SUPPORTI=
NG
INTEGRATION OF TECHNOLOGY IN STUDENT
TEACHING EXPERIENCES THROUGH STUDENT GRANTS
Mark Szymanski, Pacific University
James B. Carroll, University of Portland
Abstract
Stud=
ent
teachers competitively applied for small technology grants to obtain equipm=
ent
and software to support instruction in their clinical experiences. Self-rep=
ort
summaries of these experiences were examined to identify issues around effi=
cacy
of instruction and suggestions for future iterations of uses of technology =
by
these and other teachers.
Considerable literature over some time reinforces the point that it is important that student teaching experiences have technology-enhanced teachi= ng experiences integrated into them (i.e. CEO Forum, 1999; Moursand & Bielefeldt, 1999; Office of Technology Assessment, 1995). Problems related = to accomplishing this in teacher education programs are numerous (Dexter & Riedel, 2003). They include technology access at school sites, cooperating teacher attitudes toward technology use, lack of student teaching program requirements, and technology support at both the clinical site and the university program. Doering, Hughes, and Huffman (2003) add student teacher lack of classroom management skills, skepticism about technology’s efficacy, and fear of lack of technology expertise. This is a formidable li= tany of inhibitors to the infusion of technology in teaching and learning during student teacher’s clinical experiences.
Although Schools of Education are responding to increasing pressure to better prepare teachers to teach with technology, most strategies to do this are bound within the Schools of Education themselves. A review of the heavi= ly funded Preparing Tomorrow’s Teachers to Use Technology programs (Rhine & Bailey, 2005) shows substantial difficulty in moving technology into student teaching experiences. In most cases redesigning the technology components of teacher preparation program experiences has progressed. What = is more difficult is finding ways to move those experiences into the schools in which these students will become future teachers. Dexter and Reidel (2003) identify strategies for improving the possibilities that this can be accomplished such as equipping classrooms as model sites, identifying technology-competent cooperating teachers, video conferencing and providing technology for student teachers to take into their clinical experiences as = some solutions that have been attempted but each of these solutions has its own = set of complications.
To overcome some of the problems related to insufficient technology in clinical experiences (Brent, Brawner, & Van Dyk, 2003) that student teachers often face we used federal grant funds to provide small technology resource grants to student teachers. Student teachers who received the gran= ts took these technology resources with them into their student teaching experiences with specific curricular goals in mind. We were interested in both the impa= ct on learning for K-12 students in these classrooms and on the development of= the student teachers.
The purpose of this study is to examine the impact of providing technology resources to student teachers during their student teaching experience.
Methods
Student teachers from seven Pacific Northwest liberal arts universiti= es were offered the opportunity to submit a proposal for a small technology resource grant. These grants were funded out of a federal Teacher Quality Enhancement Partnership grant. Each proposal needed to include the resources that would be used in teaching, the specific learning goals, a description = of how the technology would allow them to do activities that would be difficul= t or impossible without the technology, and details of how student learning woul= d be assessed in technology-enhanced lessons.
Grants were reviewed by a team of university faculty who represented = the seven participating universities. The forty-eight awarded grants averaged $= 530 and provided both hardware and software to the student teachers that became theirs after their projects were completed.
At the end of each project grantees completed a Project Summary onlin= e. Questions on the summary form were:
Summarize the results of the assessments= of learning related to your technology-enhanced lessons. Include a description of the asses= sments used.
Describe the effectiveness of your technology-enhanced lessons. = What positive or negative consequences of the infusion of technology were not captured in the assessments of learning?
How would you prepare other teachers to = be as or more successful than you were with the technology-enhanced lessons you implemented?
In April of 2006 grant recipients made presentations about their proj= ects in a conference setting attended by 200 student teachers and university faculty.
Project summary response data were analyzed using a constant comparat= ive method within each of the three project summary questions. Additionally, comments were gathered from a feedback form completed at the April conferen= ce.
Results
The Oregon Technology in Education Network (OTEN) solicit= ed project summaries from student teachers who received mini-grants in 2005-20= 06. Mini-grant recipients were asked to describe the outcomes from learning assessments, administered to their students. positive and negative conseque= nces of technology integration, and recommendations for other teachers trying to implement similar projects. A content analysis was conducted on the respons= es of thirty-nine student teachers to the following three questions.
Table = 1.
Summarize the results of the assessme= nts of learning related to your technology-enhanced lessons. Include a description= of the assessments used.
|
|
N |
% of 39 |
|
Improved understanding |
23 |
59% |
|
Not addressed |
7 |
18% |
|
Improved technology skills |
5 |
13% |
|
Increased motivation |
1 |
|
|
Exposure to culture (music of the middle east) |
1 |
|
|
Improved classroom climate |
1 |
|
|
Improved self-assessment skills |
1 |
|
|
Improved teacher self assessment |
1 |
|
Most student teachers reported some increase in student understanding or skills as a result of participating in the technology-enha= nced lessons. Many student teachers noted an increase in student writing fluency and quality as a result of completing writing activities that were related to technology-enhanced lessons. In addition, student teachers also reported higher levels of analysis of historical situations, greater recall of facts, and improved quiz scores in a variety of subjects. The student teachers noted these impacts occurred as a result of using technology as a part of t= heir lesson. The following student quote captures this effect.
= 220;The digital photos helped me as a teacher see how the students took initiative = in their own learning as the photos documented what words and my own memory co= uld not! At the end of the unit, I compiled the photos in the student’s f= iles to evaluate the growth and development of the students’ knowledge in solids and liquids.”
Student teachers offered more detailed descriptions of student outcomes in the second question. A large percentage of respondents = did not address the question. That is, it was not clear if or what student lear= ning or products were assessed in a formal way during the technology-enhanced lesson. Many student teachers indicated that these lessons were a component embedded into larger projects and impact of using technology was embedded within this context.
Table 2
Describe the effectiveness of your
technology-enhanced lessons. =
What
positive or negative consequences of the infusion of technology were not
captured in the assessments of learning?
|
Positive Consequences |
N |
% of 39 |
|
Improved student motivation or engagement |
23 |
72% |
|
Opportunities for alternative assessment |
7 |
18% |
|
Improved management of instruction |
5 |
13% |
|
Improved student collaboration |
1 |
|
|
Improved student technology skill |
1 |
|
|
Improved student organization skills |
1 |
|
|
Improved classroom management |
1 |
|
|
Improved student problem solving |
1 |
|
|
Improved student self-assessment |
1 |
|
A content analysis of the student teachers’ positive consequence responses revealed that most respondents noted the motivational effects of technology. Student teachers described their students as being m= ore engaged during the technology-enhanced lessons. In addition, they noted that their students developed more ownership in the products they created using technology. They also noted that that their students appeared to be more at= tentive and better behaved during these lessons compared to the non-technology enha= nced lessons and to be more likely to complete assignments.
A large proportion of teachers also noted the benefits of technology for improved assessment. These teachers thought student presentations, video recordings, and other technology-based products offered more authentic representations of student knowledge and skill. They also indicated that to capture what students learned during these projects requi= red using assessment instruments like rubrics and scoring guides that were desi= gned to identify essential elements of the final products. This gave the student teachers a metric that allowed them to assess a range of authentic student work.
Another teacher-based benefit was the power technology offered to manage instruction. Teacher-directed examples included an improv= ed ability to demonstrate mathematical relationships, organize and display ima= ges, and the ability to attend to individual student needs while classes where e= ngaged independently in technology-based projects. Student teachers also noted the im= pact on student-centered learning activities. A small number of student teachers noted that technology improved their students’ ability to collaborate= on projects. In addition the technology lessons had an impact on their students’ metacognition, planning, and problem solving. The following student quote captures some of this:
“At the end of the unit my students
learned so much more about interdependence, ecosystems, and food chainsR=
30;
They made comments about how much they like science now, even if they did n=
ot
like it before. I think this is especially important in the case of the
girls.”
Table 3
Describe the effectiveness of your
technology-enhanced lessons. =
What
positive or negative consequences of the infusion of technology were not
captured in the assessments of learning?
|
Negative Consequences |
N |
% of 39= |
|
Not addressed |
23 |
72% |
|
Lack of time |
7 |
18% |
|
Classroom management |
5 |
13% |
|
Lack of equipment & support (computers, cameras, printers) |
1 |
|
|
Lack of student tech skills |
1 |
|
|
Student attention to technology vs. content |
1 |
|
|
Theft of technology |
1 |
|
|
Technology malfunctions |
1 |
|
Student teachers were also asked to identify the negative consequences of using technology in their lessons. In most cases there were= no negative "consequences" as such. What teachers reported were nega= tive aspects of the situation that they discovered. These were not so much consequences of the situation as simply attributes of it.
Almost half the student teachers reported no negative consequences of their projects. The negative consequences they identified related to resources and management. Most of their concerns related to resources and management systems n= ot being in place. For instance, the concern about the lack of student technol= ogy skills was not that teachers felt it was inappropriate to address that need= . In fact, under question 2, technology skill learning may have been listed as a positive outcome. However, many student teachers indicated that they had not anticipated the increased amount of time it would take to provide basic training in technology. They indicated that this prevented the completion of many planned activities. In addition, they discovered the classroom managem= ent implications of having an entire class of students working simultaneously o= n a project. It provided an entirely different set of challenges for them.
The remaining negative experiences were related to techni= cal issues such as a printers not supported on the network; a lack of server storage; and poor recording conditions in the classroom. These issues can o= ften lead teachers to discontinue using technology, but they also highlight the importance of having some kind of a back up plan in place. In addition, stu= dent teachers described how some students focused on the esthetics of their prod= ucts (e.g., finding and manipulating images) at the expense of attending to the underlying content. This kind of an issue can be planned for an anticipated= in lesson planning and execution.
The following student quotes capture some of these concer= ns.
“It was difficult to find the class time to teach the students technology skills.”
“There was a higher level of chaos=
in
the room with all the tasks that needed to happen related to managing the c=
ameras
and printers.”
Table 4
How would you prepare other teachers = to be as or more successful than you were with the technology enhanced lessons you implemented.
|
|
N |
% of 39= |
|
Teach and encourage students to use the technology |
23 |
59% |
|
Work with planning and time issues |
12 |
31% |
|
Set up curriculum with using technology |
11 |
28% |
|
Learn the technology, use appropriately, allow viewi= ng assess |
10 |
26% |
|
Establish clear objectives |
6 |
15% |
|
Make sure the technology works before using it in cl= ass |
5 |
13% |
|
Don't give up, have perseverance, patience, and real= istic expectations |
5 |
13% |
|
Have a back-up plan |
4 |
10% |
|
Use the technology for assessment and to monitor stu= dents progress |
3 |
8% |
|
Know your team, ask questions |
3 |
8% |
|
Be flexible, explore options |
3 |
8% |
The highest number of student teacher responses indicated that students needed to be taught how to use technology. Although it is com= mon to assume students of this generation are comfortable using technology, whi= ch they may be, the student teachers were surprised to find that they had to t= each their students how to use the technology (software and hardware) being used= in schools. In addition, some student teachers noted that the schools they tau= ght in served populations of students that have limited or no access to technol= ogy at home. Thus, the digital di= vide seemed to be contributing factor to this effect. Other teachers noted that for some lessons they did not have enough computers or other hardware for students. Consequently, the student teacher had to ensure equitable sharing among the students.
Student teachers also recommended paying more attention to time and planning issues. Several mentioned that their projects took more t= ime than they expected, or that certain components (e.g., training students on technology, sharing projects after they were completed) required extra time. One student teacher recommended setting up a calendar that reflected additi= onal time needed for technology . Another suggested aiming for a completion date much sooner than expected in order to build in a margin for error.
Several student teachers recommended that the integration= of technology receive special attention and training in school planning. This seems obvious. However, it ap= pears that it is easy to lose sight of that goal once a teacher is immersed in carrying out lesson plans or in getting hardware and software to work. One teacher suggested looking for every opportunity to integrate technology into lessons. Another suggested providing mini-lessons embedded into curriculum = that elicited explorations of technology use. This identifies a need to help stu= dent teachers develop the skills to create scalable and multi-component lessons = that provide the flexibility to move between teacher-directed and student-direct= ed work. The student-directed work should have elements that allow the student= s to work independently and have access to resources that help them maintain the= ir independence throughout the process.
Another common recommendation was that teachers take time= to learn the technology themselves. "Playing around” with the technology outside of class was seen as essential to understanding how to integrate it into lessons and how to help students learn with the new tools. The remaining recommendations listed in Table 3 are varied, but in many cas= es revolve around specific time and planning issues, such as anticipating alternative lessons in case technology does not work, ensuring access and functioning of technology, and establishing clear objectives and ways of monitoring progre= ss.
Another class of recommendations addresses teacher dispositions. Student teachers often mentioned that using technology with t= heir students required them to be more aware of the way they were responding to = the changing nature of the learning environment. The unanticipated consequences of technology not working the way they planned required them to be more patient with every element of the learning environment, students, other teachers, a= nd the technology. In addition, = some student teachers talked about the need to persevere through the unexpected circumstances. A number of student teachers indicated that when their lesson= s veered off course due to technology related issues, they had to resist the = urge to eliminate the technology component from the lesson; it seemed like the e= asy thing to do.
Lastly, student teachers noted that developing a disposit= ion of inquisitiveness was essential to using technology effectively in the classroom. This inquisitiveness here should extend to all elements of the learning environment, the technology and the curriculum. In fact, this impa= ct was felt by students as well as student teachers. A common effect cited by the stude= nt teachers was that their students’ inquisitiveness was increased by the technology-enhanced lessons. This effect could be a result of two things. First, using technology gives student teachers and their students access to= a wider range of content that can be delivered or used by students in number = of different ways. Thus, students who were given license to work with and find= a range of content were able to sustain their inquisitiveness as they had more control over their learning. The second element at play here is the medium. Multiple media elemen= ts like: digital video, pictures, music, and access to primary and secondary s= ource content, gave student teachers and their students much more creative control over their work.
These two student quotes capture some of the elements described above= .
“Tell them to start using technolo= gy as early in the year as possible.”
“I would encourage new teachers to step out of their comfort zone.”
Conclusion
As a technique for getting student teachers to infuse technology into their clinical experiences the mini-grant project was successful. Student teachers generally had positive experiences and the focus of the grant proj= ect got them to reflect on the efficacy of the use of technology in ways that m= ight have been less likely in situations where there was no technology emphasis = or where technology inclusion was a requirement. It may be that this is as sim= ple as students being excited by the promise of getting to keep the equipment a= nd software received through the grant but more likely their enthusiasm was a combination of factors including that recipients knew that they would be responsible for presenting to a group of peers about their projects. Certai= nly the participants were those students who had sufficient interest to write a grant in the first place and less interested students would probably not ha= ve the kind of positive experiences these students had.
Additionally, this is an expensive way to interject technology into teaching and learning in clinical experiences. In the long run the expense seems justifiable. The experience is grounded in curriculum and the students needed to put considerable thought into how to assess technology-enhanced lessons. The students brought technology and ideas about using technology i= nto the cooperating K-12 classrooms. The experiences of grant writing and presenting around technology appears to have assisted a number of these students in being hired into their first teaching jobs. The equipment and software moved with the students to support their early career teaching experiences. The success these students had inspired some of the next year’s student teachers to apply for grants, many of which demonstrate increasingly sophisticated uses of technology. And, it may be that the most important positive impact of this strategy is that many of these students w= ere confronted with unexpected problems and had the incentive to solve them on their own.
This strategy for moving technology into clinical experiences overcam= e a number of the inhibitions identified in the literature. Students were able = to take resources into cooperating classrooms, resources for successful implementation were available from the teacher training institutions, the u= ses of technology were not dependent on the skills of the cooperating teacher, = and students were interested in doing these projects even though there are mini= mal state level requirements around using technology in clinical experiences and few of the participating institutions had requirements of their own.
As we continue to study this strategy we need to improve the summary report process to better understand exactly how students are handling assessment procedures. These early results can also serve to develop respon= se lists that will allow more quantitative measures of the efficacy of these projects. Our other goal is to use our understanding of this process for infusing technology into teaching and learning as the basis for arguments to institutionalize the mini-grant process after grant funds run out.
References
Brent, R., Brawner, C.= E., & Van Dyk, P. (2003). Factor influencing student teachers’ use of technology. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 19(2), 61-68.
CEO Forum on School Technology and Readiness (1999). Pr= ofessional development: A link to better learning. Retrieved July 15, 2006 from http://www.ceoforum.org/reports.html.
Dexter, S., & Ried= el, E. (2003). Why improving preservice teacher educational technology preparat= ion must go beyond the college’s walls. Journal of Teacher Education, 54(4), 334-346.
Moursand, D., & Bielefeldt, T. (1999). Will new tea= chers be prepared to teach in a digital age? A national survey on information technology in teacher education. SantaMonica,CA: Milken Exchange.
Office of Technology Assessment (1995). Teachers and technology: Making the connection (OTA-EHR-616). Washington, DC: Govern= ment Printing Office.
Rhine, S., & Baile= y, M. (2005) Integrated technologies, innovative learning: Insights from the PT3 program. Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education.