Using handheld-computers and probeware in a Science Methods course: preservice teachers' attitudes and self-efficacy.

This study investigates conditions and factors that affect preservice teachers' decisions to use handheld computers in scientific investigations and explores aspects of student learning and classroom practices that would be affected by handheld-based science activities. A Handheld-Based Laboratory (HBL) was designed to model strategies for integration of mobile technology into Science Methods courses and to create a conceptual change in preservice teachers' attitudes towards technology. Participants included 21 preservice teachers in a Science Methods course. Five conditions that can affect the integration of handheld technology for instruction and learning emerged from this study: (a) classroom and school environment, (b) teachers' technological background and predisposition, (c) students' prior knowledge and experience, (d) open and engaging curriculum, and (e) access to handheld computers as learning tools. Use of handheld-based science activities also enhanced preservice teachers' inquiry abilities, organizational skills, engagement in science content learning, and attitudes and self-efficacy.

**********

Current trends in educational reform require teachers to be proficient in science and technology (International Society for Technology in Education [ISTE], 1991, 1999; International Technology Education Association [ITEA], 2000, Thomas & Cooper, 2000). The National Science Education Standards indicate that "the relationship between science and technology is so close that any presentation of science without developing an understanding of technology would portray an inaccurate picture of science" (National Research Council, [NRC], 1996, p. 190; see also American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS], 1990). Consequently, teachers need to be prepared to integrate technology into their teaching, and colleges of education have an increasingly important responsibility to prepare them (NCATE, 1997). One of the more recent developments in instructional technology is that of handheld computers. These small devices are mobile and flexible in their use, allow for dynamic collaboration between multiple users, and real-time data collection in scientific investigations when associated with probeware. The unique nature of handheld technology allows for almost seamless integration of technology in a learning environment, and this requires professional preparation. The current study investigates under what conditions preservice teachers make decisions about handheld technology integration, and how this integration enhances inquiry-based instruction in a science methods course and affects their attitudes and feelings of self-efficacy.

Research indicates that it takes a great deal of education and experience to achieve a comfortable level of expertise in the use of technology as a tool for helping students learn (Coley, Cradler, & Engel, 1997; ISTE, 1999; Milken Family Foundation, 2001; NCATE, 1997; Thomas & Cooper, 2000; U.S. Department of Education, 2000). Yet, technology does not permeate the typical student's preservice education experience. Reasons for the lack of technology integration in teacher education programs are manifold. For one, social cognitive factors exist that affect a preservice faculty member's choice to integrate technology into his or her courses (Dusick, 1998; Snider, 2002). These include environmental factors such as support, sharing of resources, and training, as well as personal social cognitive factors like "faculty attitude, anxiety, self-efficacy, willingness to make a time commitment and face the risks involved with using technology, competency, beliefs and perceptions of the technology's relevance, and lack of knowledge" (Dusick, p. 123). Second, the resistance of inservice teachers (who act as cooperating teachers in the preservice teacher training programs) to the institutionalization of educational technology can become a major obstacle in the process (Medcalf-Davenport, 1999; Strudel & Wetzel, 1999). Third, because technology changes so quickly, "recommended best practices are a constantly moving target" (Cooper & Bull, 1997, p. 97), making matters more complicated. As a result, it is crucial for preservice educators to be flexible and "evaluate the use of technology as a process of change" (Snider, p. 231).

One of the more recent developments in educational computing is that of handheld devices. Even though graphing calculators have been around for a long time and over 80% of high school mathematics teachers report using them for classroom instruction (Burrill et al., 2002), the push to introduce portable computers in other subject areas and grade levels has emerged in the last five years with the arrival of small devices that have a wide variety of computing capabilities. Leaders in the handheld industry, using initiatives such as the Palm Education Pioneer (PEP) program and the TI/NCSS Strategic Alliance, have promoted the influx of palm-size devices in schools, as current research shows that computer use and student learning gains are "closely associated with having computers accessible in teachers' own classrooms" (Becker, Ravitz, & Wong 1999; Marx et al., 2000; Norris & Soloway, 2005; Norris, Sullivan, Poirot, & Soloway, 2003; Soloway et al., 2001), and a 1:1 student to computer ratio is needed to make computing in schools truly personal and effective. For many school districts attaining this ratio is a financial impossibility (Norris & Soloway, 2005). Handheld computers which cost a fraction of the price of desktop and laptop computers can provide schools with a more realistic alternative for technology integrating and meeting the challenges of improving student achievement (Hennessy, 1997; Robertson et al., 1996; Sharples, 2000a).

Handheld computing differs fundamentally from the more traditional desktop computing environment in that users "interacting with a mobile system interact with other users [and] interact with more than one computer or device at the same time" (Roth, 2002, p. 282; Cole & Stanton, 2003; Danesh, Inkpen, Lau, Shu, & Booth, 2001; Mandryk, Inkpen, Bilezkjian, Klemmer, & Landay, 2001). Roschelle and Pea (2002) highlighted three ways handheld devices have been used to increase collaborative learning: (a) classroom response systems; (b) participatory simulations; and (c) collaborative data gathering (Danesh et al., 2001; Mandryk et al., 2001; Roschelle, 2003). For example, one fifth-grade teacher has taught a classroom simulation about the Great Depression combining 1:1 handheld computing with five desktop computers and digital imaging devices (van 't Hooft & Kelly, 2004). As this example shows, the introduction of handheld devices in a learning environment that already incorporates technology does not automatically lead to the replacement of existing equipment, but complements that technology and amplifies its importance. Norris and Soloway (2004), described this type of environment as the "handheld-centric classroom," a place where teachers and learners have access to personal and shared digital tools making up a total technology infrastructure that promotes project-based learning. This type of ubiquitous computing supports artifact creation and revision, collaboration, learning in context, and managing and coordinating the use of multiple resources. Finally, because of their small size, handheld computing devices no longer constrain the user like laptops do, and could become lifelong-learning tools (Inkpen, 1999; Sharples, 2000b).

PURPOSE AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS

The purpose of the Handheld-Based Laboratory (HBL) was to model strategies for integration of handheld technology into a Science Methods course with the intention of changing preservice teachers' attitudes towards technology integration. The study explores conditions that affect preservice teachers' decisions to use handheld computers in scientific investigations as well as aspects of student learning and classroom practices that would be affected by handheld-based activities. The following research questions guided the investigation: (a) What conditions will enable preservice teachers to integrate handheld technology in their future classrooms? (b) What aspects of preservice teacher learning and classroom practices are affected most by handheld-based science activities? (c) How does the integration of handheld-based science activities affect preservice teachers' attitudes and self-efficacy toward handheld-based activities in their classrooms?

METHODOLOGY

Research Design

A mixed method combining qualitative naturalistic investigation and one-shot pretest posttest quantitative design was used (Caracelli & Greene, 1993; Creswell, 2002) to measure overlapping, but distinct facets of preservice teachers' attitudes toward handheld-based science activities and the conditions in which these occur. Quantitative data was collected to illustrate or clarify results from qualitative data (Greene, Caracelli, & Graham, 1989).

Participants

A total of 21 preservice teachers (17 undergraduate students and 4 graduate students), registered for an undergraduate Science Methods course, participated in the study. The sample was 90% female, 10% male, 76% Caucasian, 14% African-American, and 10% Hispanic. The study took place in a science methods laboratory of a College of Education in Ohio.

Technology Integration in the Methods Course

The course focused on the use of handheld technology and probeware for science learning, for example, asking questions, information retrieval, experimenting, problem solving, data gathering, representation, and analysis, networking, and assessment (National Research Council [NRC], 1996). Performance assessment and self-assessment were used to evaluate student knowledge and skills specific to handheld-based science activities. All activities and assessments were aligned with the National Science Education Standards (NRC), Ohio's Academic Content Standards (State Board of Education, 2003), and the ISTE standards (ISTE, 1991). To create a ubiquitous computing environment, the HBL used in this study consisted of five handheld computers, the Science Explorations with Palm Handhelds activity book, probeware (Pasco's PowerLink interface with pH, conductivity, dissolved oxygen, and temperature sensors), and DataStudio Software. Fifteen handheld-based experiments such as exploring temperature, acid-base titration, salt solution conductivity, and energy transfer were employed. Students also used wireless laptops to access relevant science background content knowledge and experiments through the Internet.

Due to the nature of handheld technology and its intended use, a limitation of the study was the small number of handheld computers used in the project, that is, it was impossible to achieve a 1:1 computing ratio. This forced the instructor to divide the classroom into groups to allow four to five preservice teachers to work together using only one handheld computer per group. While students found ways to work around this issue, the desirable conditions for training preservice teachers in a 1:1 computing environment would be to have students work individually with technology, and in pairs. However, preservice teachers also had access to wireless laptops in the classroom, and the results of this study might therefore be better interpreted in a framework of ubiquitous computing, rather than 1:1 computing. What this means is that instead of looking at the results in light of one device per student, we may need to interpret them in the context of an environment in which different types of technology are available for students to choose from when needed.

Instructional Framework

The instructional framework was guided by the "tool application" strategy for using computers in the science classroom, defined by Adams, Krockover, and Lehman (1996) as "those in which the teacher or students use the computer as an aid in performing typical work tasks such as writing, acquiring and organizing data, or performing calculations" (p. 66; see also Taylor, 1980). This strategy was applied to large group, small group, and individual instruction, and followed a learning cycle format (Atkin & Karplus, 1962; Lawson, Abraham, & Renner, 1989) in three phases: induction or exploration, concepts development, and application.

Induction phase. Participants explored the handheld computers and probes and viewed a CD ROM entitled Palm Education Pioneers: Examining the potential of the handheld computer (Research Center for Educational Technology [RCET], 2003) providing a view into three classrooms where handheld computers are used for learning. In the following discussion, students were asked to describe the influence of the CD ROM content upon their approaches to science teaching if they were given adequate equipment such as handheld computers and probes, and what integrating science and handheld technology could offer to students.

Concept development phase. After activities were conducted to familiarize students with the processes of scientific inquiry (Ostlund & Mercier, 1996), students engaged in a six-hour intensive training in the use of handheld computers in science activities: first the instructor performed a science activity integrating technology to explain the set-up and use of handheld computers in a scientific investigation. Second, students engaged in hands-on discovery activities, focusing on activities such as taking and sharing still pictures of a science investigation set-up, and using probeware for data collection, display, and analysis. Third, performance assessment of students' abilities to use handheld computers and probes was conducted to investigate endothermic and exothermic reactions. Students worked cooperatively on some aspects of the assessment and individually on others.

Concept application phase. Once students became comfortable with the materials, they engaged in problem-based and student-initiated inquiry. Students worked in small cooperative groups to design their own investigations with the temperature, conductivity, and pH probes (Appendix A). They designed handheld-based projects appropriate for elementary and middle school students with a focus on content knowledge, experimental procedures, data analysis, and assessment. A postinstruction performance assessment followed the inquiry. Students designed lesson plans, taught their peers using the handheld technology, and engaged in reflective and constructive analysis of their experiences and the possibility of using handheld computers in science instruction. The instructor reviewed the lesson plans which were mostly based on measuring conductivity and pH, and investigating acid-base titration using the pH sensors.

Data Collection

Two researchers, the classroom instructor and his colleague, were involved in data collection over a three-month period. A third researcher was involved as an outside consultant. Qualitative data were collected in three stages through interviews, student reflection papers, journals, and classroom observations of peer teaching. Prior to the HBL implementation, participants were interviewed. During the program implementation, participants' attitudes toward using handheld computers for science activities were assessed through interviews, classroom discussion, and instructor field notes. Twelve students were interviewed following the HBL implementation. In addition to the interviews, all students were asked to write a reflection paper on their abilities and understandings of the use of handheld technology in the science classroom. They were also asked to compare and contrast their preinstruction perceptions to their postinstruction perceptions of the use of handheld computers (Appendix B). Classroom peer teaching observations and participants' interviews were audio taped and transcribed.

Participants' attitudes toward integrating handheld computers in science activities in primary school were measured by the Attitude Toward Handheld Computer Scale (ATHCS). The instrument contains 24 statements that are categorized into five dimensions of attitude toward integrating handheld computers: Awareness of handheld computers, Utility of handheld computers, Outcome expectancy, Time and effort, and Comfort-discomfort in handling handheld computers for educational purposes. The modified ATHCS was cross-validated by two science educators. All participants were asked to rate the extent to which they agree or disagree with statements reflecting their attitudes toward integrated science and technology instruction using a 5-point Likert scale. The instrument was administered at the beginning and end of the project.

Data Analysis

Qualitative and quantitative data were collected and analyzed concurrently (Creswell, 2002). Qualitative data were used to determine the conditions and factors influencing technology use in science instruction. The procedure of generating meaning consisted of coding the information to identify categories, patterns, and themes, finding intervening variables, and building a logical sense of evidence (Miles & Huberman, 1994). Findings were confirmed by checking for representativeness, data triangulating, and member checking. Postobservation interview data were analyzed inductively to develop descriptive models that included all major cases of participants' instructional practices and their related instructional concerns (Bogdan & Biklen, 1998). The analysis of the survey questionnaire was descriptive in nature and was used to assess participants' attitudes toward handheld computing. The data were triangulated against the appropriate qualitative data sources as well.

FINDINGS

Conditions for Effective Use of Handheld-Based Activities in Scientific Inquiry

The analysis of students' reflection journals and interviews generated five conditions that can enhance the integration of technology for instruction and learning in their future classrooms: classroom and school environment, teachers' technological background and predisposition, students' prior knowledge and experience, open and engaging curriculum, and access to handheld computers as learning tools.

Classroom and school environment. The learning environment is a key aspect of successful technology integration. Susan (all names used from hereon are pseudonyms) represents many of her peers when she indicated that classroom and school environments:

  ... should be conducive for technology to be a part of the learning
  process for the teacher as well as the students. Teachers need to be
  included as learners when dealing with the technology side of
  education. The classroom should have ample space available for
  computers as well as students to work in pairs with handheld computers
  throughout various subjects. Schoolteachers should take leadership
  roles in their decision to integrate technology into the classroom and
  display technology-related achievement and portfolio throughout the
  building as well as in newsletters. (Susan, interview)

How technology should be used in the classroom was an important concern for preservice teachers. There were those who thought that technology might take away important skills and those who thought that technology would enhance new skills. For instance, Doris argued that:

  ... one of the major arguments to using handheld computers is that it
  will take away from important skills that students need to learn at a
  young age such as proper handwriting skills, making a graph, or
  computing. However, if the handheld were used as a tool for learning
  these skills, students would certainly have a well rounding
  instruction. (Doris, interview)

Preservice teachers were also cautious about the excessive use of technology because they would like to present their students with both the "old fashioned" method of experimentation and the use of new technology. Willis emphasized that the presentation of both old and new technologies will foster critical thinking and problem solving and will show students that new technology simplifies an experiment and makes it more reliable.

Preservice teachers also considered the financial situation of many schools to be a potential obstacle. Amy wrote in her reflection paper that "[T]he materials needed for the activity are costly and not readily available in all schools" and suggested the use of alternative technologies such as a thermometer or pH-meter. Susan indicated that:

  Even though this cutting-edge technology will be seen in classrooms
  soon, I do still see the advantages of learning other methods of
  teaching this subject. Many districts have not yet been fortunate
  enough to purchase the handheld computers and are still teaching
  science without such technology. I feel that teachers should be
  equipped to teach without the benefit of technology and use it as a
  tool when it is available. (Susan, reflection paper)

Teachers' technological background and predisposition. One of the greatest challenges in initiating technology integration is the teachers' disposition to use technology for learning on a regular basis and the ability to change teaching strategies based on current trends (Cooper & Bull, 1997; Snider, 2002). This is reflected in student responses. Susan indicated that:

  ... the teacher should be open to new technology which will improve
  instruction of the subject matter and benefit the students' learning.
  The teacher needs to be committed to the technology in the classroom
  and use it regularly with the students. Also learning that takes place
  with the technology should be meaningful to the topics being studied.
  (Susan, interview)

Alice further indicated that "the teacher becomes part of the learning by being involved in what students are doing and should constantly be aware of the changes in technology and the benefit." Debbie added that "without the proper training on the use of handheld activities, the teachers would not feel comfortable using the equipment. Therefore, they need to be able to practice with the equipment and have support available for their questions."

Student knowledge and dispositions. The assertion is that prior knowledge and experience are a determinant in how receptive students are to technology. Betsy elaborated on this condition by stating that:

  ... the training of students is an important condition for me. The
  teacher would train a selected number of students who in turn will
  train other students. This would give the students the confidence of
  being able to accomplish the task of learning on their own while
  giving the teachers the freedom to assess the class and help those
  that need help. (Betsy, interview)

Susan suggested that teachers need to be flexible when introducing the technology and be prepared for all students to be included in classroom activities. Many preservice teachers indicated that technology integration should begin at an early age. In Doris's language:

  ... most young students can handle the responsibility that comes with
  using this form of technology. If the handhelds are introduced to
  students at an early age as they progress in the years to come using
  this technology will be nothing but beneficial. (Doris, interview)

Participants focused on students' abilities to use the computer. Amy indicated that instruction should aim at enhancing "students' ability to access and navigate the Internet, to locate and print information, download information related to the content to be learned, and use Microsoft Word and email. All of these can be taught to the student: Excel and PowerPoint." In addition, she indicated that students should be able to use the handheld computer to "beam the teacher or students, check spelling, graph results, use sensors, and be able to download information from the computer to the handheld computer." Lisa argued that students "should keep them throughout their schooling because the materials are personalized and students develop responsibility to take care of them."

Open and engaging curriculum. A curriculum that explicitly supports the use of handheld computers would help in the acquisition of this type of equipment. Alice feared that "some schools will be reticent in buying the materials if it is not part of the written curriculum." Eileen recommended that:

  ... teachers should allow for real world application and curriculum to
  which students can relate. Emergent curriculum based on the interests
  of students can be implemented and easily facilitated with handheld
  computers. Students will lose interest if handheld computers are used
  to reproduce drills or worksheets. (Eileen, interview)

Even though the course was about science teaching, participants perceived that the handheld computers might also be useful in other subject areas. For instance, Doris recommended that:

  ... handheld computers can be used in a variety of settings including
  language arts and social studies classes. If students are able to use
  the handheld computers in most other subjects not only will students
  become more familiar with it but they will also be able to fully
  benefit from its capabilities. (Doris, interview)

Access to handheld computers as learning tools. Using technology to enhance inquiry-based teaching and learning requires access to science teaching supplies and equipment. Amy stressed that teachers need to have "access to materials necessary to perform science experiments (water, containers, pencils, paper, solutions, probes, and sensors) and enough computers or handheld computers to complete assignments." Debbie indicated that "without enough equipment for everyone to use, it would be hard for students to experience success." Betsy suggested that:

  ... there need to be a number of computers to allow students the
  opportunity to explore. The students need to be able to manipulate the
  computers and have the time to do this among themselves in order to
  become self sufficient in the use. (Betsy, interview)

Student reflections are corroborated by current research in the effectiveness of technology integration which emphasizes the importance of access (Becker et al., 1999; Marx et al., 2000; Norris & Soloway, 2005; Norris, Sullivan, Poirot, & Soloway, 2003).

Aspects of Preservice Learning Affected by Handheld-Based Science Activities

The use of handheld-based science activities enhanced preservice teachers' inquiry abilities, organizational skills, and engagement in science content learning. Handheld-based activities encouraged students to take responsibility for gathering and using data and learning from each other. They also realized how this might apply to their own students.

Inquiry abilities and organizational skills. Preservice teachers indicated that they were able to ask their own questions and conduct their own investigations. Doris indicated that:

  ... we not only learned how to use handheld computers and what
  capabilities were available but also we were able to ask testable
  questions and design an investigation on our own to answer question
  that were posed to us, or modify ongoing investigations to answer our
  own questions. (Doris, reflection paper)

Almost all preservice teachers reported that integrating technology in the classroom has led them to take more responsibility in their own learning and has opened more doors as "the inquiry approach has allowed students to feel that their learning is in their control, therefore they become active learners" (Debbie).

Another benefit of the use of a handheld computer is the increased student engagement in designing a procedure for data collection. Collecting real-time data and observing the graph unfold before their eyes helped preservice teachers focus on what they were doing and make meaningful assessment of the process. Some students had to repeat the same experiment twice to see if their results were stable and reliable. When students saw their data displayed immediately, they analyzed each contour of the graph and became more interested in the outcome as well as the process. Amy wrote that "being able to take the temperature change of a chemical reaction and the results showing up immediately on the computer screen was very exciting. The graphing of the temperature was very helpful when reading the data." Students wanted to understand each irregular contour of their graph instead of the graph as a whole.

Participants used the handheld-generated data table to select specific data points and make their own data table and graph. This process helped participants focus on independent and dependent variables on the X and Y axes, and make meaningful connections between science, technology, and proportionality in mathematics. As a self-assessment, preservice teachers compared their hand-made graphs to the handheld-generated graphs and engaged in critical thinking, especially when the graphs were not identical. For instance, Amy wrote that, "the graph on the handheld computer and my graph look similar. However the graph on the handheld computer is more accurate." Irma indicated that "my graph looks like a decreasing slope and the computer-made graph looks like a slope which shows a dramatic drop in temperature. My graph was more informative; it shows exactly how the temperature goes down and at which seconds."

Even though preservice teachers recognized that they learn important skills by making their own graphs they also perceived that with the use of handheld computers students can overcome the frustration of making a graph and have more time analyzing the results. Bella wrote in her reflection journal that:

  When we used handheld computers, we saved time in data collection. The
  time that we would have spent manually collecting the data, we used it
  towards other aspects of the experiment. For example we were able to
  discuss what we thought about the experiment and why we thought
  certain things happened throughout the experiment and even try to
  change some variables and conduct a quick investigation without the
  teacher knowing what we are doing. It was also easy to repeat the
  experiment to see if the results will be the same. (Bella, reflection
  journal)

In her reflection, Doris indicated that:

  I see that it is much more interactive instruction and allows students
  to see the results and the point of the experiment rather than
  becoming frustrated because they forgot how to draw a graph for
  example. I feel the handheld computers in a classroom provides a
  realistic instruction comparable to the kind of learning and
  instruction they will receive after school, in hospital for example.
  (Doris, reflection journal)

The large majority of preservice teachers agreed with Susan that "the way information is transmitted to students would change drastically if handheld computers were a part of the teaching and learning environment."

Engagement in science content learning. An added benefit of using handheld computers in science is the increased engagement of students in inquiry activities, collaborative work, and group discussion as demonstrated by a high level of student-student and student-teacher interactions. The level of group discussions indicated that students collaborated more effectively as a group. Students were more creative in collecting data and were able to interpret their graphs in more depth. More communication and participation emerged in classroom discussions between students, between groups, and within groups when the handheld computers were used. Amy indicated in her reflection paper that "some of the benefits and strengths of using technology include the opportunity for the students to experience a challenging and rewarding cooperative learning environment."

Self-Efficacy and Attitude Changes

The interviews, reflection journals, and survey indicated a change in attitude and an increase in self-efficacy. Most preservice teachers reflected on their previous knowledge, misconceptions, and attitude toward technology. Almost all participants wrote about not having been exposed to technology prior to the class. For instance, Susan wrote that:

  My previous educational experiences do not include the use of
  technology as we know it today. In the classroom, we never used the
  Internet let alone a handheld computer. As I remember, technology
  included the teacher using an overhead as part of his/her lesson. In
  science we used a basic lab kit to conduct experiments we took notes
  on and hand wr[TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]ote a summary for the
  teacher. The most advance piece of technology I used was a graphing
  calculator in high school (I believe it was TI-81). Today, that idea
  seems to be so archaic with the use of SMART boards, the Internet, and
  of course handheld computers. (Susan, reflection paper)

Attitude change. Students' survey responses indicated that the exposure to the use of handheld computers and probewares for data collection changed their views on the benefits of technology in education and their attitudes toward the integration of technology in their future classrooms. The first four subscales (Awareness of handheld computers, Utility of handheld computers, Outcome expectancy, Time and effort) were analyzed for changes in attitude, the fifth one (Comfort in handling handheld computers) for changes in self-efficacy.

The results indicate statistically significant differences between pretest and posttest mean scores on the following dimensions of attitudes: Awareness of Handheld Computers, Utility of Handheld Computers, Outcome Expectancy, and on the dimension of self efficay, Comfort in Handling Handheld Computers (Table 1). There was no statistically significant difference in their attitude toward the Time and Effort it would take to integrate handheld based activities in scientific investigation.

Many positive changes have occurred in preservice teachers' attitudes toward handheld-based activities in science education as shown in Appendix C. Analysis of individual items yielded more detailed information. To better depict participants' attitudes, the categories "Strongly Agree" and "Agree" were collapsed into "Agreement," "Strongly Disagree," and "Disagree" were collapsed into "Disagreement" and Undecided was translated as "Not Sure" for the purpose of a concise report. The first four subscales of the attitude dimensions are described.

A question of particular importance to the study was to access students' awareness of the potential of using handheld computers in education. In the beginning of the project 73% of the students agreed that "I don't know how to use a handheld computer." At the end of the study, the responses were reversed: 84% reported that they now knew how to use handheld computers in education. Amy reported that:

  I feel that technology is an important life skill. I have not had a
  lot of formal training on using technology. Just this small amount of
  exposure to the handheld computers in science has helped me become
  more aware of the benefits of technology.... Working with the handheld
  computers also assisted us in finding answers to our science inquiry
  question by being able to graph our results. I actually would like
  more instructional technology to better prepare myself to teach
  students with technology. (Amy, reflection paper)

Preservice teachers' attitudes toward the utility of handheld computers in the classroom also improved: For instance 83% of preservice teachers in the postinstruction survey agreed that "children should be introduced to handheld computers in elementary school" versus 61% for preinstruction. The decriptive results also indicated a positive change in outcome expectancy in using handheld computers for instruction. Posttest data showed that all students disagreed with the statement "If given the opportunity to use a handheld computer, I'm afraid I might damage it in some way." There was also a positive mind-set about spending time and effort setting up handheld equipment for technology activity (from 74% pretest to 94% posttest). With reference to the category, comfort in handling handheld computers for instruction, there was an increase of motivation and desire to use handheld computers in their future classroom. For instance, 89% of participants agreed that they are sure they can do science activities with handheld computers, up from 53% in the presurvey.

Students' interview responses and reflective journals showed a conceptual change in technology use as well. Table 2 shows a comparison of selected pre and postinstruction comments.

Self-efficacy increase. As the survey data showed, preservice teachers became more confident in their abilities to use handheld computers to guide teaching and learning and promised to incorporate more handheld technologies in their classroom. Pre-post comparison on the fifth subscale (Comfort in handling handheld computers) indicates a statistically significant increase in their self efficacy between their pretest scores, M = 3.57, SD = .43 and their posttest scores, M = 3.90, SD = .44, t(17) = 3.04, p = .007.

The result also indicated a relatively high positive correlation between preservice teachers' self-efficacy (Comfort in handling handheld computers) and their perception of student outcome expectancy, r = .62, p = .006, their perception of the utility of handheld computers, r = .87, p = .001, as well as their posttest awareness of handheld computers, r = .80, p = .001. Qualitative data were used to add voices and feelings of participants and provide further support to quantitative data. Almost all preservice teachers interviewed perceived that their students would be able to use the handheld computers easily. Alice provided examples of what she perceived special education students can do with the handheld computers in her future class:

  They would be using scientific thinking and higher-level skills that
  are skills we generally don't think special education students are
  capable of. The handheld computers can open doors for students and
  teachers alike.

Preservice teachers perceived that handheld-based technology was a great way to facilitate learning, teach responsibility, and let students make informed decisions using problem-solving skills. Betsy indicated that "to be able to begin learning this technology starting from kindergarten and carrying that knowledge on with a measurable amount of expansion over time would be awesome." Lisa stated that "this technology would greatly enhance learning and creativity in the classroom" and further concluded that "I am really excited about bringing this technology into the classroom." She hoped that "the school system will have the finances to support this invaluable technology tool in the classroom." Betsy concluded that if all the conditions are met, "I would learn as much as I could about the many uses of handheld computers and make the computer a part of the classroom learning process throughout the school year."

In summary, preservice teachers indicated that the use of handheld-based instructional technology does not really relate to their previous experiences (Lisa). Most valued the use of handheld technology because of how "it made experiments more accurate and interesting to attempt" (Lisa). In addition, there was a conceptual change and a more positive view of instructional technology which made participants perceive that handheld "technology allows the students to be active learners in the learning process; they develop higher order thinking skills instead of mere recall of information; it gives them instant access to professional information and an ease to sharing and collaborating" (Lisa).

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

A true pedagogical practice that infuses handheld technology-based inquiry activities into Science Methods courses can have a substantial impact on preservice teachers' attitudes, self-efficacy, and conceptual understanding related to integrating technology in their future classes, increasing their understanding of the interconnectedness between science and technology by using handheld computers as a springboard for introducing other technologies. Science activities with handheld computers might be considered best practice in the sense that the material is beneficial to preservice teachers in a variety of ways, and creates a pedagogical bridge between science education and technology education. As shown in this study, HBL can be used to motivate students and improve student understanding of science concepts, and mathematical and numerical abilities. The use of handheld-based science activities decreases teacher-directed instructional strategies and increased student involvement in inquiry activities. As a result, they perceived that their future classroom students would benefit "tremendously" from the use of handheld computers during science investigations, promoting the notion of autonomy, allowing children to develop self-regulation and control of the learning process, helping students gain knowledge beyond what could have been attained using a textbook or a traditional laboratory investigation.

The findings of this study corroborate the finding of prior studies where the majority of participants recognized that microcomputers have had an impact on science laboratory activities in their schools (Lehman, 1994). One advantage of using HBL is similar to that of using Microcomputer-Based Laboratories (MBL) and Calculator-Based Laboratories (CBL), because it "reduces the time needed for tedious data acquisition and organization, thereby, allowing more time to be devoted to experimental design and interpretation" (Adams et al., 1996, p. 68). In addition, while laptops or desktops can be equipped with probeware, handheld devices have the advantage in that they are much more portable, thereby allowing teachers to design inquiry-based activities around authentic problems that can be carried out in real-life situations. A classic example is water quality testing of rivers and streams at actual sites, as opposed to testing a few jars of water in a classroom lab. In our study, not having enough handheld devices to achieve a 1:1 computer:student ratio did not allow us to investigate what will happen in a truly ubiquitous computing environment as compared to a more traditional classroom setup with a few shared computers. However, we did find that the advantages of handhelds--portability, ease of use, and opportunities for collaboration seemed to outweigh the limited number of devices. Further research that asks the same questions in a true 1:1 computing environment is needed. In addition, we need to investigate whether preservice teachers, trained in best practices in technology integration, will actually apply their knowledge and skills in their own classrooms.

The major implication of this study is that under the right conditions preservice teachers can become aware of the advantages of integrating technology and this benefits their students in the long run. If preservice teachers are not trained to use handheld technology in their classrooms (or any technology for that matter), they will not use it. Because technology is becoming so much more engrained in children's lives inside and outside of school, and changes in technology such as the advent of handheld devices occur at such a rapid pace, it is even more important for schools of education today to integrate technology throughout their teacher education programs. Some universities, like the University of South Dakota, are heading in this direction, as they are requiring students to purchase a handheld device upon entry. These types of changes obviously require policy changes at institutional levels because an influx of large amounts of new technology such as mobile devices requires adjustments in larger technology infrastructures and carries with it a certain cost.

The second implication is that the design of a curriculum that supports the use of handheld computers and probes is an essential condition for successful technology integration. Therefore, curriculum design personnel at K-12 and postsecondary levels, subject matter entities such as the NRC and AAAS, and state and federal government levels should provide encouragement, training, and support for the infusion of technology across the existing curriculum and make the necessary tools available to preservice and inservice teachers. This will contribute not only by demonstrating that scientific investigation needs rigorous instrumentation but also that it is important to add technology into science pedagogy strategies to encourage new ways of conducting scientific inquiry.

The practical importance of this study is that it examines the necessary conditions for preservice teachers to learn to make informed decisions about effective uses of technology for higher order thinking and learning, but also provides an understanding of the factors that would predict their intentions toward using handheld technology for learning. This should provide preservice teacher educators with an insight into how they may restructure their curriculum to create an environment conducive to technology integration in meaningful ways.

This research builds on a substantial body of research in teacher education that focuses on teacher perceptions and analysis of practice-related evidence by preservice teachers. The next logical step is to link these perceptions and practices to evidence of student impact (e.g. achievement scores) once preservice teachers become classroom teachers. This is the focus of some of our current research. Initial analyses show that positive perceptions and increases in efficacy tend to have positive effects on student learning, but we are merely beginning to analyze the full impact of our findings in the current study.

References

Adams, P.E., Krockover, G.H., & Lehman, J.D. (1996). Strategies for implementing computer technology in the classroom. In J. Rhothon & P. Bowers (Eds.), Issues in science education (pp. 66-72). Arlington, VA: National Science Education Leadership Association & National Science Teachers Association.

American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1990). Project 2061: Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.

Atkin, J. M., & Karplus, R. (1962). Discovery or invention. Science Teacher, 29(5), 45-51.

Becker, H., Ravitz, J.L., & Wong, Y. (1999). Teacher and teacher-directed student use of computers and software. Report #3, Teaching, learning, and computing: 1998 national survey. Irvine, CA: Center for Research on Information Technology and Organizations, University of California, Irvine.

Bogdan, R.C., & Biklin, S.K. (1998). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Burrill, G., Allison, J., Breaux, D., Kastberg, S., Leatham, K., & Sanchez, W. (2002). Handheld graphing technology in secondary mathematics: Research findings and implications for classroom practice. Dallas, TX: Texas Instruments.

Caracelli, V.J., & Greene, J.C. (1993). Data analysis strategies for mixed method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15, 195-207.

Cole, H., & Stanton, D. (2003). Designing mobile technologies to support co-present collaboration. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing 7, 365-371.

Coley, R., Cradler, J., & Engel, P.K. (1997). Computers and classrooms: The status of technology in U.S. schools. Retrieved February 2, 2006, from the Educational Testing Service website http://www.ets.org/Media/Research/pdf/PICCOMPCLSS.pdf

Cooper, J.M., & Bull, G.L. (1997). Technology and teacher education: Past practice and recommended directions. Action in Teacher Education, 19, 97-106.

Creswell, J.W. (2002). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.

Danesh, A., Inkpen, K., Lau, F., Shu, K., & Booth, K. (2001). Geney[TM]: Designing a collaborative activity for the Palm[TM] handheld computer. Proceedings of CHI, Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Seattle, WA.

Dusick, D.M. (1998). What social cognitive factors influence faculty members' use of computers for teaching? A literature review. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 31, 123-137.

Greene, J.C., Caracelli, V.J., & Graham, W.F. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11, 225-274.

Hennessy, S. (1997). Portable technologies and graphing investigations: Review of the literature. CALRG Technical Report 175. Milton Keynes, United Kingdom: The Open University, Institute of Educational Technology.

Inkpen, K. (1999). Designing handheld technologies for kids. Personal Technologies Journal 3(1 & 2), 81-89.

International Society for Technology in Education. Accreditation Committee. (1991). Accreditation standards for educational computing and technology preparation programs. Eugene, OR.

International Society for Technology in Education (1999). National education technology standards. Retrieved February 2, 2006, from http://www.iste.org/Template.cfm?Section=NETS&CONTENTID=4963&TEMPLATE=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm

International Technology Education Association (2000). Standards for technological literacy: Content for the study of technology. Reston, VA: ITEA.

Lawson, A.E., Abraham, M.R., & Renner, J.W. (1989). A theory of instruction: Using the learning cycle to teach science concepts and thinking skills. (Narst Monograph, No. 1).

Lehman, J.R. (1994). Secondary science teachers' use of microcomputers during instruction. School Science and Mathematics, 94, 413-420.

Mandryk, R.L., Inkpen, K.M., Bilezkjian, M., Klemmer, S.R., & Landay, J.A. (2001). Supporting children's collaboration across handheld computers. Proceedings of CHI, Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Seattle, WA.

Marx, R.W., Blumenfeld, P., Krajick, J., Fishman, B., Soloway, E., Geier, R., et al. (2000). Inquiry based science in the middle grades: Assessment of student learning in the context of systemic reform. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Center for Learning Technologies in Urban Schools. Unpublished manuscript.

Medcalf-Davenport, N. (1999). Historical and current attitudes toward uses of educational technology. In J. D. Price, J. Willis, D. A. Willis, M. Jost, & S. Boger-Mehall (Eds.), The information technology and teacher education annual (pp. 1424-1428). Charlottesville, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computers in Education.

Miles, M.B., & Huberman, A. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Milken Family Foundation (2001). Information technology underused in teacher education. Retrieved February 2, 2006, from http://www.mff.org/edtech/article.taf?_function=detail&Content_uid1=131

National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education. (1997). Technology and teacher education: New standards. Washington, DC: Author.

National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Norris, C., & Soloway, E. (2005, May 3). Big change for Small change. Handheld Learning. Retrieved February 6, 2006, from http://www.handheldlearning.co.uk/content/view/15/2/

Norris, C., & Soloway, E. (2004). Envisioning the handheld-centric classroom. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 30(4), 281-294.

Norris, C., Sullivan, T., Poirot, J., & Soloway, E. (2003). No access, no use, no impact: Snapshot surveys of educational technology in K-12. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 36, 15-28.

Ohio State Board of Education. (1994). Science: Ohio's model competency-based program. Columbus, OH: Author.

Ostlund, K., & Mercier, S. (1996). Rising to the challenge of the National Science Education Standards: The processes of scientific inquiry, grade5-8. Fresno, CA: S & K Associates.

Research Center for Educational Technology (2003). Palm education pioneers: Examining the potential of the handheld computer [CD-Rom]. Kent, OH.

Robertson, S.I., Calder, J., Fung, P., Jones, A., O'Shea, T., & Lambrechts, G. (1996). Pupils, teachers, and palmtop computers. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 12, 194-204.

Roschelle, J. (2003). Unlocking the value of wireless mobile devices. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 19, 260-272.

Roschelle, J., & Pea, R. (2002). A walk on the WILD side: How wireless handhelds may change computer-supported collaborative learning. International Journal of Cognition and Technology, 1(1), 145-168.

Roth, J. (2002). Patterns of mobile interaction. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing 6, 282-289.

Sharples, M. (2000a). Disruptive devices: Personal technologies and education. (Educational Technology Research Paper Series 11). Birmingham, UK: University of Birmingham.

Sharples, M. (2000b). The design of personal mobile technologies for lifelong learning. Computers and Education 34, 177-193.

Snider, S.L. (2002). Exploring technology integration in a field-based teacher education program: implementation efforts and findings. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 34, 230-249.

Soloway, E., Norris, E., Blumenfeld, P., Fishman, B., Krajcik, J., & Marx, R. (2001). Log on education: Handheld devices are ready-at-hand. Communications of the ACM, 44(6), 15-20.

Strudel, N., & Wetzel, K. (1999). Lessons from exemplary colleges of education: Factors affecting technology integration in preservice programs. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(4), 63-81.

Taylor, R.P. (Ed.). (1980). The computer in the school: Tutor, tool, and tutee. New York: Teachers College Press.

Thomas, J. A., & Cooper, S. B. (2000). Teaching technology: A new opportunity for pioneers in teacher education. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 17(1), 13-19.

U. S. Department of Education (2000). E-learning: Putting a world-class education at the fingertips of all children. Washington, DC: Author.

van 't Hooft, M.A.H., & Kelly, J. (2004). Macro or micro: Teaching fifth-grade economics using handheld computers. Social Education, 68(2), 165-168.

Note

This study was funded by an AT & T Research Fellowship Grant provided by the Research Center for Educational Technology at Kent State University (http://www.rcet.org).

APPENDIX A

Midterm Performance Assessment

1. Evaporative cooling: Students investigate what will happen to the temperature as a liquid evaporates. They dip the Temperature Sensor into various liquids and then wave it quickly through the air.

2. Variation in body temperature: Students use the Temperature Sensor to map the temperature across various body parts.

3. Relative hotness / coolness. Students were asked to hold one temperature inside a beaker containing very warm water while holding another sensor in a beaker of ice water. After 30-60 seconds, they move both sensors into a beaker containing room-temperature water and monitor how long it takes the temperature of each sensor to change.

4. Exothermic and endothermic reactions: Students investigate how the temperature will change when they drop Alka-Seltzer into water or when they mix vinegar and baking soda.

5. Thermal energy in the environment: Students explore the temperature of puddles after a rainstorm, the soil at different depths, and how the brick wall in the sun differ from a wooden door. How much cooler is the air in the shade versus the sun? They conduct environmental investigations by using the Xplorer without being connected to the computer!

6. Temperature and color. Students compare the temperature inside a white car versus a black car or compare the temperature of a dark-colored surface and a light-colored surface after exposure to sunlight.

7. Neutralization Reaction: Students will measure the rate of change in pH of a dilute hydrochloric acid (HCl) solution when antacid tablets are added to it to stimulate the antacid effectiveness in the stomach.

8. Acids and Bases: Students will measure the pH of various solutions and then use their data to classify those substances as acids, bases, or neutral solutions.

9. Salt solution conductivity: Students will measure the ability of a salt solution (sodium chloride, NaCl) to conduct electrical current. As students increase the amount of salt added to the solution, they will predict how the solution's conductivity will change.

APPENDIX B

Sample questions for induction phase

* What are the conditions that enhanced instruction and learning with technology?

* What are the most important arguments made by these teachers for using handheld computers in instruction?

* How does the use of instructional technology relate to your previous educational experiences?

* What would you do differently in the classroom now that you have reflected on what these teachers are saying?

Pre and Postimplementation interview questions

PreImplementation:

* What expectations do you have for a Science Methods course that integrates science and technology instruction?

* What are your past experiences in the use of technology in general and handheld computers in particular in education?

* How confident are you about your knowledge and skills in integrating an HBL in your future classes based on your previous knowledge?

Postimplementation:

* What is it like to use handheld computers and probes in scientific investigation?

* How do you feel about integrating technology and performance assessment methods in your class?

* What changes occurred in your attitude toward teaching science as a result of your participation in this integrated science, technology, and performance assessment course?

* How can handheld computers in the classroom improve teaching and learning?

* What educational activities do handhelds make possible?

* How can handhelds be adapted to harness their full potential in the classroom?

* How confident are you about your knowledge and skills in integrating handheld-based laboratory in your future classes based on your previous knowledge?

* What perceptions do you have about early childhood students' ability and skills in using handheld computers in their future classroom?

Reflection Journal Questions.

* Under what conditions would you make decisions about effective uses of handheld computers for higher order thinking and learning?

* What factors would affect your decision to use technology in their classrooms? What alternative assessments would you use to measure student learning when technology is integrated into teaching and learning?

* How do you describe your experiences in this Science Methods course integrating handheld computers into science activities?

* What perceptions did you develop about technology integration in elementary school classes?

APPENDIX C PROPORTION OF CHANGE DUE TO HANDHELD BASED ACTIVITIES

                               Strongly         Not             Strongly
    Statements about           Agree     Agree  sure  Disagree  Disagree
#   handheld computers         (%)       (%)    (%)   (%)       (%)

Awareness of Handheld Computers
 1  I don't know how to use a  47        26     10     5        10
    handheld computer (i.e.,    0        17      0    56        28
    handheld computers are
    unfamiliar to me)
 2  Handheld computer          10        16     21    26        26
    technology sounds like      0         0      6    33        61
    problematic instructional
    technology to me.

Utility of Handheld Computers
 3  Handheld computers are     32        42     21     0         5
    beneficial aids to         44        39     17     0         0
    classroom teachers.
 4  Handheld computers are     37        42     16     5         0
    valuable educational       50        44      6     0         0
    tools.
 5  Some day I will use a      26         5     63     5         0
    handheld computer in my    28        50     22     0         0
    classroom.
 6  Handheld computers can     21        58     16     5         0
    create more learning       56        33     11     0         0
    opportunities for
    students.
 7  Handheld computers would   21        47     32     0         0
    change science teaching    28        56     11     0         6
    and learning.
 8  Children should be         26        37     16    21         0
    introduced to handheld     50        33     17     0         0
    computers in elementary
    school.

Outcome Expectancy
 9  School students will        5         0     37    37        21
    misuse handheld             0         6     28    44        22
    computers.
10  I am unsure of my ability   5        26     16    16        37
    to learn to integrate       0         0     11    39        50
    handheld computer
    technology in my classes.
11  I will hesitate to use a    0         0     21    63        16
    handheld computer for       0         0      0    39        61
    fear of making mistakes I
    cannot correct.
12  If given the opportunity    0        10     21    32        37
    to use a handheld           0         0      0    44        56
    computer, I'm afraid I
    might damage it in some
    way.
13  The challenge of doing      0         5     32    37        26
    science with handheld       0         6      0    61        33
    computers does not
    appeal to me.

Time and Effort
14  I am willing to spend      32        42     26     0         0
    time setting up handheld   50        44      6     0         0
    equipment for technology
    activity.
15  I think that teaching       0         0     32    53        16
    science integrating         0         0     17    39        44
    handheld technology would
    take too much effort.
16  I will do as little work    0         0     47    32        21
    with handheld computers     0         0     11    50        39
    as possible.
17  I think that integrating    0         0     32    53        16
    handheld computers in       0         0     17    56        28
    teaching science would
    take too much time.

Comfort in Handling Handheld Computers
18  I am confident that I      52        37      5     5         0
    could learn handheld       78        17      0     6         0
    computer skills.
19  I am able to use a         16        21     47    16         0
    handheld computer for      44        33     22     0         0
    science activities
20  I am sure I could do       16        37     47     0         0
    science activities with    39        50     11     0         0
    handheld computers.
21  I would feel at ease in    10        32     47    10         0
    using handheld computers   22        44     33     0         0
    in my class.
22  I think working with       10        63     26     0         0
    handheld computers in      33        50     17     0         0
    class would be enjoyable
    and stimulating
23  I think using a handheld    0         0     42    37        21
    computer in class would     0         0      6    56        39
    be very hard for me.
24  If given the opportunity,  42        42     10     0         5
    I would like to learn to   44        50      6     0         0
    use handheld computers
    for instructional
    activities.

ISSAOU GADO AND ROBERT FERGUSON 

Cleveland State University 

Cleveland, OH USA

[e-mail]

[e-mail]

MARK VAN 'T HOOFT

Kent State University

Kent, OH USA

[e-mail]

Table 1 Dimensions of Attitude Change

                        Pretest    Posttest
                       M     SD    M     SD   MD    SEM  t     df  Sig

Awareness of Handheld  2.72  1.27  4.25  .57  1.53  .28  5.48  17  .001
Computers
Utility of Handheld    3.87   .56  4.25  .53   .38  .12  3.15  17  .006
  Computers
Outcome Expectancy     3.76   .60  4.32  .48   .56  .17  3.40  17  .003
Time and Effort        2.62   .41  2.43  .36  -.19  .10  1.98  17  .064
Comfort in Handling    3.57   .43  3.90  .44   .33  .11  3.04  17  .007
  Handheld
Computers

Table 2 Selected Reflections on Technology Integration

                                          Postinstruction attitude after
          Preinstruction attitude toward  the infusion of technology in
Students  educational technology          the Science course

Fred      I ponder why I was so           With the use of handheld
          reluctant to embrace            computers in this class, I see
          instructional technology. I     other avenues to explore; the
          remember avoiding everything    greater picture, the means to
          that had to do with             an end, and a way of reaching
          technology, especially the      and helping every child to
          computer.                       experience success and enjoy
                                          learning.
Amy       My technology experience with   The handheld computer came in
          science in college was          handy with the projects. Being
          limited. In my Geology course,  able to take the temperature
          I did not use technology at     of a liquid and see the
          all. Biology course only used   results showing up immediately
          microscopes. I definitely feel  on the handheld computer
          embarrassed about my lack of    screen was very exciting. I
          knowledge about computers and   believe the handheld computer
          educational technology.         could be very useful in the
                                          classroom. I need to educate
                                          myself so that I can use it in
                                          my future classroom to prevent
                                          any more children growing up
                                          as I did without a clue about
                                          technology.
Doris     In past years, technology was   Now that I have had the
          never a regular part of class   opportunity to using the
          instruction ... I don't think   handheld computers in my own
          I was aware of how helpful      learning experience, I see its
          technology was. It was          value for the students that I
          frustrating for me and I        will be instructing in the
          believe it would be for         future. This technology will
          children.                       shape my instruction. I will
                                          emphasize the importance of
                                          the use of computers and other
                                          new technologies.
Betsy     In my previous educational      My experience in the use of
          classes in high school or       handheld computers in the
          college, besides sending        science class was intriguing
          papers through e-mail or        Although I have to admit, I
          downloading information, I did  was afraid at first, handheld
          not have the luxury of being    computers are user friendly
          taught about computers          and can enhance any classroom
                                          that could afford to use them.