Intro

EVOLVING USES OF A TECHNOLOGY LENDING LIBRARY IN PRESERVICE TEACHER EDUCATION

Patricia D. M= orrell, University of Portland

Michael T. Ch= arles, Pacific University

Abstract

A consortium of six teacher education programs in private universities in Oregon (Oregon Technology in Education Network – OTEN) has been working on a grant-funded program to help student teachers use technology as teaching tools. We have found that two of the major inhibitions to the application of technology-enhanced lessons for= preservice teachers are the lack of resources in the schools in which they are working and a lack of modeling in their college courses. To help with this, we created lending libraries, which house a poo= l of equipment including laptop computers, digital projectors, and video and sti= ll cameras. Education faculty and students can borrow the equipment for use in education or field classrooms = or for personal use. Two outcomes of the libraries have been: 1) another way t= o address the digital divide by providing K-12 teachers and pre-service teachers with technology when their schools do not have what they need to implement technology-enhanced strategies to improve learning, and 2) to provide experiences with technology that help teachers push the limits of what is p= ossible.

Introduction

Technology continues to strengthen its place in our lives. Not only can we carry our music wi= th us, but we can run to hand-picked music and use our MP3 player to give us runni= ng stats and record our workout. Cell phones with internet connections are increasingly common. People of all ages have e-mail accounts. We pay = our bills on-line. And you can no= w act out your video game playing instead of just using arrow buttons! What about in classrooms, where st= udents spend a good part of their day?

Many studi= es have shown that technology can be valuable in enhancing student learning (see Waxman, Lin, & Michko, 2003). Information and communications technology (ICT) can support learning in a variety of unique and powerful ways (Valdez, Ciesemier= , Sweet & Dawson, 2004). Higher achievement scores have been correlated with certain kinds of technology use at certain grade levels (Archer, 1998). Scientific visualization tools have shown promise in drawing today's increasingly visual learners into in-depth inquiries in mathematics and science (Baker & Case 2000; Greenberg et a= l. 1993; Gordin & Pea 1995; Jonassen 2000; Thomas, Johnson, & Stevenso= n, 1996; Malinowski, Klevickis & Kolvoord, 2001). More and more school districts are enhancing their classrooms with various technologies: Smart boards, student response sys= tems, laptops for every student, digital still and video cameras, scientific probeware, and graphing calculators, to name a few current innovations.

In this co= ntext, it is vital to work with preservice teachers to give them a solid grounding both in working with the technology that is currently available and giving = them the baseline they need to enhance these skills as new technologies continue= to find their way into classrooms.

Literature Review

Prese= rvice teacher educators face a particular challenge in helping their students lea= rn to use technology to create better learning environments in their future classrooms. Studies suggest t= hat there are several reasons why preservice teachers are poorly prepared: 1) a lack of access to hardware and software on campus limiting opportunities for hands-on experiences; 2) little exposure to technology integration in teach= er education classes; and 3) isolated technology methods courses that focus on learning about technology instead of learning with technology (Grabe & Grabe, 2001). Moursund and Bielefeldt's (1999) national survey found similar problems: 1) one-third of teacher education programs are limited by their lack of technology facilities; 2) most faculty and students have similar information technology skills, however, the major= ity of the faculty do not model these skills; 3) teacher education "progra= ms do not have a written, funded, regularly-updated technology plan" (p. = 28); and 4) student teachers have access to technology in field placements, but = do not regularly use technology with children. Student teachers are often plac= ed with teachers or supervisors who cannot effectively advise them in the use = of the technology (Moursund & Bielefeldt, 1999). A recent Pew study points= to a different problem: students are increasingly more technologically savvy t= han their teachers, and as a result “we are not realizing the full instructional benefits of the technological infrastructure that has been co= nstructed in K-12 schools “ (Bull & Bull, 2003, = p. 28).

Thus the l= ack of access to ICT both on college campuses and in K-12 school placements is a documented barrier to the effective integration of technology by teachers entering the profession. To b= e certain, as the studies above point out, the problem is more complex than simple acc= ess. But improved access is a starting point for better technology integration in K-12 schools.

Purpose

The famous line in the popular movie Fi= eld of Dreams was “If you build it, they will come.” We wondered if we provided additio= nal access to technology for preservice teachers, would they use it in their professional preparation and in their field classrooms?= The purpose of this study was to determine, if we provide easy access to an array of technology to preservice teachers and School of Education facult= y:

(a) would they avail themselves of the equipment; and

(b) how would they use the technology.

Background

In 1999 the Oregon Technology Education Network (OTEN= ) was formed. OTEN is a consortium = of six schools of education from private liberal arts colleges and universities in= Northwestern Oregon. Although focused in a quadrant of the state, this geographic region includes Oregon’s major metropolitan areas and many of the outlying suburban and rural areas. Collectively OTEN prep= ares teachers from and for communities that reach throughout Oregon and the surrounding states. Additionally, this consortium is responsible for preparing a large percenta= ge of the teachers that are ultimately employed in the state of Oregon.

This partnership formed out of a common desire to imp= rove the way in which technology was being used to support teaching and learning= in both preservice and inservice teacher education. The consortium received a small gr= ant from AT&T in 2000, which helped in securing a Preparing Tomorrows’ Teachers to Use Technology grant in 2001, and a Department of Education Gra= nt in 2005.

Because we found that one of the major inhibitions to= the application of technology-enhanced lessons for pre-service teachers is the = lack of resources in the schools in which they are working, some funds from thes= e grants supported the creation of lending libraries at each of the six institutions. Each school was given funds to purchase technology that would be housed in = the School of Education (SOE) to be borrowed by education students and faculty = for use in education or field classrooms or for personal use. Because each of the OTEN member institutions has a different collection of public schools (hence different needs) with whom they collaborate, each consortium member chose the specific technologies it would purchase. These lending libraries typically contain a set of about 12 laptop computers, LCD projectors, digital still and video cameras, digital microscopes, document cameras, airports, and equipment carts.

It was hoped that SOE students and faculty would borr= ow the equipment in order to experiment and become proficient with the technologies and explore how they could use them in instructional settings. The faculty could then use the equ= ipment in their classes, modeling their uses to the SOE students. It was further hoped that the SOE students would construct technology-enhanced lessons and bring the equipment into their field classrooms. = This would help address the digital divide by providing the technology when their schools do not have what they need to implement the technology-enhanced strategies.

While each institution handles its own lending librar= y, borrowing of equipment is pretty standard.= The technology is housed in the School of Education= , and students and faculty just need to sign out what they need and for what period of time the material is needed.&nbs= p; Some institutions have recently asked that the lender to also state = the intended purpose for the loan.

Methods

= ; If we provide the technology to the SOE students and faculty, will they come a= nd borrow it? The check out sheets for the equipment from the OTEN institutions provide the = data for this study. They state wh= at equipment is borrowed, by whom, and for how long a period of time. Because only two institutions have required borrowers to state the purpose of the loan, much of the data for h= ow the equipment is used are based on conversations with the campus coordinato= rs (faculty at each campus who oversee the OTEN project on their individual campuses). Because the volume= of loans is quite large (typically, over 3000 pieces are checked out annually)= , we have limited the specific loan data for discussion in this paper to the mos= t recent academic year (2005-2006). In speaking with the campus coordinators, changes in trends of the use of the lending libraries over time were noted.

Results/Discussion

= ; As in the movie, when we did make the equipment available, it was used. For the 2005-2006 academic year, 1006 pieces of equipment were checked out on 851 different occasions. (Note: In one of the institutions, faculty seemed to rely on the lending library as their main source of projectors for their teaching and requested the equipment on a weekly basis. These were considered as a one-tim= e loan rather than counting each week as separate lending occasions.) Table 1 lists<= /span> the specific types of technologies checked out, arranged by most heavily to least heavily used, and the percentage of each item to the total lending instances. Distinctions could= not readily be made between faculty and student use for most institutions, so t= he numbers presented represent total use of the equipment by School of Education= constituents.

= ;= ;

Table 1

Equipment borrowed from the Six Lending Libraries a= nd the percentage of the whole each piece represents (n=3D1,006 borrowed pieces of equipment)

Equipment	Percentage of Total Borrows
Laptop	36
LCD projectors	24
Digital video camera	18
Digital still camera	9
Document camera	5
Digital microscope	2
Tripod	1
Wireless Base Station	<1
Equipment cart (laptop w/projector)	<1
CDRW	<1
Video converter	<1
Printer	<1
Scanner	<1
Classroom performance system	<1
Wireless microphone	<1
iSight	<1
Zip drive	<1
DVD burner	<1

From the collective data, l= aptops are the most common piece of technology borrowed from the libraries, follow= ed by LCD projectors and digital video cameras. However, the patterns of borrowing differed among the institutions. For half of the institutions, laptops and projectors were most frequently borrowed items. For the other half, video cameras would place in= the top two items in demand. This= may be explained by the other resources readily available on those campuses or owned by the students. In som= e of the institutions, computers are readily available throughout campus and man= y of the public school sites have computers in the classrooms. Video cameras and other pieces of technology may also be available for loan from the university technology offices (in addition to the SOE lending libraries), and students and faculty may be borrowing equipment from that venue.

How are students and faculty using the equipment? Detailed loan records were availab= le from one institution. Anecdot= al information was available from the campus coordinators for all campuses. Faculties seem to be using the technology for use with their instruction:= power point presentations, web site demonstrations, sharing of visual images, etc. Some borrow the digital still cameras to photograph their students to help them more quickly associate names with faces. T= here were several instances of faculty stating they were borrowing equipment to practice using software (“become better acquainted with a computer program”) and to find good web links to use with their students. Othe= rs also mentioned the importance of demonstrating the use of technology with t= heir preservice teachers: “m= odel technology use in early classroom situations for new MAT students;” “model technology and inspire my students.” There were also instances of borro= wing equipment for personal and professional use: presentations at conferences and f= or interviewing purposes.

Students used the technology for similar reasons.&n= bsp; Many were using the technology in their field classrooms to present power point guided lessons, to share visuals, explore web sites with their students, etc. (“TLW actively participate in a food chain simulation”). One stude= nt borrowed equipment to “explore mathematical applets and virtual manipulatives available on-line and develop a worthwhile task associated wi= th their use.” A var= iety of digital cameras were used to record student work and student presentatio= ns. Some borrowed the hardware so their students could use it in their own learning (to record seasonal changes, “allow choice for mode of required presentation,” create their = own books, and the like).= Several students were using either the digital microscopes or attach= ing the document camera to microscopes they had at school to help their field students make observations of various organisms. A large number of students from ea= ch institution borrowed video cameras to record their own field placement teaching, for purposes of reflection and adjustment. While this is laudable, it is also= a requirement of the institutions; it is not possible to discern which studen= ts are recording themselves for their own personal growth and which are doing = the recording solely to meet program requirements.

The lending libraries have evolved in their use over the past seven years. It was initially thought that the lending libraries would be used during the fall semester by students in the= ir professional preparation courses, and then in their student teaching placem= ents in the spring semester. This scenario varied from institution to institution and as public schools changed their own supply of technological equipment.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> At one of the OTEN institutions, f= or example, it was noted—almost from the beginning-- that the laptops an= d cameras became tools for faculty to use in their own teaching, often providing the = kind of laptop access that many of their local K-12 schools enjoyed through lapt= op carts. Faculty encouraged laptops in their classrooms, and the lending libr= ary provided them for selected class sessions for the dwindling number of stude= nts who did not have their own laptops. Faculty and students used digital camer= as to document science activities such as whether or not light bulbs in a circ= uit go on simultaneously or in a rapid sequence. Students used camcorders as pa= rt of an end of the semester project to document their own learning in mathematics, science, and/or health content. The lending library made these= and other projects much more manageable for students as students could edit vid= eo projects on laptops at home instead of confining their use to a single, hea= vily used computer lab in the = School of Education. The l= ending library allowed for more ubiquitous technology use by the preservice teacher educators. Then during student teaching these same students might find lapt= op carts that had been underutilized in their placements and put them to use in ways similar to what they had experienced during their own coursework. The tools of the lending library were increasingly available at their own stude= nt teaching placements, so there was not as much of a need to use the lending library during the student teaching phase. Most student teachers found othe= rs ways to increase student access at their placements besides bringing five to ten laptops from the university to their campus. Thus at this institution the lendi= ng library was most important in the professional preparation phase and in expanding students’ understanding of what kinds of projects technology might make possible with their students; it was not so critical in actually enabling access to technology to complete those projects in their student teaching. In contrast, at ano= ther of the consortium institutions, the public schools in which student teaching generally occurs are still under-equipped in terms of technology. Without the use of the lending lib= rary which provided student teachers with equipment for use in their field class= es, many of the technologically-enhanced lessons designed by the student teache= rs would be impossible to conduct.

Conclusions

= ; The development of lending libraries did foster the use of technology by both <= st1:place w:st=3D"on">School of Education faculty and students. The original goals for instituting= the libraries were that SOE constituents would use the equipment to gain familiarity with and confidence in using the technologies; that faculty wou= ld model technology use with their education students; and that the preservice teachers would use the technology with their own field placement students.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> The libraries have been successful= at all three.

The content of lending libraries and their uses are very context dependent. While most of the institutions hav= e the same types of equipment available, the quantities vary. An original thought was that stude= nt teachers would borrow classroom sets of technology to take into the schools with them. For some students,= this was a real plus and the only way they could implement technology-enhanced lessons in their field placements. For others, this was unnecessary.&n= bsp; In one of the school districts associated with OTEN, the first school-wide computer lab was completed last year; in another, every middle school student is issued a lap top for home and school use! Some of the field classrooms are completely wired, while others only have limited internet access throughout= the building. The lending librari= es can only begin to help bridge the digital divide that exists in our public scho= ols.

The use of the technology by faculty also varies by institution. In some institutions, many (if not= all) the university classrooms are equipped with mounted LCD projectors and computers. In others, the len= ding library is the primary or most convenient source of this equipment for facu= lty use. Relationships between computing centers and SOEs are sometime tenuous, and the types of technology and assistance available for faculty and student use is inconsistent across the OTEN members. Having every campus coordinator create the lending library for their own institution was important in the success of = the project.

With passing time, technology access in both universities and public schools cha= nges and expertise in using the technology to enhance learning grows. The lending libraries must evolve with the changing contexts to continue to meet the ne= eds of SOE faculty and students. <= /span>

Implications

It was rel= atively easy for OTEN to start the lending libraries because of grant funding. However, we do face the issue of continuing to maintain and upgrade the libraries once the grant funds are depleted. Because we have demonstrative success with having the technology easily available for use by both faculty and students, it has not been a huge battle to convince the de= ans of the Schools of Education that in the future money must be budgeted for t= he lending libraries. In additio= n, OTEN faculty have had greater input into the university-wide technology funding issues and decisions—what hardware= and software should be purchased and how student technology fees should be spent.

Something = that should not be overlooked is that just because these new instructional tools= are available does not necessarily mean they will be used to their greatest advantage. Smart boards= , for example, can be used as glorified overhead projectors. But they hold the potential to be = much more. We must work with our preservice teachers so they become savvy users of instructional technologies—that they continue to be life long users of technological tools for sound instructional purposes and not just complacent users. Placing our student teachers with supervising teachers who can act as role models will help in this learning process.

Finally, o= ne thing that became clear when reviewing the data logs from the different lending <= span class=3DGramE>libraries, is a consistent method of recording transac= tions would be helpful in fully assessing the strength of the impact of the libraries. If all of the cons= ortium institutions had lenders note if they were faculty or student and the purpo= se for which the equipment was being used, data collection would be more unifo= rm. This would strengthen the argument= for why continued funding of this innovation is essential in preparing preservi= ce teachers who are technologically savvy.

References

Archer, J. (1998). The link to higher scores. Education Week, 18(5), = 10-21.

Baker, = T.R., & Case, S.B. (2000). Let GIS be your guide. Science Teacher, 67= (7), 24-26.

Bull, G. & Bull, G. (20= 03). The digital disconnect: A recent Pew study confirms that the digital

divide is still an issue. Learning & Leading with Technology. 31(5), 28-31.

Gordin,= D.N., & Pea, R.D. (1995). Prospects for scientific visualization as an educational

technology. The Journal of the Learning Science= s, 4 (3), 249-279.

Grabe, = M., & Grabe, C. (2001). Integrating technology for meaningful learning (3rd. ed.= ).

Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Greenberg, R., Kolvoord, R.= A., Magisos, M., Strom, R.G., &Croft, S. (1993). Image processing

for teaching. Journal of Science Educat= ion and Technology, 2,14-18.

Jonassen, D.H. (2000). Systems modeling as mindtools. = In Computers as Mindtools for Schools= .

Columbus, Ohio: Merrill, Prentice Hall.

Malinowski, R., Klevickis, = C., & Kolvoord, R. (2001) Come see the molecules—using 3-D

modeling programs to learn chemistry. Learning and Leading with Technology, 29 (4) 36-41, 61. = Accessed at http://www.iste.org/L&L/archive.html.<= /p>

Moursun= d, D., & Bielefeldt, T. (1999). Will new teachers be prepared to teach = in a digital age? A

national survey on information technology in teacher education. Beverly Hills, CA:

Milken= Family (ERIC Document Reproduction Service NO. ED 428 072)

Sandhol= tz, J.H., Ringstaff, C., & Dwyer, D.C. (1997). Teaching with technology: Creating student-centered classrooms. New York: Teachers College Press.

Thomas, D.A., Johnson, K., = & Stevenson, S. (1996). Integrated mathematics, science, and technology: An introduction to scientific visualization. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 12 (3), 267-294.

Valdez, G., Ciesmeir, = K., Sweet, J.R., & Dawson, M.D. (2004, April). Essential support= s for educational technology in high-poverty and/or high-minority schools that cl= ose achievement gaps. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational research Association, San Diego, CA.

Waxman,= H.C., Lin, M., & Michko, G.M. (2003). A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of teaching and learning with technology on student outcomes. Retri= eve May 10, 2004, http://www.ncrel.org/tech/effects2/