29%       43%       24%
students