Printer Friendly

An integrated framework used to increase preservice teacher NETS-T ability.

Under a PT3 initiative, a framework was developed to help 34 special education preservice teachers obtain technology related skills. The framework embedded the use of three online Macromedia Flash-MX based tutorials and three hands-on cooperative based learning experiences. Pre- and postsurveys were used to collect data on student ability and value orientation changes. Results indicate that the framework led to a significant perceived gain in National Educational Technology Standards for Teachers (NETS-T) ability (p = .001). The preservice teachers showed no significant changes in their perceived value of technology in education. Furthermore, the findings suggest that a preservice teacher's affiliation with the constructivist or behaviorist pedagogy offers some predictability towards their value of technology in education. However, this pedagogical affiliation offers no predictability towards their technological ability. It is concluded that skill-based technology training can be done online, but that skill-based training is not enough to produce teachers who value and feel comfortable integrating technology in the classroom.

**********

Research indicates that one of the greatest challenges in preparing teachers to teach is designing a curriculum that exposes preservice teachers to the conceptual and practical understandings of integrating technology into the P-12 classroom (Moursund & Bielefeldt, 1999, Office of Technology Assessment (OTA), 1995). A survey by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) (2000) indicated that only 23% of teachers ranked themselves as feeling well prepared to use technology when they teach and only 10% of teachers felt very well prepared to use computers and the Internet during instruction. Similarly, even after technology training has taken place in preservice education, research has shown that it is lacking continuity with the rest of the curriculum (Education Week, 1999; Moursund & Bielefeldt, 1999; OTA, 1995). Consequently, preservice teachers are left with the difficult task of determining the relationship between their technology training and effective classroom technology integration practices. Although the need for a curriculum that supports technology integration is apparent, teacher preparation institutions are faced with overcrowded standards-based curriculums and a lack of faculty educated in how to effectively model the integration of technology with their students (Moursund & Bielefeldt, 1999; OTA, 1995; President's Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology [PCAST], 1999).

The recent efforts of the U.S. Department of Education's Preparing Tomorrow's Teachers to Use Technology (PT3) Program have afforded teacher preparation institutions opportunities to investigate models and tools for enhancing preservice teacher education programs. One of the primary goals of PT3 is to prepare teachers to teach with technology and to understand the importance of enhancing curricula with technology. As a result, this initiative has produced a wide variety of methods to meet this goal. In an analysis of the 1999-2000 performance reports, Mathematica Policy Research (2001) found that faculty development, curricular redesign, and applying technology in new ways were the three common methods employed across the diverse PT3 projects.

In 2001, the College of Education was awarded a PT3 catalyst grant, known to the college as Technology Across Learning Environments for New Teachers (TALENT). This article will focus on the implementation and results of one project within TALENT that illustrated the integration of faculty development, curricular redesign, and the application of technology in new ways. The main goal of the project was to help two instructors within the department of special education tailor a technology-rich framework that would aid their students in increasing their technology competencies. The resulting framework combined the use of three online tutorials and three face-to-face cooperative learning sessions. Thirty-four special education preservice teachers participated in this project and went through all three tutorials, which were designed to increase their NETS-T related technology ability. During the face-to-face sessions, the preservice teachers worked in cooperative groups to produce online artifacts that highlighted their technological skill and their understanding of course-related curricular content.

With the implementation of this framework, the designers, who are the authors of the article, assessed its efficacy with the following guiding questions:

* Did the students have an overall perceived change in their National Education Technology Standards for Teachers (NETS-T) related technology ability?

* Did completing the framework foster an overall value change in students' perceptions of technology usage in the classroom?

* Were the online tutorials effective in delivering instructional information about technology?

* Did group variables predetermine the students' technological abilities or how they value the use of technology in education?

This article will begin with a brief overview of the supporting literature. The design and implementation of the project framework will then be discussed, followed by the research results and their implications for technology use in preservice teacher education.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Faculty Development

Faculty development generally focuses on increasing faculty technological literacy specific to educational or productivity applications. According to Mathematica Policy Research (2001), 77% of PT3 projects undertook some form of faculty development. This process is generally facilitated through the use of workshops or lecture based seminars to teach software specific skills. In other instances, some faculty development took place through establishing partnerships between faculty members with little technical skill and individuals (not necessarily faculty) who had more technological skill (Mathematica Policy Research, 2001). Mathematica Policy Research found that a few PT3 grants developed online tools for faculty development. Each of the aforementioned forms of faculty development was noted to increase technological skill.

Although increasing faculty technological skill is an essential component for advancing technology integration, many studies have indicated that technology integration is more than just the use of technology in a learning environment (Pierson, 2001; Ringstaff & Yocam, 1994; Sandholtz, Ringstaff, & Dwyer, 1994). Windschitl and Sahl (2002) suggested that professional development in technology integration must entail a deeper context than just the enhancement of technology skills. This deeper context may include developing faculty members' understandings of technology integration as it relates to curricular redesign and instructional use.

Curricular Redesign

Based on their findings, Moursund and Bielefeldt (1999) recommended that teacher education institutions spend time planning and restructuring in order to provide for technology integration. In the analysis of PT3 grants, Mathematica Policy Research (2001) found that a total of 69% of the teacher education institutions conducted some form of curricular redesign within their grant activities. It is widely accepted that to best model technology use for preservice teachers, technology has to be implemented seamlessly throughout the curricula (Cooper & Bull, 1997; Fox, Thompson, & Chan, 1996; Moursund & Bielefeldt, 1999). Additionally, the use of technology has to be meaningful to the curricular subject matter and student learning experience (Thomas, Larson, Clift, & Levin, 1996). To redesign curricula, Edyburn and Gardner (1999) suggested establishing a technology integration plan through a series of collegial conversations. Moreover, they advocated that the planning process should start with a review of learning standards and then progress to viewing current practice, establishing a vision, planning, implementation, and reevaluation (Edyburn & Gardner, 1999). In the analysis of PT3 activities, Mathematica Policy Research indicated that grantees conducted a variety of activities, from designing standards-based matrices and plans for integrating technology, to using online videos to demonstrate exemplary practices of technology integration. From these PT3 activities, it was learned that successful technology integration required some systematic, institutional curricular redesign.

Applying Technology

One aspect within technology integration that is commonly overlooked relates to how the "technology" is actually being used or applied within a learning environment. ISTE (2000) promoted the idea that an integrated learning environment melds both teacher and student uses. Throughout their framework, ISTE advocated for a learning environment that reflected a more student-centered model rather than a teacher-centered model of technology application. This convergence of instruction and student-centered use has historically been difficult to model within teacher education because often this is not what is happening within a teacher education curriculum (Moursund & Bielefeldt, 1999; OTA, 1995). Thus, if a goal of PT3 is to facilitate the development of teacher education programs that model effective technology integration, then technology uses in participating projects should reflect both instructors' and students' uses of technology.

In reviewing all PT3 related activities, Mathematica Policy Research (2001) found that 78% of PT3 teacher education programs reported their faculty using technology in new ways. Mathematica Policy Research indicated that the "new" uses most frequently incorporated the use of the Internet to obtain and gather information relevant to a specific course. For example, students may now be expected to use the Web to access a course syllabus and use e-mail to correspond with instructors. Further, in its report, Mathematica Policy Research cited that the majority of technology applications revolved around the faculty members using technology to present information to students, rather than students using the technology to develop materials or create electronic presentations. This finding puts forth the notion that many teacher education programs may only be modeling half of the technology's potential as a learning tool.

THE TALENT GRANT

Background

TALENT is a collaborative, cross-departmental initiative that involves several K-12 school districts and corporate partners, which investigates the most effective means for integrating technology in the preparation and practice of new teachers. The goals of TALENT include:

* to strengthen the "stranding" approach to technology integration across the methods curriculum by increasing staffing, support, and facilities;

* to increase faculty development in technology integration by providing additional support, incentives, and facilities for faculty as well as for supervisors; and

* to strengthen field placements for students by working with mentor teachers, providing a Tech-to-Go resource library, and providing laptops for supervisors and student teachers to use during the student teaching experience.

As a TALENT partner, the college's Department of Special Education and its faculty had illustrated a need for student support in the development of electronic portfolios (e-portfolios). During the first year of the grant, an attempt was made to address this need for effective technology integration with special education preservice teachers by designing two hands-on workshops during which students acquired and practiced the basic skills necessary for developing web-based e-portfolios. A TALENT graduate consultant led these workshops. Additionally, the graduate consultant worked with the preservice teachers on an individual and small group basis. Through these early workshops and work sessions, it was discovered that there existed a need for the development of some mechanism that would give all students the same basic knowledge and technological skill. Moreover, it was believed that the technology experiences could be strengthened if students had an opportunity to explore the many facets of technology while completing a standards-based project. Most students were excited about working with technology. However, their busy schedule of field experiences and course meetings provided little time for the acquisition of basic technology skills. For this reason, a framework was developed that combined the use of online tutorials as primary skill-based instructional components to allow for anytime/anywhere learning with face-to-face sessions that highlighted project-based, collaborative learning.

Framework & Tutorial Design

The framework was designed to provide students and faculty with a means for gaining standards-based instructional content while working at their own pace and on their own time. This framework included three online Flash-MX (Macromedia, 2002) based tutorials and three hands-on cooperative learning technology experiences. The tutorials, designed with both state and national technology standards in mind, offered faculty the flexibility of determining content, while helping students make the connection between their education program and the use of technology. Guided by the framework, the first series of tutorials covered: Introduction to the Web (tutorial one), Use of Mozilla Composer (tutorial two), and The Elements of Design (tutorial three). Despite the fact that each tutorial discussed the use of specific technologies, examples in each tutorial promoted the concrete application of technology integration in a generalized P-12 environment. The overall design allowed students to navigate through the individual tutorials any way that met their needs and at their own pace. For the most part, the tutorials only presented students with information (similar to a textbook), and therefore were representative of a traditional (behaviorist) instructional style. However, Flash MX provided the instructional designers with the ability to incorporate multimedia applications, such as interactive models and voice, to help guide student skill acquisition while meeting accessibility standards in an online environment. Finally, as discussed in detail later, each tutorial also included an evaluation component whereby the students provided feedback to the designers of the tutorial, and an assessment component in which the students' knowledge was measured.

After participating in each tutorial, students took part in a cooperative face-to-face technology experience. Unlike the individual tutorials, the experiential sessions were designed to be a constructivist-based medium, allowing for mutual application of learned skills. Throughout these sessions students worked in two to five person teams toward completing a project. The student teams, in consultation with faculty and TALENT staff, designed the cooperative projects. Each project was specifically tailored to the needs of the course curriculum and the NETS-T skill indicators.

The tutorials and the face-to-face working sessions were designed to build upon one another. Thus, cooperative groups were first introduced online to the theoretical and practical structure of the World Wide Web (WWW or Web), and later progressed to topics that provided deeper understandings of website design such as the theories of Universal Design, Information Architecture, and Graphic Design. As with most student work, end products varied based on group membership and commitment to participation. Some cooperative groups developed resource sites for paraprofessionals on topics such as classroom behavior management and effective reading instruction, while others developed online learning tools for children such as self-developed online storybooks. The cooperative group projects were considered a component of each student's overall e-portfolio. During the final class session, a student electronic poster-session was held to display each group's final product to the college.

In addition to developing and implementing the overall framework, TALENT consultants met with special education faculty members to assist in the redesign of curriculum to include the framework. The incorporation of cooperative projects that met special education preservice teaching standards as well as the state and national technology standards made it easy to illustrate new ways of thinking about curricular and course design. Faculty members were able to track students' progress through the tutorials through the use of online quizzes. To bring forth faculty development, faculty members were also encouraged to complete the tutorials themselves to develop the skills necessary to model appropriate technology use with their students.

METHODOLOGY

Data collection and analysis took place during the 2002-2003 academic year. All evaluation data were gathered concurrently with project implementation. Data were subsequently analyzed.

Participants

Participants for this project included 34 preservice special education teachers. The preservice teachers were all registered for an on-campus special education seminar course that was taken simultaneously with their student teaching practicum. Students in this group included both undergraduate upperclassmen and master's level graduate students. The online tutorials could be accessed through any computer with an Internet connection. All face-to-face sessions were scheduled during the seminar class period. Two special education faculty members were the lead instructors for the two sections of the course.

Data Collection Techniques

As a main emphasis of the project was to determine whether the online tutorials could present information to and elicit from the students basic skill acquisition, data collection generally focused on the impact of the tutorials and placed less focus on the cooperative components of the project. For this reason, the criterion for success in the cooperative group projects was whether or not each group completed their specified project. TALENT staff, in conjunction with faculty, determined the success of the group projects during the electronic poster session.

As it related to the focus of this evaluation, data were gathered using two main tools. The first tool was a pre- and postsurvey design that was implemented to determine changes related to students' perceived NETS-T ability, as well as students' values related to technology in education, and the basis on which they define what it means to be a teacher. A paper-based version of the International Society for Technology in Education [ISTE] Profiler Online Collaboration Tool (High Plains Regional Technology in Education Consortium [HPR*TEC], 2002) for Professional Preparation was used to measure the students' NETS-T ability. The survey consisted of 24 items that measured the NETS-T skill indicators. The four point Likert scale asked students if they were able to use technology in a variety of ways, with potential responses ranging from "1=Not at all" to "4=I am able to teach others to do this."

The National Educational Technology Standards for Students, Connecting Curriculum and Technology (ISTE, 2000), as well as findings reported in Becker (1999), Pierson (2001), and Sandholtz, Ringstaff, and Dwyer (1994) provided the basis for collecting other data correlated to students' values related to technology in education and their perceived identity of what it means to be a teacher. Students were asked to respond to 14 items related to their values of technology in education using a four point Likert scale (1=Strongly Agree ... 4=Strongly Disagree). The value statements were presented to the respondents to reflect a non-biased view of educational philosophy and pedagogy.

In defining what it means to be a teacher, students were asked to rate their personal definition of a teacher based on two descriptions given along a five-point continuum (Figure 1). As defined in the survey, the Type A description most closely aligns with a teacher who reflects a behaviorist approach to learning and the Type B description most closely aligns with a teacher who reflects a constructivist approach to learning. Both descriptions were stated in a positive format.

The second tool used to gather data was the evaluation component of each tutorial. As described earlier, each tutorial also included an online evaluation where users could anonymously give feedback to TALENT personnel regarding tutorial design characteristics including the ability to communicate the message, layout, perceived meaningfulness of the topic covered, and other design-specific features. This tool gathered data throughout the entire implementation phase of the project.

Data Analysis

Data were analyzed to determine whether students perceived a change in their NETS-T related ability and whether students' values of technology in the classroom changed after completing the tutorials. Additionally, data were examined to determine the effectiveness of the tutorials in delivering instructional information. Finally, the study sought to determine whether group variables, such as a preservice teacher's year in school or how he/she defined a teacher, could predict his/her technological ability or value of technology in education.

Pre- and postsurvey means were computed for NETS-T ability and overall change in value of technology in education. Paired t-tests were performed to determine differences between the overall means. Paired t-tests were also used to compare changes in individual items from the pre- to post-survey.

To assess whether group variables (teacher definition or year in school) could predict a student's technological ability or value of technology in education, a blockwise multiple regression was performed, with group membership and year in school, respectively, being used as predictors. Throughout all analyses, an alpha ([proportional]) value of .05 was set to determine statistical significance.

RESULTS

NETS-T Ability

Across the entire scale, presurvey and postsurvey results indicated that participating preservice teachers perceived a significant gain in NETS-T ability (M= 2.03 to 2.32 respectively; p= .001). Although findings indicated that, as a group, the preservice teachers never achieved a mean score of 4 (I can teach others to do ...) on any item, all 24 surveyed variables showed some gain between presurvey and postsurvey scores. As shown in Table 1, nine of these gains were significant (p < .05) and six were highly significant (p < .001).

Preservice Teachers' View on Technology's Value in Education

Across the entire scale, presurvey and postsurvey results indicated that participating preservice teachers showed no overall significant change in how they value technology (M = 1.99 to 1.97 respectively; p = .785). However, when analyzed individually, three of the fourteen variables did show significant changes between presurvey and postsurvey (Tables 2 and 3).

Effectiveness of Tutorials

Effectiveness of the tutorials may be expressed by the use of simple descriptive statistics from the individual tutorial evaluations as well as the interpretation of the results for questions one and two. Students completed an evaluation at the end of each of the three tutorials. Data was analyzed based on 88 evaluations completed by the students. As shown in Table 4, overall, 94% (83) of the evaluations indicated that students felt the tutorials ran flawlessly on their computers. In assessing relevance of the tutorials to their professional careers, 98% (86) of the evaluations revealed that students felt the material covered in the three tutorials was useful for their professional career. Viewing the design of the tutorials, 98% (86) of the evaluations showed that students felt the designs were effective in communicating information.

An underlying goal of the online tutorial framework was to provide the students with technology training based on their scheduling needs. This goal was met and illustrated by the fact that 43% (38) of the tutorial accesses took place after-hours, between 6 pm and 3 am. Furthermore, it should also be noted that by the end of the tutorial project each cooperative group was able to meet their established goals. Thus, at least in cooperative efforts, students showed the ability to apply learned skill.

Did Group Variables Predetermine Ability or Technology Values

Two independent variables, how the preservice teachers defined a teacher and the preservice teachers' years in school, were tested for their capacity to predict ability level and the preservice teachers' values associated with technology in education. Analysis of the presurvey and postsurvey Profiler scales showed that neither the students' definition of a teacher nor their year in school could be used to predict their ability level. However, in another analysis (Table 5), results indicated that a student's definition of a teacher could be used to predict his/her value of technology in education. The preservice teachers' definition accounted for approximately 25% of the variance of the dependent variable (value of technology in education) on the postsurvey and 18% of the variance on the presurvey. After teacher definition was taken into account, the variable "year in school" did not add an increased predictability to the dependent variable.

DISCUSSION

Success of the Project

In general, results demonstrated that the online tutorial project and instructional framework led to greater perceived NETS-T ability in the special education preservice teachers. Although the increase in technological ability highlighted the success of the project, it truthfully only added to the foregone notion that increased skill may be achieved with instruction. This study differed from other instructional-based models because the actual "formal" skill-based instruction took place online, through predeveloped, dynamic tutorials. Rather than taking time from course instruction, or having preservice teachers attend workshops, the tutorials provided a means for them to access and review instruction on their schedule. As discussed in the results section, the tutorials were often accessed after normal business hours. Therefore, the project was successful in providing students with a means to obtain information anytime and anywhere. Furthermore, although this model of instruction required large amounts of initial production time, little additional time was or will be needed to maintain the tutorials for further use.

The tutorials were computer-centered forms of the traditional stimulus-response model of education (similar to reading an interactive textbook). However, embedding the cooperative group projects into the curriculum exposed students to a more constructivist model by requiring that they collaboratively build technological artifacts. As discussed in the results, all student cooperative groups were able to complete their projects, which indicates that there was some transfer of learned skill to the development of the cooperative projects. Thus, it can be said that the combination of online learning and face-to-face practice was a contributing factor to the success of the project. Unfortunately, a limitation of the study was that the research design provided no way to assess what ability and understanding were gained from the tutorials, as compared to what ability and understanding were gained from the group projects. Although this association was not a focal point of the current study, it may a have played a major role in the success of the project and should be explored in future research.

Lack of Value Changes

Initially, it was believed that increasing preservice teachers' technology abilities would lead to changes in how the preservice teachers perceived technology. This thought was derived from the notion that with increased technology skill comes an increased sense of value (Becker, 1999). Furthermore, it was thought that an increased sense of value would contribute to greater future use of technology in the preservice teachers' careers (Windschitl & Sahl, 2002). The preservice teachers showed little value change from presurvey to postsurvey. However, of the 14 value variables tested, the preservice teachers did indicate changes in three of the variables. The first significant change was that by the end of this project the preservice teachers felt they had received adequate training on the use of technology in the classroom. Based on the positive feedback received from the tutorial evaluations, and the successful completion of the group projects, this result was expected.

Another anticipated finding was that by the end of the project the preservice teachers were more likely to agree with the notion that it is the teacher's role to align instruction with the technology standards. This finding may indicate that training programs, such as the one in this study, help preservice teachers understand their responsibility for technology integration in their classrooms. Although TALENT staff established the framework for integration as well as developed and supported the tutorials and cooperative group sessions during this study, the special education faculty members were responsible for presenting the project to the preservice teachers. Therefore, it is unclear whether the project itself or the faculty members' involvement in the project led to this perceived increase in responsibility for technology integration. Regrettably, the current research design did not provide a reliable means by which to gage the impact of the faculty's participation on the preservice teachers. Consequently, this relationship warrants further exploration through follow-up studies.

The final significant change was that, although the findings indicate that the preservice teachers preferred the online tutorials to a lecture on the same material, they ended the project with greater concerns about using the Internet in their learning. This finding was surprising and merits further investigation. One possible explanation is that the online tutorials brought to light the wide array of learning opportunities available on the Internet, and this new understanding may have left students feeling overwhelmed and unsure of their Internet skills.

Defining What it Means to be a Teacher

The findings of the online tutorial project suggested that, regardless of whether preservice teachers defined a teacher as more of a behaviorist or more of a constructivist, they came into the project with the same skills. Furthermore, the postsurvey results also indicated that, despite a preservice teachers' affiliation with a specific teacher definition, preservice teachers left the project with similar gains in perceived NETS-T ability. Another important finding, which supports those discussed by Becker (1999), was that the more closely a preservice teacher defined a teacher with the constructivist pedagogy, the greater the value the preservice teacher placed on technology in education. Together these findings suggest that, despite one's level of technological skill, individuals who more closely align with a constructivist view of teaching hold a stronger regard for the integration of technology in education. This has large implications for the classroom as suggested by Ravitz, Becker, and Wong (2000), who found that teachers who hold a constructivist philosophy carry that philosophy into their classroom to transform their teaching. However, Windschitl and Sahl (2002) found that simply introducing teachers to technology did not prompt the transformation to constructivist pedagogy. Therefore, simply increasing technological skill is not enough to lead to real change in classroom practice.

CONCLUSION

It is widely understood throughout the field of education that training in technological skill leads to gains in skill. The findings from this study suggest that such training can take place online and still bring forth perceived gains in ability. However, it is unclear whether the gains seen in this study were a result of the online training, or whether the gains were due in large part to the creation of cooperative group projects that allowed students to practice their skills. Further research should examine this link between online skill training and cooperative projects.

This project has created a foundation from which future research may take place in the areas of technology integration, value orientation, and pragmatic implementation. The findings indicated that perceived increases in technological skill do not change the degree to which an individual values the integration of technology in the classroom. Instead, it was found that an individual's definition of a teacher as either behaviorist or constructivist has a significant impact on his/her value of technology in education. Therefore, although skill training does provide preservice teachers with the tools they need to use technology, it is not enough. If classroom technology integration is desired, teacher educators must further participate in the process by modeling and discussing the pedagogical relationships between preservice course instruction and the integration of technology, as well as by helping preservice teachers shape their definitions of a teacher.
Type A: A teacher is the director of information who teaches to students
through a sequence of learning objectives designed to produce observable
outcomes from which students gain a set of predefined skills.

Type B: A teacher is the facilitator and co-learner, who scaffolds
experiences to guide students through stimulating, thought provoking,
critical thinking, and analysis in order to meet specified learning
objectives.

Circle the number that most closely aligns with your definition of a
teacher:

 Type A Type B
 1 2 3 4 5

Figure 1. Teacher descriptions aligned with five-point continuum

Table 1 Significant Mean Differences Between Pre- and Postsurvey NETS-T
Abilities

Variable Base Mean MD SD t-value Sig

Plan and teach student-
centered learning activities
in which students apply
technology tools and
resources 2.13 .33* .606 3.010 .005
Design & teach a
standard-based integrated
lesson 2.00 .37* .718 2.796 .009
Identify the benefits of
technology for learning
and higher order skills 2.18 .38* .868 2.419 .022
Develop an electronic
portfolio 1.65 .72** .639 6.143 .000
Evaluate technology-based
student products 1.88 .25* .653 2.096 .045
Integrate technology-based
assessment strategies 1.83 .34* .670 2.774 .010
Discuss technology-based
assessment and evaluation
strategies 1.90 .28* .739 2.100 .045
Examine technology tools
used to collect, analyze,
interpret, represent, and
communicate student
performance data 1.87 .50** .682 4.014 .000
Identify and engage in
technology-based
opportunities for
professional education and
lifelong learning. 1.87 .50** .731 3.746 .001
Participate in online
professional collaborations
with peers and experts 2.00 .52** .771 3.670 .001
Identify safety and health
issues related to technology
use in schools 1.83 .33* .758 2.408 .023
Identify technology-related
legal and ethical issues 1.77 .40* .724 3.026 .005
Identify issues of equitable
access 1.80 .50** .630 4.349 .000
Identify and use assistive
technologies 1.92 .55** .735 4.097 .000
Examine acceptable use
policies 1.78 .26* .663 2.100 .045

Note. Base mean equals the presurvey mean. Mean Difference (MD) equals
the difference between presurvey and postsurvey
* p < .05 ** p < .001.

Table 2 Significant Mean Differences Between PreSurvey and PostSurvey in
Preservice Teachers' Value of Technology

Variable Base Mean MD SD t-value Sig

I have received adequate
training on the use of
technology in the classroom. 2.90 -.33* .606 3.010 .005
It is the teacher's role to
align instruction with the
technology standards. 2.15 -.18* .464 2.164 .039
I have no concerns about
using the Internet as a tool
in my learning. 2.18 .57* .920 3.286 .003

Note. Base mean equals the presurvey mean. Mean Difference (MD) equals
the difference between presurvey and postsurvey
* p < .05

Table 3 Value Statements Showing No Significant Change

Variable Base Mean MD SD t-value Sig

The Internet can be
a valuable tool for
learning. 1.13 .00 .455 .000 1.0
Technology plays an
important role in my life. 1.60 -.07 .450 .812 .423
The best way to learn is
through experimental,
hands-on based situations. 1.35 -.02 .676 .135 .893
I would rather go through
a web-based tutorial than
attend a lecture on the
same material. 1.78 -.14 1.238 .600 .553
Developing an e-portfolio
is a useless requirement
to my busy schedule. 2.22 .33 .994 -1.776 .087
I integrate technology
into my teaching
experiences. 2.43 -.33 1.124 1.624 .115
I do not see technology
as hampering the education
process. 1.60 .13 .681 -1.072 .293
Taking time to gain skills
in technology is something
I am looking forward to
doing. 2.07 -.07 .546 .680 .052
Using technology in
instruction is as important
as using a chalkboard or
textbook. 1.93 -.10 .803 -.682 .501
I do not view "computer
time" as an activity that
takes place separate from
regular instruction. 2.22 -.17 .747 1.223 .231
Developing an e-portfolio
will increase my ability to
use technology in teaching. 2.28 -.17 .899 1.033 .311

Note. Base mean equals the presurvey mean. Mean Difference (MD) equals
the difference between presurvey and postsurvey.

Table 4 Combined Items to Rate Effectiveness of Tutorials 1-3

 Agree Disagree
Question N n (%) n (%)

The tutorials ran flawlessly
on my computer 88 83 (94) 5 (6)
The content of the tutorial
is useful for my professional
career 88 86 (98) 2 (2)
Overall the design of the
tutorial was effective in
communicating the information 88 86 (98) 2 (2)
I prefer the online tutorial
to attending a lecture on the
same information 88 81 (92) 2 (2)
Total 352 336 (95) 11 (3)

Note. Agree includes answers: Strongly Agree and Agree. Disagree
includes answers: Strongly Disagree and Disagree

Table 5 Defining a Teacher Analysis

Source df Sum of MS F Sig
 Squares

(1) Regression 1 .357 .357 4.985 .036
Residual 23 1.648 .072
Total 24 2.005
(2) Regression 1 .414 .414 8.186 .008
Residual 25 1.265 .051
Total 26 1.679

Note. Mean Square (MS)
(1) Predictor of teacher definition in presurvey with dependent: value
scale
(2) Predictor of teacher definition in postsurvey with dependent: value
scale


Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Eunice Jang for her expertise and consultation regarding statistical analysis.

Authors' Note

This material is based on work supported by the Federal Government's Department of Education under Grant No. P342A01006901A. The U.S. Department of Education has certain rights in this material. Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in the material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the U. S. Department of Education.

References

Becker, H.J. (1999). Internet use by teachers: Conditions of professional use and teacher-directed student use (Teaching, Learning, and Computing Report: 1998 National Survey No. 1). Irvine, CA: Center for Research on Information Technology and Organizations. Retrieved September 30, 2001, from http://www.crito.uci.edu/tlc/html/findings.html

Cooper, J., & Bull, G. (1997). Technology and teacher education: Past practice and recommended directions. Action in Teacher Education, 19(2), 97-106.

Education Week (1999). Technology counts '99. Internet: Author. Retrieved September 30, 2001 from http://www.edweek.org/sreports/tc99

Edyburn, D.L., & Gardner, J.E. (1999). Integrating technology into special education teacher preparation programs: Creating shared visions. Journal of Special Education Technology, 14(2), 3-20.

Fox, L., Thompson, D., & Chan, C. (1996). Computers and curriculum integration in teacher education. Action in Teacher Education, 17(4), 64-73.

High Plains Regional Technology in Education Consortium (HPR*TEC) (2002). Profiler Online Collaboration Tool. Retrieved August 19, 2002, from http://profiler.hprtec.org/

International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE). (2000). National educational technology standards (NETS) for students: Connecting curriculum and technology. Eugene, OR: Author.

Macromedia, Inc. (2002). Flash MX [Computer Software]. San Francisco, CA: Author.

Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. (2001). Analysis of the 1999-2000 annual performance reports for preparing tomorrow's teachers to use technology: Final report. Washington DC: Author.

Moursund, D., & Bielefeldt, T. (1999). Will new teachers be prepared to teach in a digital age? A national survey on information technology in teacher education. Santa Monica, CA: Milken Exchange on Education Technology and the International Society for Technology in Education.

National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (2000). Teacher use of computers and the Internet in public schools (NCES 2000-090). U.S. Department of Education Office of Educational Research and Improvement. Retrieved October 21, 2000, from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2000/2000090.pdf

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

Pierson, M.E. (2001). Technology integration practice as a function of pedagogical expertise. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 33(4), 413-430.

President's Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST). Panel on Education Technology. (1997). Report to the president on the use of technology to strengthen K-12 education in the United States. Washington, DC: Author.

Ravitz, J., Becker, H.J., & Wong, Y. (2000). Constructivist-compatible beliefs and practices among U.S. teachers (Teaching, Learning, and Computing: 1998 National Survey No. 4). Irvine, CA: Center for Research on Information Technology and Organizations. Retrieved March 7, 2003, from http://www.crito.uci.edu/tlc/html/findings.html

Ringstaff, C., & Yocam, K. (1994). Creating an alternative context for teacher development: The ACOT teacher development centers (Apple Classrooms of Tomorrow [ACOT] Report No. 18). Cupertino, CA: Apple Computer Inc.

Sandholtz, J.H., Ringstaff, C., & Dwyer, D.C. (1994). Student engagement revisited: Views from technology-rich classrooms (Apple Classrooms of Tomorrow [ACOT] Report No. 21). Cupertino, CA: Apple Computer Inc.

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

Windschitl, M., & Sahl, K. (2002). Tracing teacher's use of technology in a laptop computer school: The interplay of teacher beliefs, social dynamics, and institutional culture. American Educational Research Journal, 39(1), 165-205.

JAMES BASHAM, AMANDA PALLA, AND EVANGELINE PIANFETTI

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Champaign, IL USA

jbasham@uiuc.edu

apalla@uiuc.edu

esecaras@ad.uiuc.edu
COPYRIGHT 2005 Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE)
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2005, Gale Group. All rights reserved. Gale Group is a Thomson Corporation Company.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Title Annotation:National Educational Technology Standards for Teachers
Author:Pianfetti, Evangeline
Publication:Journal of Technology and Teacher Education
Geographic Code:1USA
Date:Jun 22, 2005
Words:6345
Previous Article:The influence of organizational culture on technology integration in teacher education.
Next Article:The role of teacher knowledge and learning experiences in forming technology-integrated pedagogy.
Topics:


Related Articles
Teaching teachers to use online information.
Learning Generation: fostering innovation with tomorrow's teachers and technology.
Are teachers in China ready to teach in the 21st century?
A factor analysis of the NETS performance profiles: searching for constructs of self-concept and technology professionalism.
Teaming: constructing high-quality faculty development in a PT3 project.
Web-based digital teaching portfolios: fostering reflection and technology competence in preservice teacher education students.
Collaborative online problem solving with preservice general education and special education teachers.
Can preservice teacher education really help me grow as a literacy teacher?: examining preservice teachers' perceptions of multimedia case-based...
What predicts student teacher self-efficacy?
Collaborating for preservice teacher assessment.

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2020 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters