Infusing technology skills into a teacher education program: change in students' knowledge about and use of technology.

        Policymakers agree a key objective of instructional technology
        research efforts must be to help ensure the 2.2 million new
        teachers needed in the next decade have the skills to select and
        use instructional technology effectively. This research study
        supports the work of teacher educators who took a critical and
        systematic look at how their early childhood/elementary program
        prepares its teachers to meet current technology standards
        (ISTE, 2000). A unique part of the program is the absence of
        stand-alone technology courses in favor of total integration of
        technology into the other courses. The purpose of the study was
        to assess the effectiveness of technology infusion in the
        initial certification program for 43 early childhood/elementary
        teachers. The focus was on technology skills that prospective
        teachers should develop prior to student teaching. A
        mixed-methods approach to data collection garnered information
        from faculty, course syllabi, and preservice teacher
        self-assessment surveys. Confirmation of findings was evident
        across the data sources. Results indicate the effectiveness of
        integrating deliberately scaffolded hands-on experiences and
        increased modeling of technology to elevate future teachers'
        ability to select and use appropriate technologies in the
        instructional setting.

Computers have played a critical role in educational settings for several decades and yet, a 1999 study reported that only 20% of the 2.5 million public school teachers feel comfortable using computers in the classroom (U.S. Department of Education, 1999). This has been corroborated by more recent reports including Doherty and Orlofsky (2001) who stated that educators must focus more attention on how to effectively use existing technology in the classroom. Such findings have led school districts to provide instructional technology training for their teachers. Research indicates such technology training efforts can enhance self-confidence in the use of instructional technology (Russell & Sorge, 1999). However, evidence is less clear that these training efforts result in more competent teachers who are able to select and use instructional technology more effectively. Policymakers agree a key objective of instructional technology research efforts must be to help ensure the 2.2 million new teachers needed in the next decade have the skills to select and use instructional technology effectively. Further, these evaluative efforts would include a closer examination of the public school teacher's skill level and disposition to use appropriate technologies (Milken Exchange on Education Technology, 1999).

On a more positive note, the U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (2000) reported that new graduates from teacher education programs are more likely to indicate that college course-work prepared them to use computers in the classroom. This suggests that teacher education programs have made training in the uses of instructional technology a priority (Gunter, 2001; Smith, 2001).

The International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) has had some influence on this process by revising its' standards for teachers. The current document, the National Education Technology Standards for Teachers (NETS-T) is important because it outlines key technology skills student teachers should possess by the end of predictable phases in the teacher preparation process (ISTE, 2000). These include (a) skills that prospective teachers should have prior to entering a teacher preparation program, (b) skills that prospective teachers should develop during the terms prior to student teaching, (c) skills that prospective teachers should develop during student teaching, and (d) skills that a teacher should develop by the end of the first year of full-time teaching. There are six core standards related to a teacher's current phase of preparation. The standards are:

1. technology operations and concepts,

2. planning and designing learning environments and experiences,

3. teaching, learning and the curriculum,

4. assessment and evaluation,

5. productivity and professional practice, and

6. social, ethical and legal and human issues (ISTE, 2000).

Specific indicators under each standard verify competency of each, differing in their level of sophistication at each point in time during the teacher education program. Having such a guide encourages teacher educators to think of technology competencies as developmental and as being achieved prior to, during, and after course-work in the teacher education program.

Perhaps a more tangible factor helping to foster increases in amount and quality of technology instruction in teacher education programs is the effort by universities to address this issue through the Preparing Tomorrow's Teachers to Use Technology PT3 program. The study described in this article was supported by a U.S. Department of Education PT3 grant.

CONTEXT

In 1999, the U.S. Department of Education awarded a Preparing Tomorrow's Teachers to Use Technology PT3 grant to the College of Education. The Department of Early Childhood Education (ECE), a unit that prepares P-5 teachers, had a history of infusing technology into its teacher education program (Weinburgh, Smith, & Smith, 1997), but this grant gave the ECE faculty an opportunity to revisit the ECE curriculum with a more critical and systematic look at how the College prepares its teachers to meet the NETS-T technology standards. This has in fact resulted in an alignment of requirements with the national education technology standards and an agreement among faculty to build technology seminars into courses each semester of the program to ensure that all certification candidates are comfortable using technology. A unique part of this teacher preparation program is the general absence of stand-alone technology courses, in favor of total integration of technology into the other courses (Hargrave & Ying-Shao, 2000; Weinburgh, Collier, & Rivera, 2003).

To help preservice teachers learn and use increasingly sophisticated technologies, skills were identified and defined by the Early Childhood Education faculty and then taught to the preservice teachers in the technology seminars. After skills were modeled in the classroom and taught in seminars, preservice teachers were required to demonstrate their technology proficiency. For example, faculty presented course content using PowerPoint and/or Microsoft Excel. Soon after, students participated in a technology seminar in which they learned these particular programs and were subsequently required to use these packages in a follow-up assignment. Simpler technologies that were mastered early in a course provided scaffolding for mastery of more complex technology applications later in the course. Overall, the complexity of the technology used to successfully fulfill assignment requirements increased as students progressed through the program. This progress builds on suggestions by Milken (1999), and others who posit that the integration should be provided through more hands-on experiences and increased modeling of technology by faculty regarding content and methods (Office of Technology Assessment, 1995; Panel on Educational Technology, 1997). It also reinforces relevant research on how adults learn (Knowles, 1990; Merriam & Caffarella, 1991; Zemke & Zemke, 1995).

The purpose of the current study was to assess the effectiveness of technology infusion in the initial certification program in the ECE. Specifically, the authors asked four research questions relevant to the skills that prospective teachers should develop during the terms prior to student teaching (NETS-T, phase two):

1. What technology skills do university faculty believe should be taught during the terms prior to student teaching?

2. What technologies are infused into the program?

3. How and with whom do preservice teachers use these technology skills? and,

4. How do preservice teachers' technology skills change between the beginning of the program and the term before student teaching?

METHODS

Subjects

The participants were 43 early childhood/elementary education majors in their junior and senior years at an urban university in the southeastern U.S. They were admitted to the teacher education program during the Fall 2000 term having completed the first two years of university requirements. For each of three 16-week terms, the students remained together in their cohort and took all of their courses as a fixed group. They began their student teaching during their fourth term in Spring 2002. The cohort was 98% female, 77% white, and 78% were between the ages of 20 and 25.

Instruments/Data Sources

Quantitative and qualitative data were collected during this investigation. Quantitative data was collected using three surveys. The Technology Use Survey and the I am a Learner Survey were used to capture self-reported data on the preservice teachers. The Faculty Survey of Technology Priorities and Expectations, was used to obtain faculty opinion about, which point in the undergraduate program, students should be expected to possess the particular skills from the Technology Use Survey. This instrument also gave an indication of the alignment between faculty views and the NETS-T. Qualitative data in the form of course syllabi were collected to determine technology introduced to and used by preservice teachers in the three semesters prior to student teaching.

The Faculty Survey of Technology Priorities and Expectationsea is an instrument created by the researchers and derived from the Technology Use Survey. That is, the 12 items composed for faculty, mirror the 12 items on the survey that students completed. These items attend to ISTE Standard V: professional and personal use, Standard I: technology operations and concepts, and Standard VI: societal, ethical, and human issues. The following two statements reflect the range of skill development in one of the 12 items, basic computer operation: Students should know how to ... "Use the computer" and "Troubleshoot successfully when basic problems with my computer or printer occur."

Syllabi described course content and more specifically, technology incorporated into each existing course in the initial certification program. Course syllabi represented a range of subjects including: Introduction to Early Childhood Education, Science and Inquiry, Classroom Management, and Cultural Diversity in the Classroom.

The Technology Use Survey contains 12 items adapted from the Professional Competency Continuum developed by the Milken Exchange on Educational Technology (Coughlin & Lemke, 1999). Areas addressed include basic computer operation, file management, word processing, spreadsheet use, database use, graphics use, Internet use, telecommunications use (e.g., e-mail), ethical use understanding, information searching, video production, and use of imaging devices. For each item, there are three or four descriptors ordered from least to most complex. The students were asked to choose the descriptor that best captured their level of preparation at the time the inventory was given. The Chronbach's alpha for those items was .71 indicating that scale reliability is within permissible bounds.

The I am a Learner Survey is a 22-item instrument with five scales (fluency, strengthening basics, higher level abilities, motivation, and relevancy) also adapted from a 25-item survey developed by the Milken Exchange on Education Technology (Coughlin & Lemke, 1999). The survey items were designed to assess student perceptions of their current status (or level of preparedness) and the importance (or value) of various program content for their preparation as future teachers. Chronbach's alpha for these items was .95 indicating that the reliability is within permissible bounds.

Procedures

Time was allotted at a faculty meeting for all thirteen members of the ECE undergraduate faculty to complete the Faculty Survey of Technology Priorities and Expectations. Instructions were given verbally and appeared on the survey. Faculty were reminded that the NETS-T divides teacher development into four phases. They were also reminded that the statements to which they were responding were the same statements to which ECE students responded on the Technology Use Survey. Faculty indicated whether they believed students should first possess the skill "P" (prior to entering the College of Education), acquire it during the first ("1"), second ("2"), third ("3"), or fourth ("4") term of teacher preparation.

Electronic versions of all syllabi distributed to students during the first, second, and third semesters of coursework were collected. A total of 12 syllabi, approximately four per semester were reviewed.

The Technology Use, I am a Learner and demographic surveys were administered to the students at one regular class meeting during the first week of their first term in the teacher education program (preprogram assessment). During each of the three terms in the teacher preparation program preservice teachers were exposed to technology in the form of seminars, modeling by professors, and course and field assignments involving technology integration. The surveys were then administered at the completion of program coursework (postprogram assessment) during the last week of the third term, just prior to student teaching. This period corresponds to the second phase of technology development of the NETS-T. That is, skills assessed were those that prospective teachers are expected to develop prior to the culminating student teaching experience. The focus on this stage in the development of teachers underscores the congruency between the technology component of the ECE program and the NETS-T.

Preservice teachers were asked to respond to the Technology Use Survey by indicating their perceptions of their current level of technology use in twelve general technology areas. For each area, they selected their level of technology use from a corresponding behaviorally anchored scale. They responded to the I am a Learner Survey in two ways. Students were asked to respond using a five-point Likert scale to indicate their current status on all items and then to indicate the relative importance of each item. The possible responses were: 1 (strongly disagree), 2 (disagree), 3 (neutral), 4 (agree), and 5 (strongly agree).

Data Analysis

Thirteen undergraduate faculty members (100%) responded to the Faculty Survey of Technology Priorities and Expectations. Surveys were analyzed by calculating the response percentages. Faculty opinions about which point in the undergraduate program preservice teachers should be expected to possess specific technology skills, were then compared with course syllabi and student self-reported levels of technology use, preparedness, and perceived importance for each general technology area.

All syllabi were examined for evidence of technology requirements. Triangulation (Lincoln & Guba, 1985) was established by examining 12 syllabi over three semesters. Qualitative analyses included developing a coding system for analyzing syllabi content according to the four research questions. All references to technology were further coded for quality by rating each instance as requiring a generally high, medium, or low level of sophistication in student use of technology to complete in-class or field assignments. The constant-comparative method (Strauss & Corbin, 1990) also guided the research process as emergent themes were created from a cross-comparison of data from each syllabus.

The Technology Use Survey was analyzed to see if there were differences between student responses at the beginning and end of the program and, if so, whether the differences were significant. Cross tabulations were used to examine the quantity of responses at each level and to identify movement in the profile of the cohort across general areas of technology use. In addition, Chi-squares were computed to compare the change in technology proficiency of participants from time 1 (pre) to 2 (post) data. Data were reported as frequencies, percentages, and chi-squares.

The I am a Learner Survey was also analyzed to see if there were differences between student responses at the beginning and end of the program. Using a paired t-test, means for each item were calculated for the preservice teachers' reporting of their current status and item importance. A cross-tabulation between time 1 (pre) and 2 (post) was used to determine the profile of the cohort. In addition, the difference (or gap) between current status and relative value at the beginning of the program and again at the end of the program was calculated. Data were reported as means and t values.

RESULTS

Faculty Survey of Technology Priorities and Expectations

On this survey, faculty indicated at which point during their college education, students should possess a given technology skill. Overwhelmingly, faculty agreed that students should begin teacher education courses able to use a computer to (a) run preloaded programs and select, open, and save documents, (b) word process assignments, and (c) access the Internet and e-mail systems. Most thought the other skills outlined on the survey should be taught within teacher education courses during the semesters prior to student teaching. For example, file management, accessing school web sites and following links to other Internet resources, graphics use and imaging device use were considered by faculty to be important prestudent teaching technology skills. Further, they indicated that only the most sophisticated skills (e.g., spreadsheet use, database use, creating one's own web site, and using editing equipment) should be taught during student teaching.

Course Syllabi

Qualitative analysis of the teacher education program syllabi showed that student technology acquisition, use, and application were regularly required. The assumption by faculty that students should come into the teacher education program with particular skills is reflected in the syllabi of term one. Likewise, increasingly complex skills are reflected in the types of technology experiences described in the syllabi for the three terms prior to student teaching. All course syllabi contained a technology statement indicating that technology would be for instance, "incorporated into every aspect of learning."

Syllabi content revealed the integration of technology into the learning process across courses. This was primarily expressed through requirements of participation in technology seminars, and preservice teachers' application of technology in preparing assignments or in conducting class and field-based activities with children. Faculty also provided additional statements on their syllabi that conveyed their general expectation for technology use. There were standard expectations for preservice teacher use of e-mail, Internet sites, and word processing packages as early as the first semester. Additional requirements included statements such as, "students will integrate the use of technology into their instruction" and "technology should be integrated into assignments that discuss key concepts and terms relevant to cultural diversity and multicultural education." These findings corroborate results from the faculty survey described earlier.

Analysis revealed that appropriate technology integration in and across early childhood content instruction was the focus for all syllabi. For example, in a content specific assignment, preservice teachers designed a series of lesson plans on developmentally appropriate science concepts for eight and nine year olds. The preservice teachers had to include the use of technology (usually seen as interactive web sites) by the children. During the process of implementing the lessons, preservice teachers also used Microsoft Publisher and digital cameras or scanners to document children's activities and record data about how their third-graders came to understand science concepts. When published, the "Science Newsletter" was sent home to parents or care-givers as a way of communicating how children were using technology to learn science concepts and problem solving skills. An example of integrating technology across content areas was the Individual Education Plan (IEP) intervention. This project required preservice teachers to identify and teach an elementary child with a particular academic or behavioral difficulty or exceptionality. Each preservice teacher created an electronic database of classroom observations and possible intervention ideas for the child. Then, using online professional sites and other interactive resources to supplement their knowledge of individual learning needs and appropriate early childhood concept development, they designed and implemented an IEP. After using technology to identify the child's difficulty and create an intervention, preservice teachers were also required to construct and provide a PowerPoint presentation illustrating the child's progress for their peers by way of laptops and light projectors (Meyers & Collier, 2002).

Findings from 8 of the 12 syllabi indicated that participation in technology seminars was required. These seminars were designed to target technology skills needed to complete in-class or field assignments. Workshops progressed from basic (e.g., digital camera and Internet site evaluation in semester one) to more challenging levels of technology use (e.g., PowerPoint III and web site design in semester three). One professor in the second semester group of courses stated, "You are expected to actively participate in these professional seminars and demonstrate competency in these areas through your assignments and teaching." Each workshop was designed to teach the preservice teachers how to use the hardware or software and how to help children use it.

Several syllabi from the second and third semesters required students to use specific skills that they had previously learned in a first semester seminar. One professor stated, "Your report must include pictures from a digital camera, scanned, or downloaded from the Internet." Likewise, preservice teachers were required each semester to self-assess by observing themselves teaching a lesson through the use of videotape, a beginning skill that had been introduced in semester one. Preservice teachers in their third semester used the Internet to determine which e-standards corresponded to appropriate math concept development for children grade one through five. For example, they located the National Council for Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) e-standards to investigate correct geoboard use in various grade levels. The NCTM site has electronic geoboards as well as other electronic manipulatives. Having used this site as a resource for themselves, preservice teachers then developed a lesson where children used the electronic geoboards.

Technology Use Survey

Quantitative analysis comparing the data collected from preservice teachers when they entered the program (presurvey) and at the end of three terms (postsurvey) indicated that all preservice teachers increased their level of technology use in every area. Additionally, Chi square analysis revealed significant differences at the .01 level in 10 of the 12 categories. While technology proficiency was reached by all preservice teachers at the desired levels for the majority of categories, there was not sufficient change between the pre and post data collection for word processing and database use.

I am a Learner Survey

This inventory was examined to see if there were changes in preservice teacher perceptions of their technology use, and in the relative importance they placed on that particular behavior. A significant increase between pre and postratings of current status was found for all 22 items (p < .01). Significant increases were also found for 16 of the 22 ratings of relative importance (13 items at p < .01 and 3 items at p < .05). Analysis of the difference between ratings in the two categories over time indicated that the gap between the ratings was closing in 21 of the 22 items. In other words, the disparity between student technology use, and their value of that skill, was decreasing.

Preservice teacher self-report of technology fluency, basics, higher-level abilities, and application (relevancy) indicated that perception of their ability had improved between the beginning of the program and the third semester. All items illustrated movement in the expected direction. These findings support the positive trend in results found on the Tech Use Survey.

DISCUSSION

What technology skills do university faculty believe should be taught during the terms prior to student teaching? Results from the Faculty Survey of Priorities and Expectations supported data from the syllabi showing that faculty believed students should enter the program with fundamental skills. From the beginning of the syllabi analysis it was clear that the ECE faculty expected (a) word-processed assignments, (b) student communication using the cohort listserve, and (c) individual e-mail to the teaching faculty. All professors used their e-mail account as the primary way of corresponding with students. The faculty survey and the course syllabi reflect faculty belief that preservice teachers were ready to learn and integrate increasingly high level computer skills into their student presentations, teaching, and building of resources for future teaching.

The ECE faculty visit elementary classrooms several days each week and are aware of the level of technology available in most schools. They are also mindful of the types of tasks that most inservice teachers are expected to do. This may explain why the faculty did not think that the students needed to know how to "use databases to organize and analyze data," or "have a web site" until student teaching. Few elementary teachers currently have ready access to school servers with the capacity to support individual teacher web sites. Therefore, it is not surprising that faculty believe that students should possess these skills upon graduation but see that other technology skills should take precedence during the first three semesters of teacher preparation.

The survey did not query faculty as to whether they believed preservice teachers needed to learn software programs for videotape editing and production. However, creating "original videotapes for home or school projects" was prioritized by the majority of faculty as a skill to be learned in the first semester of teacher education. While new software programs such as iMovie and Premier make editing possible without a lot of equipment, unfortunately, few elementary schools currently use these programs. Faculty may introduce the software, however, it remains unlikely that preservice teachers will have an opportunity to use the programs in their field experiences unless they personally invest in the software package.

What technologies are infused into the program? This research question was answered based on the quantitative analysis of the Tech Use Survey and qualitative analysis of the syllabi. Survey data confirmed that preservice teachers were developing their proficiencies in basic computer use, file management, spreadsheet, graphics, and Internet use, telecommunications, ethics, information searching, video production, and imaging devices. Syllabi analysis affirmed that preservice teachers are introduced to and use a variety of technologies as technology seminars were strategically placed throughout coursework. Microsoft Publisher, PowerPoint I, II, and III, Inspiration, WebQuest, laser disc, digital camera, scanner, videotape, World Wide Web (WWW or Web) and web site design are all examples of network technology and software that preservice teachers learn during their undergraduate training.

Content faculty reinforced skills through demonstration, university classroom activity, and assignments to be used with children. They introduced preservice teachers to skills that can easily replace tasks that elementary teachers have always done, but done manually. For example, using Internet sites and Inspiration software as tools to "map" out thematic instruction replaced the traditional method of using pencil and paper to organize related subject matter lessons. Faculty also provided opportunities for preservice teachers to apply technology literacies acquired earlier in the program to meet the academic or behavioral needs of individual children when they designed an Individual Education Plan. By habituating less complex skills earlier in the program, it is hopeful that preservice teachers become predisposed to using technology in increasingly challenging ways.

How and with whom do preservice teachers use these technology skills? Qualitative analysis of syllabi data, in particular, indicated that preservice teachers used their increasingly sophisticated skills in a variety of capacities. Throughout the program, students viewed videotape as a means of reflecting on their own teaching confidence and accuracy. As time passed, they videotaped peer lessons and debriefed the experience collaboratively with the peer who was captured on tape. In semester two, preservice teachers studied the development (e.g., physical, cognitive, etc.) of children ages 5-7 by electronically collecting, recording, and analyzing classroom activity and then creating PowerPoint presentations to convey their findings to peers. As their technology literacy improved, preservice teachers used various software programs such as Inspiration and MapMaker to aid in the creation of developmentally appropriate lesson plans for children grades K-5. Using WebQuest, for example, preservice teachers created online social studies assignments for children to interact with and complete on the computer. They employed digital or scanned photographs of the children's learning activities to document their science concept development and to communicate home to parents about childrens' progress at school. In another instance, preservice teachers created databases on individual children with academic or behavioral difficulties or exceptions and consulted professional resources on the Web to design tailor-made lessons for them. They tracked the child's evolution and recorded it using electronic graphs, tables, and spreadsheets. Finally, they used a presentation package to illustrate the child's progress to other professionals. All in all, preservice teachers moved from using low-level skills like e-mail to coordinating several technology resources into developmentally appropriate instruction for children in the elementary classroom.

How do preservice teachers' technology skills change between the beginning of the program and the term before student teaching? This research question was answered based on the findings from all three surveys and the syllabi. Tech Use and I am a Learner survey analyses show the technology skills indicated by the preservice teachers just prior to student teaching were substantially more sophisticated than those self-reported at the onset of the program. The data suggest that all preservice teachers gained technology skills, and in 10 of the 12 categories on the Technology Use Survey students reported their status at the highest level of proficiency. Lack of significant difference in word processing can most likely be attributed to the fact that preservice teachers were entering the program with a higher proficiency in this area. Less emphasis by faculty on database use in the first three semesters may account for the lack of significance in this category. The I am a Learner Survey analysis also indicated that preservice teachers made gains in the expected direction, suggesting that their belief about their proficiency in and the value of a particular skill became increasingly positive in the time between the beginning and end of coursework.

Further confirmation of these advances can be found in the systematic review of the syllabi data. The complexity of technologies used to successfully fulfill course and field requirements increased as the preservice teachers progressed through the program. Simpler skills that were addressed in the first semester, for example, provided the necessary scaffolding for mastery of more sophisticated technology applications in the second and third semesters.

Unexpected positive outcomes emerged when faculty expectations were compared to preservice teacher skill levels at the end of the program. For example, a few faculty members felt that sophisticated use of spreadsheets, databases, and video taping/editing was not necessary until student teaching. However, the students showed remarkable gains in spreadsheet use, with 51% indicating that they did use them. In contrast, the number editing original videotapes and creating/using databases was much lower (16% and 9%) and more nearly matched the faculty expectations. This is consistent with syllabi that show that creating and using databases was covered within a workshop on spreadsheets during the second term. Although students were asked to videotape themselves frequently for self-analysis, they were not asked to edit these tapes. It may be unrealistic to expect preservice teachers' responses to indicate any larger shift in these two areas given the limited emphasis put on them during the program.

The faculty indicated that they did not believe that students needed to have their own web site before student teaching and yet 86% of the students reported that they did have one. Despite general faculty opinion, syllabi analysis revealed that students were taught to make a web site late in the third term and then required to create their own and load it on the university server. It is probable that the students considered this as "having a web site" even though they were not required to maintain it. It will be interesting to follow this item into their student teaching and first year to see if they continue to maintain their individual site.

An overwhelming majority of students appraised their level of competency higher on the postsurveys than they had on the presurveys. This implies that very few preservice teachers had a false sense of competency at the beginning of the teacher education program. The increases in technology competencies also parallel the skills that were most stressed by the faculty on the expectations survey and in the course syllabi.

IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Teacher education programs can contribute to the development of teachers who have the abilities to acquire, select, and use instructional technologies effectively. This study suggests that teacher educators need to act as a cohesive unit. When they take seriously the alignment of daily training experiences with national technology standards (NETS-T), faculty are poised to attend to their collective expectations. It is important to note that as future students enter their college programs with more previous exposure to technology, the specific skill development needed during their college tenure may look increasingly different. This fact however, does not change the idea that when the focus is on program content as a whole, the result is a learning context in which technology skill development is a natural outcome of seamless integration.

Teacher educators are able to make a difference in preservice teacher technology skill acquisition and development if they are willing to infuse technology education into existing curricular subjects (Hargrave & YingShao, 2000; Weinburgh, Collier, & Rivera, 2003). Accordingly, a key recommendation for teacher educators is to consider that technology literacy no longer be acquired through a series of discrete, perhaps isolated courses, but integrated in and across the curriculum content. Evidence from the syllabi analyses in this study specifically point to the effectiveness of integrating deliberately scaffolded hands-on experiences and increased modeling of technology throughout the duration of the preservice program (Milken Exchange on Educational Technology, 1999; Office of Technology Assessment, 1995; Panel on Education Technology, 1997). This is confirmed by survey data reporting that preservice teachers' level of proficiency increased between the beginning of their teacher education program and the semester prior to student teaching. Therefore, a supporting recommendation for teacher educators is to design programs that provide preservice teachers with multiple, real-world opportunities to learn and apply technology skills systematically and constructively in order to scaffold the mastery of more sophisticated technologies. The main objective is future teachers' improved disposition toward and fitness to select and effectively use appropriate technologies in a variety of professional applications.

It is hopeful that this model results in a cadre of beginning teachers who are much more likely to continue using the technology skills that they have become accustomed to using at the preservice level. Subsequent research should include program evaluation in order to determine how graduates of teacher education programs are using their technology competencies in the daily life of the classroom.

Table 1

Change in Student Response on the Technology Use Survey Upon Entering
the Program and Prior to Student Teaching (N = 43)

Technology Levels by Area     Pre       Post     [chi square] (1)

                             N   %     N   %

I. Basic Computer Use

I do not use a computer.     0   0     0   0

I use the computer to run   10  21.7   1   2.3
a few specific, pre-loaded
programs.

I run two programs          19  41.3  13  30.2   7.73 **
simultaneously, and have
several windows open at
the same time.

I trouble-shoot             17  37.0  29  67.4
successfully when basic
problems with my computer
or printer occur. I learn
new programs on my own.
Technology Levels by Area     Pre       Post     [chi square] (1)

                             N   %     N    %

II. File Management

I do not save any            0   0     0    0
documents I create using
the computer.

I select, open and save     23  50.0   7   16.3
documents on different
drives.

I create my own folders to  13  28.3  18   41.9  11.31 **
keep my files organized
and understand the
importance of a back-up
system.

I move files between        10  21.7  18   41.9
folders and drives, and I
maintain my network
storage size within
acceptable limits.

III. Word Processing

I do not use a word          0   0     0    0     0.91
processing program.

I occasionally use a word    3   6.5   1    2.3
processing program for
simple documents. I
generally find it easier
to hand write most written
work that I do.

I use a word processing     43  93.5  42   97.7
program for nearly all my
written projects.

IV. Spreadsheet Use

I do not use a              11  24.4   6   14.0
spreadsheet.

I understand the use of a   26  57.8  15   34.9
spreadsheet. I create
simple spreadsheets and
charts.

I use spreadsheets for a     8  17.8  22   51.2  41.01 **
variety of record-keeping
tasks. I use labels,
formulas, cell references
and formatting tools in my
spreadsheets. I choose
charts, which best
represent my data.

V. Database Use

I do not use a database.    18  40.0  13   30.2   2.70

I understand the use of a   20  44.4  17   39.5
database and locate
information from a
pre-made database.

I create my own databases.   6  13.3   9   20.9
I define the fields and
choose a layout to
organize information I
have gathered. I use my
database to answer
questions about my
information.

I teach others to create     1   2.2   4    9.3
and use databases to
organize and analyze data.

Technology Levels by
Area

VI. Graphics Use

I do not use graphics in     2   4.3   0    0
my word-processing or
presentations.

I open, create, and place   16  34.8   5   11.9
simple pictures into
documents using drawing
programs or clipart.

I edit and create           16  34.8   8   19.0   8.43 **
graphics, placing them
into documents to help
clarify or amplify my
message.

I display visual data       12  26.1  29   69.0
using a variety of tools
and programs.

VII. Internet Use

I do not use the Internet.   0   0     0    0

I access school and          5  11.1   0    0     4.95 **
district web sites. I
follow links from these
sites to other Internet
resources.

I use lists of Internet     39  86.7   5   14.0
resources and make
profitable use of Web
search engines.

I have a Web site.           1   2.2  37   86.0

VIII. Telecommunications
Use (E-mail)

I do not have an e-mail      0   0     0    0
account ..

I have an e-mail account     7  15.2   0    0     7.10 **
but I rarely use it.

I send messages using       39  84.8  43  100.0
e-mail. I check my e-mail
account on a regular
basis.

IX. Ethical Use
Understanding

I am not aware of any        1   2.2   0    0
ethical issues surrounding
computer use.

I know that some copyright  30  66.7  17   39.5   7.64 **
restrictions apply to
computer software use.

I model ethical usage of    14  31.1  26   60.5
all software.

X. Information Searching

I am unlikely to seek        2   4.4   1    2.3
information when it is in
electronic form.

I conduct simple searches   16  35.6   3    7.0  11.05 **
with the electronic
encyclopedia a

I have learned how to use   27  60.0  39   90.7
a variety of search
strategies on

XI. Video Production

I do not use a video        16  34.8   4    9.3
camera.

I create original           26  56.5  32   74.4   8.28 **
videotapes for home or
school projects.

I create original            4   8.7   7   16.3
videotapes using editing
equipment.

XII. Imaging Devices

I do not use imaging        12  26.7   2    4.8   7.72 **
devices such as scanners
or digital cameras.

I use imaging devices such  33  73.3  40   95.2
as scanners or digital
cameras.

Note: In items VII (post) and XII (post), please note that one
participant did not choose to respond.

* p<.05.
** p<.01.

Table 2

Average Current Status and Relative Importance Ratings on the I am a
Learner Survey Upon Entering the Program and Prior to Student Teaching
(N = 43)

                              Status (S)             Importance (I)

                        Pre  Post  [t.sub.(42)]  Pre  Post  [t.sub.(42)]

Fluency

I am proficient in the  3.5  4.3     7.58 **     4.5  4.6     0.77
use of technology
hardware.

I use technology to     4.1  4.7     6.00 **     4.5  4.7     1.99
access and process
information.

I can select the        3.8  4.5     7.41 **     4.5  4.6     1.34
appropriate technology
or media for a given
task.

I have developed        3.3  4.0     4.88 **     4.3  4.5     2.12 *
troubleshooting
skills.

I am able to apply      3.5  4.4     6.25 **     4.4  4.7     2.81 **
technology to learning
in innovative ways

Strengthening Basics

My achievement is       3.6  4.4     7.29 **     3.9  4.4     3.99 **
accelerated through
the use of
instructional
technology

My use of technology    3.2  4.1     8.13 **     3.7  4.1     3.28 **
has deepened my
understanding of
content

My use of technology    4.3  4.9     3.59 **     4.3  4.8     5.18 **
has improved the
quality of my products

My use of technology    3.4  4.2     7.91 **     3.7  4.2     4.79 **
has provided
opportunities for
increased
problem-solving skills

Higher Level
Abilities

I use interactive       3.0  3.7     6.99 **     3.6  4.0     4.02 **
computer-based systems
to solve problems

I can produce/build     2.9  4.1     9.17 **     3.7  4.2     5.20 **
dynamic products

I use technology to     3.7  4.5     8.13 **     4.2  4.6     4.17 **
represent concepts
visually

I am skilled at         3.7  4.7     9.89 **     4.5  4.9     3.59 **
teaming and
collaboration

Technology has          4.2  4.6     3.11 **     4.5  4.8     2.61 *
increased
opportunities for
communication and
improved the quality
of such communications

Technology has          3.3  4.0     6.71 **     3.7  4.2     4.43 **
increased the
incidence of
insightful, complex
questioning

Technology has          3.6  4.0     3.47 **     4.0  4.2     1.95
improved the ability
to forecast results

Motivation

Technology has          3.8  4.4     5.99 **     4.2  4.4     1.95
increased my active
and independent role
in learning

Technology has          3.9  4.3     2.99 **     4.3  4.5     1.98
resulted in increases
in authentic
student-designed
projects

Technology has          3.9  4.5     6.32 **     4.2  4.5     2.56 *
resulted in increases
in complex,
interesting projects

Relevancy

Technology has          3.4  4.5    11.45 **     3.9  4.5     5.32 **
increased
opportunities for
engagement in real
world problems

Technology has          3.7  4.3     5.38 **     4.0  4.5     4.85 **
increased the
opportunity for
meaningful application
of content

Technology has          4.2  4.6     4.34 **     4.5  4.6     3.67 **
increased my access to
current/primary
sources

Note: * p <.05.
** p <.01.

Note

This research was supported by the U.S. Department of Education, Preparing Tomorrow's Teachers to Use Technology PT3 grant awarded to Georgia State University, College of Education.

References

Coughlin, E.C., & Lemke, C. (1999). Professional competency continuum: Dimension 3. In K. O'Riordan (Ed), Technology in American schools: Seven dimensions for gauging progress. Milken Family Foundation.

Doherty, K. M., & Orlofsky, G. F. (2001). Student survey says: Schools are probably not using educational technology as wisely or effectively as they could. Education Week, 20(35), 45-48.

Gunter, G.A. (2001). Making a difference: Using emerging technologies and teaching strategies to restructure an undergraduate technology course for preservice teachers. Education Media International, 38(1), 13-20.

Hargrave, C.P., & Ying-Shao, H. (2000). Survey of instructional technology courses for preservice teachers. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 8(4), 303-314.

International Society for Technology in Education. (2000). National Educational Technology Standards Project: National standards for technology in teacher preparation. [Online]. Available:http://www.iste.org/Standards/NCATE.found.html

Lincoln, Y.S., & Guba, E.E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Knowles, M.S. (1990). The adult learner: A neglected species (4th ed.) Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing.

Meyers, B., & Collier, S.T. (2002, February). Best practices and emerging technology: Preservice teachers create online individual education plans. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association of Teacher Educators, Denver, CO.

Merriam, S.B., & Caffarella, R.S. (1991). Learning in adulthood: A comprehensive guide. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

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

Office of Technology Assessment (1995). Teachers and technology: Making the connection. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Panel on Educational Technology (1997). Report to the President on the use of technology to strengthen K-12 education in the United States. Educational Technology Review, 8, 26-27.

Russell, J., & Sorge, D. (1999). Training facilitators to enhance technology integration. Journal of Instruction Delivery Systems 13(4), 6-9.

Smith, S.B. (2001). Teacher education: Technology 101: Integration beyond a technology foundations course. Journal of Special Education Technology, 16(1), 43-45.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory, procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (2000). Teachers; Tools for the 21st century: A report on teachers' use of technology (NCES 2000-102). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. [Online]. Available: http:/nces.ed.govpubsearchpubsinfo.asp?pubid=2000102

U.S. Department of Education (1999). Preparing tomorrow's teacher to use technology. [Online]. Available: http://www.edu.gov/teachtech/

Weinburgh, M.H., Collier, S.T., & Rivera, M. (2003). Preparing elementary teachers: Infusing technology as recommended by the International Society for Technology in Education's National Educational Technology Standards for Teachers. TechTrends, 47(4), 43-47.

Weinburgh, M.H., Smith, L., & Smith, K.H. (1997). Preparing early childhood education majors to infuse technology into the teaching of mathematics and science. TechTrends, 42(5), 43-45.

Zemke, R., & Zemke, S. (1995, June). Adult learning: What do we know for sure? TRAINING Magazine, 31-40. Minneapolis, MN: Lakewood Publication.

SUNYA COLLIER

Georgia State University

USA

[e-mail]

MOLLY H. WEINBURGH

Texas Christian

USA

MARK RIVERA 

Georgia State University

USA