From Teaching Technology to Using Technology to Enhance Student Learning: Preservice Teachers' Changing Perceptions of Technology Infusion.

This article uncovers changes that occurred in preservice teachers' thinking about and use of technology infusion and its role in student learning. It reports on findings from a two-year evaluation study of a preservice teacher technology infusion project in which teams of teacher educators and K-12 teachers collaborated to infuse technology in their respective teaching contexts, and to create links between these contexts. Each team created (a) hands-on experiences with computer technology to support constructivist teaching, (b) two-way interactive videoconferencing between college courses and K-12 classrooms, and (c) field experiences in technology rich classrooms. Based on analysis of survey and focus group data, classroom observations, and analysis of preservice teachers' work, findings indicated that preservice teachers changed their views of technology infusion from thinking that they would teach and learn about technology to thinking they would use technology to support student learning. Project design features, as well as implications for future practice, are discussed.

Educators have seen a recent proliferation of initiatives aimed at infusing technology into Teacher Education Programs. Current conditions contributing to this effort are:

1. Recent standards developed by the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) and adopted by the National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE);

2. The NCATE Task Force on Technology in Teacher Education's recommendation that schools of education have a technology infusion plan (NCATE, 1997);

3. The subsequent National Education Technology Standards Project (Thomas & Knezek, 1998);

4. The availability of federal funds from several sources; and

5. The demand of the K-l2 schools for technologically sophisticated teachers.

What is the impact of these initiatives on preservice teachers' learning about teaching? How can technology infusion expand visions of pedagogical possibility? This article uncovers changes that occurred in preservice teacher's perceptions of technology infusion based on evaluation findings from the first and second years of an ongoing Goals 2000 Preservice Technology Infusion Project.

The project design involved a summer institute each year, where teams of education faculty, content faculty, and K-12 teachers worked together to learn about specific computer technologies and their applications, planned for infusing technology into their respective courses, and created links among preservice teachers, and teachers and students in public school contexts. Teams participated in common professional development experiences and were supported during the summer and throughout the year to plan, implement, and assess technology infusion activities. This article describes features which participants identified as components of their technology infusion vision, as well as aspects of the project that supported their learning, will be described.

Findings based on analysis of survey and focus group data, classroom observations, and analysis of preservice teachers' work indicated preservice teachers changed their views of technology infusion from thinking they would teach about technology, to thinking they would use technology as a tool to support student learning.

The project was grounded in beliefs that technology integration in teacher education should provide preservice teachers with:

* hands-on experiences exploring computer technologies and their applications in teaching and learning;

* education courses that model technology integration;

* field experiences in technology rich classrooms (Marshall, 1993); and

* a rich, constructivist vision of technology infusion possibilities (Daniel, 1996; Faison, 1996; Hatfield, 1996; Jonassen, 1995; Pepi & Scheuerman, 1996).

This project was developed based on the NCATE technology standards that preservice teachers be able to:

* operate a computer system in order to use software;

* evaluate and use computers and related technologies to support warranted instructional and assessment practices;

* use computer-based technologies to access information to enhance professional development; and

* integrate computer-based instruction in the curriculum (NGATE, 1997).

RELATED LITERATURE

In designing this project the authors drew from literature on developing effective technology infusion programs in teacher education. The emerging national standards in the field were specifically examined, as well as various exemplary programs cited throughout the literature. Programs and design features that support a constructivist view of teaching, consistent with our School of Education's conceptual framework were particularly reviewed. Finally, literature on effective professional development in designing the learning community on this project was examined.

Research and Standards for Technology Infusion

The project began with the knowledge that lack of information, time, and equipment would likely be the three main obstacles to technology infusion in the classroom (Wetzel 1993 and Parker 1996). Standards adopted by NCATE have guided the development of our School of Education plan for technology infusion, from which this project grew. Benchmarks that should lead to stronger technology infusion programs developed by Northrup and Little (1996) guided the program design and equipment purchases. These benchmarks identified specific objectives for equipment, preservice teachers, graduate students, teacher educators, and inservice teachers; and provided a useful framework for developing a scope and sequence of technology infusion activities within the teacher education program.

Constructivist Orientation

Our School of Education's conceptual framework is rooted in a constructivist view of teaching and learning that strives to support authentic learning for all students with a goal of achieving social justice. We aimed to explore the question raised by Nicaise and Barnes, "How can technology assist educators and students as they work within a constructivist teaching and learning environment?" (1996, p. 205). We purchased software and designed Internet experiences that positioned learners (college faculty, teachers, preservice teachers, and K-12 students) as active constructors of knowledge who engaged in real world problem solving. Social discourse, authentic problems, teacher as facilitator, and student choice were key concepts in developing and assessing technology infusion activities. For example, we planned a listserve, facilitated by the course instructor and participating K-12 teacher, where course participants discussed real problems they were encountering in their practicum settings.

Our work paralleled the efforts of Daniel (1996), Hatfield (1996), McDevitt (1996), and Nicaise and Barnes (1996) in our use of communication technologies such as e-mail and listserves, interactive videoconferencing, multimedia presentation software, simulation software, and Internet exploration to support a constructivist pedagogy. McDevitt (1996) described using interactive videoconferencing between preservice teachers and a classroom teacher, in which preservice teachers observed a lesson and then interacted with the teacher after the lesson. We sought to expand the opportunity described by McDevitt (1996) for preservice teachers to share a common virtual field experience and reflect by way of interactive video conferencing with K-12 teachers. By structuring videoconferencing experience for all participants, preservice teachers actively interacted with K-12 students and their teachers both during and after the lessons they were "observing".

Given the constructivist belief that we learn by doing (Balli & Diggs, 1996), all faculty, teachers, and preservice teachers were expected to infuse technology into their teaching and learning. Technology infusion activities were driven by a constructivist pedagogy where preservice teachers were constructors of their own knowledge, as we aimed to expand our preservice teachers' vision of constructivist teaching and technology infusion.

Effective Professional Development

Finally, we drew from professional development literature calling for professional development to center on creating sustained learning communities where participants have an active voice in determining goals and activities of the project. Multiple strategies for professional development, acknowledgement and support for stages of development, hands on learning with peer support, and constant revision of plans were incorporated (Ficek, 1998; Handler, Strudler, & Falba 1998; Matthew, Parker, & Wilkinson, 1998). In deciding how to structure the professional development component, we further drew on the work of Ennis and Ennis (1995) who identify 12 strategies to motivate technology use. They recommend developing a professional development program that provides ongoing support, coaching, and faculty-driven goal setting for technology infusion. In summary, we drew on literature on barriers and incentives for technology infusion, national standards and exemplars, literature on using technology to enhance construct ivist pedagogy, and literature on effective professional development, to design this Goals 2000 technology infusion project.

METHODS

Overview

This article reports on one component of a larger multi-method evaluation study assessing the impact of a Goals 2000 project on college faculty, classroom teachers, preservice teachers, and K-12 students through attitudinal surveys, classroom observations, examination of course syllabi, and teaching materials, and focus groups. While the larger study seeks to understand the program from the perspectives of the various participants, this article focuses on the responses of one group, the preservice teachers, to the program over two years. Here we summarize survey findings reported elsewhere (1999), and explore in depth, preset-vice teachers' reactions as articulated in focus groups, written comments, and observations.

Local Needs Assessment

To design the professional development experiences and preservice teacher technology infusion model, we relied on a needs assessment conducted in the School of Education, which indicated where faculty were most and least proficient (Vannatta, 1999b). This assessment was based on two surveys that measured level of technology proficiency, frequency and type of classroom integration of technology, course implementation of NCATE technology standards, barriers to technology integration, and desired topics and formats for technology training. A correlational analysis of this data found that faculty members do not need to be proficient in a large variety of technology applications to successfully integrate technology. Instead, knowledge of instructional methods of integrating technology was associated with successful technology infusion, along with proficiency in a few computer applications (Vannatta, 1999b). Thus, we aimed to focus on strategies for technology infusion in the project, supporting the goals of the t eacher educators involved.

Sample

The sample of preservice teachers during the first year of the project included about 60 students and expanded to about 300 during the second year, with the number of faculty participants expanding from three to eight. Table 1 represents the number of faculty, teachers, and activities on each of the project teams in year 1. In the first year of the project, two teams, each consisting of faculty and classroom teachers, revised courses to serve two sections of an undergraduate elementary education methods course plus a graduate special education methods course.

As data in Table 2 indicates, in the second year of the study, the number of teams, courses, and preservice teachers served expanded dramatically. Each

course was linked to a public school classroom by way of video conferencing and/or live classroom observations. Teachers from two elementary and two high schools participated on the design teams with college faculty, planning integrated technology infusion activities, visiting, and coteaching segments of the college courses.

A variety of data sources informed the project and ongoing implementation. Data collected that focused on preservice teachers included:

* pre-post survey data on technological proficiency, use and integration;

* classroom observation data on technology infusion;

* focus group data from education students towards the end of the course on their perceptions of technology infusion activities in the courses and their vision of technology infusion, and;

* samples of student assignments, including listserve discussions about technology infusion.

Students from one section of each faculty member's course were surveyed at the beginning and at the end of the fall semester during class time. Three classes were surveyed in the first year, and eight in the second year. Focus groups of 5-6 students from each class were conducted by the project staff in the first year, and were audiotaped and transcribed (two focus groups for each class for a total of six groups). During the second year, we sought to engage faculty and teacher participants in the data collection and analysis, as well as continue with staff data collection and analysis. Thus, each faculty member conducted one videotaped focus group with his/her preservice teachers, and faculty and staff came together to analyze these. In addition, project staff conducted five audiotaped focus groups. These combined data form the basis for the conclusions drawn in this article.

Data Analysis

Data were analyzed quantitatively and qualitatively to describe and understand changes in pre-service teachers' proficiency, technology integration, and vision of technology infusion. The following were examined:

* the impact of specific technology infusion activities;

* students' perceived proficiency in using technology equipment and applications;

* student perceptions about observations of technology infusion activities in their courses and field placements; and

* student beliefs and vision regarding the importance of education technology as a learning and teaching tool.

An action research model was used in which the research team as well as faculty and teacher participants conducted focus groups, analyzed data for emerging themes, and discussed these in a group meeting. Participants formulated goals for improvement based on student input. An outside evaluation consultant was also used who completed the statistical analysis of the survey findings, and independently analyzed the focus group data for emerging themes.

T tests of related samples were conducted to compare pre and post survey results for each proficiency and overall proficiency, which was the sum of scores of all proficiencies. To triangulate with the focus group data, the evaluator met with the participants for the purposes of member checking to validate themes. This article reports on the synthesis of these data, and represents our shared understandings of themes in participants' responses. The survey data complements the focus group and observational data, describing similar changes in proficiency and technology infusion. The focus group and observational data allows the development of a deeper understanding of preservice teachers' changing visions of technology infusion, as well as how they experienced technology infusion activities.

RESULTS

Professional Development Design, Technology Infusion Activities, and Results for Year I

In this section the professional development design, technology infusion activities in the preservice courses, and evaluation results from the first year of the project is described. The design of the project evolved over two years.

Professional development design. During the first year, the three participating faculty (plus other faculty from the School of Education) and four elementary teachers (a sixth grade teacher, and a team of three fourth grade teachers who team taught an inclusion class) participated in a series of training workshops and collaboratively planned for technology infusion in each of their classrooms. Faculty attended training seminars, based on a needs assessment, on equipment basics, word processing, database, spreadsheet, Internet, and e-mail, content specific software, PowerPoint, HyperStudio, managing technology integration, and assistive technology.

Technology infusion activities. During this first year the elementary teachers infused technology in classroom activities in several units. These were videotaped and shared in the college courses. Table 1 lists the various technology infusion activities in the two courses. Preservice teachers in the college courses observed a variety of technology infusion activities in both the college and public school classroom. They had hands on experience with various software packages, discussed technology infusion integration methods and observed technology rich lessons. The preservice teachers observed instructor demonstrations of various software. The elementary teachers were guests in the college courses, where preservice teachers explored different software and technology applications.

Year 1 findings. Based on survey and focus group findings, students reported significant increases in proficiency (CD-ROM, modem, scanner, database, spreadsheet, drawing, hyper-media, and instructional methods). Students also reported an increase in experiencing the following applications in education courses: computer presentations, discussion groups, content specific software, distance education, drawing, and spreadsheets. In addition, they indicated a need for more focus on instructional methods of integrating technology. The evaluation instruments, statistical analysis, and survey findings are reported in detail elsewhere ( Vannatta, 1999a; Vannatta and Reinhart, 1999).

Focus group results from preservice teachers during the first year were mixed. Students understood the concept of integration, but had trouble expressing a vision of a technologically rich classroom. They commented, "We learned about it but never got to apply it." Students maintained a vision of a technology-rich classroom as one that has "lots of computers for students to spend lots of time on, playing games and tutorials." Faculty felt they had exposure to many programs, but insufficient mastery to integrate these into their courses. They therefore tended to rely on external presenters to infuse technology. Preservice teachers saw technology as an "add on" in their courses; they saw the project as beneficial but wanted much more exposure in their program and wanted to see technology integration.

Design, Professional Development Activities, Technology Infusion, and Results for Year 2

Design. As a result of the first year evaluation, changes in the structure, focus, and goals of the project occurred. First, we planned an institute where four teams of college faculty and area teachers came together to build community around the shared goals of the project, develop their own professional goals and action plans for technology infusion, and collaboratively develop plans for further professional development and technology infusion activities. Involvement was continued with the sixth grade classroom (albeit with a new teacher), and with the three teachers from the fourth grade classroom from the first year, and added a high school English classroom as well as an integrated, secondary Math/Science/Technology classroom team taught by a math, a science, and a technology teacher. These teachers met with college faculty as follows--one technology faculty as well as a physics professor who served as a consultant (paired with the MST teachers), three elementary methods faculty (paired with the sixth gr ade teacher), a language arts faculty teamed with an English professor/consultant (paired with the high school English teacher), and two science education and one special education faculty (paired with the fourth grade team).

Professional development activities. These four teams spent three full days together in May, 1998 where they observed presentations by project directors on the evaluation results from year 1, planned for technology infusion that addresses the New York State standards, and agreed on assessment of technology infusion. They also observed/participated in presentations by area teachers who were successfully infusing standards-driven technology into their teaching. They examined rubrics and performance tasks that assessed technology integration within the context of the NYS standards, and formulated goals, objectives, activities, and assessment strategies for the upcoming year. They selected from an array of professional development workshops offered by the county and college, participated in weekly open labs as needed throughout the summer (hosted by the project directors). They reconvened for two full days in August to pilot the videoconferencing equipment through a practice videoconference; to share technology i nfusion plans for the semester through PowerPoint presentations; and to participate in hands-on sessions with computer software, the scanner, and digital camera.

During the fall, faculty and teachers implemented technology infusion activities and conducted the pre/post surveys and focus groups. An open lab was continued weekly to provide technical support, and there were onsite visits as needed. The project participants met in December to analyze focus group data and plan for spring.

Technology infusion. Table 2 summarizes technology infusion activities for each course. In the elementary science methods course, a videoconference occurred in which preservice teachers observed fourth graders participate in an inquiry-based bottle biology project they had also completed (with technology infusion modeled). Preservice teachers and fourth grade students and their teachers interacted live, in small groups by way of the videoconference. Preservice teachers in this course also used information on the course website, explored science education resource materials on the Internet, and participated in learning centers in which content specific software was used.

In the elementary methods course preservice teachers participated in a videoconference with a sixth grade that was learning HyperStudlo to complete a scientist research project, interacted with students and teacher during and after the lesson, examined the standards-linked lesson plan and assessment rubric for this lesson, participated in a course listserve throughout the semester, explored resources on the Internet for unit planning, critiqued a variety of educational software in a hands-on session in the computer lab, conducted group investigations and shared PowerPoint presentations on these, and planned/implemented/assessed at least one technology infusion lesson in their public school practicum placement.

In the elementary reading methods course preservice teachers participated in a videoconference with the high school English class, communicated through e-mail with a high school key pal, observed PowerPoint presentations, and used the Internet for instructional planning. The MST team experimented with PowerPoint and other software as they spent the bulk of the semester developing the integrated MST high school course for implementation in the spring. In the spring, preservice teachers observed high school students engaged in problem-solving research projects in which they used the Internet for research, as well as used PowerPoint presentations integrating photos they took with digital cameras to share their research results.

Year 2 findings. Prior to the project most preservice teachers reported moderate to high proficiency in general computer use, word processing, e-mail and Internet. T tests of related samples indicated significant increases in all proficiencies except LCD panel use, including overall proficiency (p [less than]001). See (1999) for a complete report of the survey findings. One of the largest increases occurred in the area of instructional methods of technology integration, which rose from 15.9% to 68.9%, consistent with the goals of the year two participants. This addressed the main suggestion of preservice teachers during the first year evaluation process.

Focus groups findings as well as results from examining the pre/post qualitative question on the survey that focused on changes in preservice teacher's vision of technology, suggested a number of common themes across preservice teachers' experiences in these courses. Though there were differences across sections/instructors in technology infusion experiences and responses, for the purposes of this article we have identified common themes across students' experiences. Widespread themes were:

"We Want More!"

Students in all sections of all courses expressed many positive aspects of the technology infusion activities. Many thought that their previous experiences had been limited to word processing for papers. One commented, "Everything was new to me. All I do is word processing and e-mail." Students commented that their elementary students or younger siblings knew more about computers than they did. In every course, students indicated that they needed more learning about computer technology, sooner in their programs, that they needed a separate course in it, as well as needed to see it infused in all their education courses and field experiences. One student commented, "I've changed this semester. I never thought of using computers before this class. Words don't always lure children....Hands-on work is beneficial. Children know more about computers than we do."

Students commented positively on the videoconferencing, Internet assignments, exploring content specific software, using presentation software, participating on the listserve, and how to infuse these into the curriculum. They commented that the technology exploration gave them an awareness of not only what was available and accessible, but also how programs might be adapted to support curricular objectives. They found using technology to support their own learning beneficial, and derived explicit strategies for infusing technology in their own teaching. However, while they felt what they experienced was highly beneficial, many suggested they needed much more, much earlier in their program to be prepared to enter today's schools.

"We Have No Choice."

Many expressed the inevitability of computer use--"I have no choice but to take computer classes, we need it to get a job." "It's everywhere!" some commented. Many also expressed anxiety about their lack of preparation. "I'm behind" commented a student, "Whether I like it or not I have to learn this!" Another commented, "It's the wave of the future." One student reflects:

Most of my teachers in high school absolutely detested technology. I remember my history teacher when the Internet was new. He said there was absolutely no way he was ever going to have a computer in my classroom and let us go online. This Thanksgiving when I went to visit him, I was shocked to see a computer in his classroom and see him on the Internet. When I asked him he said, 'Well I guess I had to get into the nineties somehow."'

Students felt that knowledge about using computer technology was absolutely essential on the job market, and while most embraced it, all felt it was mandatory in the teaching profession.

"I Need Step-By-Step Instruction!"

Another theme was students discussing how they learned about computer technology. Many voiced an appreciation for opportunities to explore programs hands-on, with step-by-step guidance from someone who knew what they were doing. "I'm the type, I need to do it to learn," commented many.

"Walk me through it." was a pervasive response. Although many expressed initial anxiety at what they were expected to learn and do, most reported that step by step instruction, collaboration, and the opportunity to explore contributed to their success. One student commented that although initially anxious, she "nearly fainted" at the high quality of her own and other groups' PowerPoint presentations.

"Collaboration is Essential!"

In addition to step-by-step instruction, many thought that collaboration with peers was essential to their learning. One said, "Collaboration was the key to the whole program. Some people are stronger on some areas than others. It gave me a way to think about what I am going to do in my classroom." Another commented, "Using technology gives you an opportunity to communicate and collaborate." Students described using e-mail for group meetings and sharing experiences on the listserve. They noted that "Everyone was willing to share tricks, shortcuts, and cool stuff like graphics and Internet sites." Students commented that they observed such collaboration modeled by their instructors.

"Technology Is Wonderful!"

By and large, students saw technology as something to enhance their teaching, to motivate students, to make learning more interesting, to address various learning styles, to open up new worlds that cross geographic boundaries, and to improve student learning. Students tended to base these claims on their own observations and impressions, rather than substantiate them with systematic evidence or research. That is, in general, students took a noncritical stance towards technology and what it can do.

There were very few examples of a more critical perspective, and these came from the section (Reading Methods) where the professor and high school teacher were themselves more critical about the role of technology, and fearful that students wouldn't maintain a focus on reading and writing processes when using technology. One student commented

I think technology is important but there are a couple of things that I noticed in my practicum, things that I guess are cautionary. Every kid was assigned a password for an account. Every time they got on a computer they'd spend two minutes logging on, checking their e-mail for another two minutes. Then they have all the bells and whistles on Microsoft where you can change your cursor. Everybody had to change their cursor from the normal blank to a dinosaur or something like that. That's ten minutes for getting on line, not goofing off, but personalizing your computer. If you could just get a bland, ordinary Microsoft program without all the bells and whistles it might help to better manage the time. They also did a resume project and half the questions were about resumes and the other half of the questions were how to work the program.

We would have liked to see more critique of how computers were being used and more careful inquiry into the benefits for students and teachers.

"Before I Thought... and Now"

Changing visions of technology infusion were evidenced in many students in their pre and post responses on the surveys, and in the focus groups. Many students began courses with a narrow view of technology and how it might be used in the classroom. "I thought the teacher would assign a paper and the students would type it," and "I only used technology for word processing and e-mail" were characteristic statements. Students said their vision of technology had "drastically changed." They saw technology as "breaking down barriers of geography." They commented on using technology as a resource for professional development, for example, "I found resources for lesson plans and learning centers." Students commented that they had a growing repertoire of technology infusion techniques including Internet use, spread sheets, database presentation and multimedia software, subject specific software, and listserves. They described how this expanded their vision of activities they might use to support their own students' l earning.

Students commented on their changing notions of the role of the teacher. Before, some thought technology would be taught in the computer lab. Now they saw themselves as facilitators, using technology to enhance student learning. "Before this class I didn't know how to use technology without making it the main focus. Now I can really see it being part of my teaching" one commented. Many students commented on tremendous growth in confidence--"I can do this!"

IMPLICATIONS

Technology Infusion Throughout the Program to Support the Conceptual Framework

As a result of all the authors have learned on this project, both the program and the evaluation have been revised to focus more closely on instructional methods for infusing technology. Most preservice teachers and faculty recommend expanding technology integration to more education courses earlier in the program. To do so in an effective way, the authors are developing a course-linked scope and sequence of technology infusion experiences, based on the NCTM standards (1997) and benchmarks developed by Northrup and Little (1996). Rather than focusing on the use of a broad array of software, faculty and students will continue to focus on instructional methods for integrating a much narrower array of appropriate applications. Following the NCATE Task Force on Technology recommendations, the focus will be on planning for technology infusion that reinforces the School of Education's conceptual framework, which focuses on authentic learning for all students with an aim towards social justice (NCATE, 1997).

Development of a Critical Perspective Regarding the Role of Technology in Supporting Constructivist Teaching and Learning

Now that more faculty and students are using technology in their teaching, the focus will shift yet again towards a more critical analysis of using technology to support learning outcomes within a model of inquiry-based learning. We will seek to engage participants in exploring the questions raised by scholars such as Pepi and Sheuerman (1996), who offer a critical perspective on technology use.

In the future, the evaluation will examine more closely preservice teachers' pedagogical choices in infusing technology and their development of a vision of a consiructivist technology infusion approach. Preservice teacher multimedia learning environments such as those described by Bliss and Mazur (1996), Hatfield (1996) and Daniel (1996) will continue to be explored, while continuing to use Internet research and multimedia authoring tools which position preservice teachers and their students as constructors of knowledge. The development of media literacy (Thomas, 1998) in preservice teachers and their students will be promoted.

Focus on Assessment of Preservice Teacher and Student Outcomes

Assessment practice has shifted from focusing on teacher practice to developing performance assessments based on student learning outcomes (NCATE, 1997). As Harrington points out, "Programs focusing on learning are different from programs focusing on teaching" (1991, P. 50), and technology infusion practice should reflect those differences. Preservice teachers will be engaged in critically examining the learning outcomes of their students in technology supported instruction, through designing developmentally appropriate, standards-based performance tasks (NAEYC, 1996) Electronic portfolios will be explored as a means of representing and sharing preservice teacher and their students' work (Cooper, 1998; Jackson, 1998). Students will be worked with to help link this technology-supported instruction to the workplace, highlighting how applications are used in the world outside of school. Research will focus on examining how technology is changing pedagogical practices, as recommended by Windschill (1998).

Using Technology to Support Teaching for Social Justice

In response to faculty commitment to using technology to support teaching for social justice, the focus will be specifically on using technology to expand preservice teachers' understanding of diversity, equity awareness (e.g. Weinman & Haag, 1998), and cultural responsiveness, using a variety of interactive communication technologies (e.g. Farley, 1998), Internet resources, teaching strategies (e.g., social action projects and virtual gatherings) software (e.g., Decisions, Decisions: The Environment, described in Ryan, Sweeder, and Bednar, 1998) and multimedia environments (Allen, 1997; Anst Sequin, 1998; Barber-Freeman, 1997; Beasley, Wark, & Zimmerman, 1998; Chisholm, 1997; Ford, McClure Dobyns, & Poe, 1997; Ryan, Sweeder, & Bednar, 1998). We will continue to provide opportunities for the use of two-way, interactive videoconferencing between and among diverse contexts as a support in developing and expanding inclusive learning communities (Thomas, Clift, & Sugimoto, 1996).

Choice: Empowerment or Constraint?

Finally, a vision of technology infusion that empowers, rather than constrains, students and preservice teachers as active participants in their own learning will continue to be promoted. The authors were quite inspired by both preservice teachers and high school students who told them that technology allowed them far more choices and direction in their own learning. However, the authors were also disturbed by preservice teachers' perceptions that they "had no choice" in whether to infuse technology--they simply "had to." This perspective, coupled with a somewhat noncritical belief that technology was "the answer" in solving many of the problems facing the schools, was worrisome.

Not only did the preservice teachers voice a lack of control over technology use, but one teacher on the project, who teaches in the richest district with plentiful technology, also voiced such lack of choice. She told horror stories of her students who were often breaking down in tears due to the pressures of being expected to develop multimedia presentations in four or five classes at a time. They were experiencing system crashes, failed back-ups, account restrictions (due to inappropriate use) with no revisions by teachers of assignment expectations, and a great deal of stress. She also reported on extreme pressure placed on teachers to use technology. Their use was monitored and reported out to the school in terms of how many users were on for how many hours a day in each classroom, as well as how many hours of inservice training each teacher had attended (the average for the district is 130 hours per teacher). Clearly, this teacher saw technology as a constraint. In fact, she had to fight to justify her nonuse at times. Her perspective was a contrast to the other teachers on the project, who were so grateful to finally have some computer equipment (due to the grant) and spoke of how it empowered learners. As we move forward on the project, we need to promote and listen for a sense of agency and empowerment (or lack thereof) in technology infusion activities.

SUMMARY

The authors have learned that technology infusion to enhance teaching is a multifaceted process that takes time, support, and collaboration. A team approach, with practitioners from the K-12 and arts and sciences and education university faculty, undergraduate, and graduate students has been a fruitful model for infusing technology both into teacher education and the area schools where the students study and learn by doing.

References

Allen, K.W. (1997). Enhancing multicultural education with technology. Technology & Teacher Education Annual, 1997, Charlottesville, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.

Anast Sequin, C. (1998). Using live teleconferences to promote diverse perspectives. Technology and Teacher Education Annual, 1998, Charlottesville, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.

Balli, S., & Diggs, L. (1996). Learning to teach with technology: A pilot project with preservice teachers. Educational Technology, 36(1), 56-61.

Barber-Freeman, P.T. (1997). Technology and cooperative learning: Enhancing African American females' mathematical experiences. Technology and Teacher Education Annual, 1997, Charlottesville, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.

Beasley, M., Wark, A., & Zimmerman, S. (1998). Gender equity model: High school female students and technology awareness. Technology & Teacher Education Annual, 1998, Charlottesville, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.

Bliss, T., & Mazur, J. (1996). Common thread case project: Developing associations of experienced and novice educators through technology. Journal of Teacher Education, 47(3), 185-90.

Chisholm, I.M. (1997). Six criteria for technology integration in multicultural classrooms. Technology and Teacher Education Annual, 1997, Charlottesville, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.

Cooper, S.B.(1998). Electronic diagnostic portfolios: Advantages and disadvantages of this technological approach. Technology & Teacher Education Annual, 1998, Charlottesville, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.

Daniel, P. (1996). Helping beginning teachers link theory to practice: An interactive multimedia environment for mathematics and science teacher preparation. Journal of Teacher Education, 47(3), 197-204.

Ennis, W. III, & Ennis, D. (1995). One dozen ways to motivate teacher education faculty to use technology in instruction. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 12, 29-33.

Farley, R.P. (1998). A tale of two schools. Educational Leadership. 56 (5), 39-42.

Faison, C.L. (1996). Modeling instructional technology use in teacher preparation: Why we can't wait. Educational Technology, 36(5), 57-59.

Ficek, R. (1998). Instructional technology training: Multiple strategies for multiple learning styles. Technology and Teacher Education Annual, 1998, Charlottesville, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.

Ford, M.J., Dobyns, S.M., & Poe. V. (1997). Using the Internet and children's literature to understand cultures. Technology and Teacher Education Annual, 1997, Charlottesville, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.

Handler, M., Strudler, N,. & Falba, C. (1998). Supporting faculty in efforts to integrate technology into teacher education. Technology & Teacher Education Annual, 1998, Charlottesville, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.

Harrington, H (1991). Normal styletechnology in teacher education: Technology and the education of teachers. Computers in the Schools, 8, 49-57.

Hatfield, M. M. (1996). Using multimedia in preservice education. Journal of Teacher Education, 47(3), 223-228.

Jackson, D. (1998). Developing student generated computer portfolios. Technology and Teacher Education Annual, 1998, Charlottesville, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.

Jonassen, D.H. (1995). Supporting communities of learners with technology: A vision for integrating technology with learning in schools. Educational Technology, 35(4), 60-63.

Marshall, G. (1993). Four issues confronting the design and delivery of staff development programs. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 10(1), 4-10.

Matthew, K., Parker, R., & Wilkinson, L. (1998). Faculty adoption of technology: Stages of concern. Technology and Teacher Education Annual, 1998, Charlottesville, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.

Mc Devitt, M.A. (1996). A virtual view: Classroom observation at a distance. Journal of Teacher Education, 47(3), 191-195.

National Association for the Education of Young Children, (1996 Septmber). NAEYC position statement: Technology and young children--ages three through eight. Young Children, 11-21.

National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (1997). Technology and the new professional teacher. Washington, DC: National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education.

Nicaise, M., & Barnes, D. (1996). The union of technology, constructivism, and teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 47(3), 213-222.

Northrup, P.T., & Little, W. (1996). Establishing instructional technology benchmarks for teacher preparation programs. Journal of Teacher education, 47, 213-222.

Parker, R.D. (1996). Integrating faculty use of technology in teaching and teacher education. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Mid-south Educational Research Association, Tuscaloosa, AL (ERIC Document Reproduction Number ED 406 341)

Pepi, D., & Shuerman, G. (1996). The emperor's new computer: A critical look at our appetite for computer technology. Journal of Teacher Education, 47(3), 229-237.

Ryan, F.J., Sweeder, J.J., & Bednar, M.R. (1998). Technology and the moral sense: Re-wiring moral education. Technology and Teacher Education Annual, 1998, Charlottesville, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.

Thoman, E. (1998). Skills and strategies for media education. Educational Leadership,56(5), 50-54.

Thomas, L. Clift, R.T., & Sugimoto, T. (1996). Telecommunications, student teaching, and methods instruction: An exploratory investigation. Journal of Teacher Education, 46(3), 165-174.

Thomas, L.G., & Knezek, D.G. (1998). National educational technology standards. Educational Leadership, 56(5), 27.

Vannatta, R.A. (1999a). Goals 2000 technology infusion project: Evaluation of year 2. Evaluation report available from Vannatta, Bowling Green, OH: Bowling Green State University.

Vannatta, R.A. (1999b, March). Evaluating NCATE technology standards implementation in a school of education. Paper presented at the annual SITE Conference, San Antonio, TX.

Vannatta, R.A. & Reinhart, P.M.(1999, March). Integrating, infusing, modeling: Preparing technology-using educators. Paper presented at the annual SITE Conference, San Antonio, TX.

Wetzel, K. (1993). Teacher educators' uses of computers in teaching. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 1(4), 22-27.

Weinman, J., & Haag, P. (1998). Gender equity in cyberspace. Educational Leadership, 56(5), 44-49.

Windschitl, M. (1998). The WWW and classroom research: What path should we take. Educational Researcher, 27(1), 28-32.

               Course Faculty/Teacher/Preservice/Student
                      Participants and Technology
                Infusion Activities for Year 1 Presevice
                            Teacher Courses.
Elementary Methods Team              Special Education Methods Team
2 College faculty,                   1 College faculty,
1 sixth grade teacher in a           3 fourth grade teachers In a
self contained class                 team-taught, inclusion class
with 25 students.                    with 50 students.
2 sections at 25 preservice          1 section with 11 preservice
teachers.
teachers per Section
Technology Infusion Activities       Technology Infusion Activities
Observe via video, sixth grade       Observe instructor demon-
teacher implement a technology       stration of PowerPoint.
rich
trading card project, a book
review
project, and a mini-metric           Explore assistive software (CO-
Olympics lesson using spreadsheet.   Writer, Naturally Speaking).
                                     Observe HyperStudio and
                                     database demonstrations.
Hands on software assessment.
                                     View videotape of mini- metric
Participate in simulation of         Olympics. Develop and share
mini-metric
Olympics integrating technology,     lessons integrating technology.
Discuss technology infusion          Interact with fourth grade
                                     teachers
integration methods.                 who visited their course and
                                     supported software and technology
Critique technology rich lesson      applications.
plans.
                 Course and Faculty/Teacher/Preservice
                    Teacher/Student Participants and
                     Technology Infusion Activities
                       for Year 2 of the Project
Elementary            Special               Science
Methods               Education             Methods
                      Methods
3 faculty             1 faculty             2 faculty
1 Gr. 6 teacher       3 fourth grade        3 fourth grade
                      teachers              teachers
75 preservice         15 preservice         150 preservice
teachers per          teachers per          teachers per
semester              semester              semester
25 gr. 6 students     50 gr. 4 students     50 gr. 4 students
Technology            Technology            Technology
activities            activities            activities
Videoconference       Video analysis        Devrloped website
with sixth grade.     of fourth grade       for course: Schedule,
                      inclusion classroom.  assignments, resources
Listserve
discussion.           PowerPoint            Videoconferences with
                      demonstration and     4th grade inclusion
Students developed    hands-on practice.    class for 6
units infusing tech.                        sections of course.
                      Used Internet to
Demonstration of      conduct research.     Conducted an
database or                                 introductory model
spreadsheet,          Demonstrated and      science unit on
PowerPoint,           provided hands on     ecosystems that
HyperStudio.          experience with a     integrated
                      variety of adaptive   technology:
Instructor wbesites   software packages     Children's
facilitated Internet  (Co-writer,           Encyclopedia.
search, assignment    Naturally Speaking,   Internet,
completion.           and Inspiration).     and SimPark.
Elementary            Elementary           Technology
Methods               Reading              Methods
                      Methods
3 faculty             2 faculty            2 faculty
1 Gr. 6 teacher       1 H.S. English       3 MST H.S.
                      teacher              teachers
75 preservice         30 preservice        19 preservice
teachers per          teachers per         teachers
semester              semester
25 gr. 6 students     25 gr. 9 students    15 h.s. students
Technology            Technology           Technology
activities            activities           activities
Videoconference       Videoconference      Demonstrated
with sixth grade.     with ninth grade     Power Point.
                      English class.
Listserve                                  Used spreadsheet
discussion.           E-mail pen pals      for grading.
                      with ninth grade
Students developed    students.            Students used a variety
units infusing tech.                       of applications
                      Students were        to create a three-fold
Demonstration of      paired with ninth    brochure on philosophy
database or           grade students to    of education and
spreadsheet,          assist them in       technology
PowerPoint,           conducting research
HyperStudio.          using the Intrenet.  Students used digital
                                           camera and digitized
Instructor wbesites   Created Web Pages    images to create
facilitated Internet  to facilitate        student profiles.
search, assignment    assignment
completion.           conpletion.          Students created
                                           templates to assist
                      Teachers who         teaching.
                      infuse technology
Lab time for         Demonstrated and    Used Power         were guest
ploration            provided hands-     Point to teach     speakers
of software.         on experience       lessons.
                     with Simpark and
                     Children's          Developed
                     Encyclopedia        learning centers
Learning centers                         that incorporated
infused technology.                      technology.
                     Visited fourth
Student presenta-    grade inclusion     Students used
tions using presen-  classroom.          the internet
tation software                          to conduct
(Inspiration,                            research.
PowerPoint, Hyper    Demonstration of
Studio).             technology
                     applications for
Students shared      math:
websites.            Spreadsheet and
                     KidPix.
Students taught
lessons infusing
technology.          Students
                     developed lesson
Students             plan integrating
researched           technology, and
technology           presented these in
infusion.            a poster session
Lab time for
ploration            Students
of software.         presented
                     Power
                     Point
Learning centers
infused technology.
Student presenta-
tions using presen-
tation software
(Inspiration,
PowerPoint, Hyper
Studio).
Students shared
websites.
Students taught
lessons infusing
technology.
Students
researched
technology
infusion.