Preparing Math and Science Teachers to Use Technology By Ann Shore, Cheryl Mason, Gini Pedersen and Barbara Armstrong

T h e State of California recently man- dated that teachers must demonstrate certain minimum computer-related skills and abilities before being granted a clear teaching credential. In compli-

ance with this mandate, San Diego State Universi- ty 's Department of Educational Technology offers a series of courses and test-out procedures which allow teachers to gain the necessary skills to meet the state's mandate for computer competency.

In order to encourage teacher educators to ex- tend and expand their use of technology in meth- ods instruction, we embarked on a collaborative venture between the School of Teacher Education and the Department of Educational Technology. Our efforts were aimed specifically at the en- hanced delivery of science and mathematics in- struction. We formed a team, consisting of a mathematics methods instructor, a science meth- ods instructor (content specialists), and an educa- tional technology instructor. We also had the sup- port and expertise of two graduate assistants enrolled in the Educational Technology Master's degree program.

The vehicle chosen for the implementation of our cooperative effort was a series of courses em- phasizing the teaching of mathematics and sci- ence. The two pilot courses were restricted to teachers of K-12 grades who had already fulfilled the state minimum computer competencies either by completing the educational technology courses or by passing the challenge tests. The intent of these courses was not to teach teachers how to use computers and related technologies, but to demonstrate how instruction and learning in spe- cific content areas (mathematics and sciences) could be enhanced through the appropriate use of technologies.

Ann Shore, at the time the article was written, was a lecturer in the Department o f Educational Technology at San Diego State University. She is now Senior Project Manager for Jostens Learning Corporation. Cheryl Mason is an assistant profes- sor in the School o f Teacher Education at San Diego State University. Gini Pedersen is an in- structional designer with Courseware, Inc. o f San Diego. Barbara Armstrong is an assistant profes- sor in the School o f Teacher Education at San Diego State University.

Faculty Background Criteria for participation in this project included

educational background and expertise, a willing- ness to rethink the relationship between technolo- gies and content instruction, and a dedication to a project which demanded an investment of both time and energy.

The science content specialist has earned un- dergraduate and master 's degrees in science, with a Ph.D. in science education and educational computing. Her instructional experience includes teaching science and computer literacy (12 years) at the middle and high school levels, and biology (3 years) and science methods (6 years) at the uni- versity level. Throughout this time, she used a variety of technological tools (mainly Apple II's and videotapes) to enhance her teaching and stu- dent learning.

The mathematics content specialist has earned her undergraduate and graduate degrees in educa- tion and has a Ph.D. in mathematics education. She taught at the elementary and middle school level for 16 years. Currently she is teaching un- dergraduate and graduate level courses in mathe- matics education. She has also provided inservice mathematics education to practicing teachers. Her most extensive experience with computers has been for personal use and the development of computer literacy for students at the primary level.

The educational technology specialist has an Ed.D. in Curriculum and Instruction, specializing in instructional technology. She has taught at the elementary school level for 17 years and educa- tional technology courses at the university level for two years. In addition, she has used computer technologies as instructional tools in the elemen- tary classroom for five years and has provided a variety of computer-use workshops for adults.

Development of a Common Language and Understanding

The main intent of our project was for the con- tent specialists to learn how to enhance the deliv- ery of specific content areas by integrating in- structional technology within the curriculum. The content specialists were already comfortable with the uses of various technologies. This was an op- portunity for them to experience current uses of technology for classroom instruction. It was criti-

14 Tech Trends

Preparing Math and Science Teachers toUse TechnologyBy Ann Shore, Cheryl Mason, Glnl Pedersen and Barbara Armstrong

The State of California recently man­date~ tha~ t~achers must demonstratecertain 1DlDl1Dum computer-relatedskills and abilities before being granteda clear teaching credential. In compli­

ance with this mandate, San Diego State Universi­ty's Department of Educational Technology offersa series of courses and test-out procedures whichallow teachers to gain the necessary skills to meetthe state's mandate for computer competency.

In order to encourage teacher educators to ex­tend and expand their use of technology in meth­ods instruction, we embarked on a collaborativeventure between the School of Teacher Educationand the Department of Educational Technology.Our efforts were aimed specifically at the en­hanced delivery of science and mathematics in­struction. We formed a team, consisting of amathematics methods instructor, a science meth­ods instructor (content specialists), and an educa­tional technology instructor. We also had the sup­port and expertise of two graduate assistantsenrolled in the Educational Technology Master'sdegree program.

The vehicle chosen for the implementation ofour cooperative effort was a series of courses em­phasizing the teaching of mathematics and sci­ence. The two pilot courses were restricted toteachers of K-12 grades who had already fulfilledthe state minimum computer competencies eitherby completing the educational technology coursesor by passing the challenge tests. The intent ofthese courses was not to teach teachers how touse computers and related technologies, but todemonstrate how instruction and learning in spe­cific content areas (mathematics and sciences)could be enhanced through the appropriate use oftechnologies.

Ann Shore, at the time the article was written,was a lecturer in the Department ofEducationalTechnology at San Diego State University. She isnow Senior Project Manager for Jostens LearningCorporation. Cheryl Mason is an assistant profes­sor in the School of Teacher Education at SanDiego State University. Gini Pedersen is an in­structional designer with Courseware, Inc. of SanDiego. Barbara Armstrong is an assistant profes­sor in the School of Teacher Education at SanDiego State University.

14 Tech Trends

FaCUlty BackgroundCriteria for participation in this project included

educational background and expertise, a willing­ness to rethink the relationship between technolo­gies and content instruction, and a dedication to aproject which demanded an investment of bothtime and energy.

The science content specialist has earned un­dergraduate and master's degrees in science, witha Ph.D. in science education and educationalcomputing. Her instructional experience includesteaching science and computer literacy (12 years)at the middle and high school levels, and biology(3 years) and science methods (6 years) at the uni­versity level. Throughout this time, she used avariety of technological tools (mainly Apple II'sand videotapes) to enhance her teaching and stu­dent learning.

The mathematics content specialist has earnedher undergraduate and graduate degrees in educa­tion and has a Ph.D. in mathematics education.She taught at the elementary and middle schoollevel for 16 years. Currently she is teaching un­dergraduate and graduate level courses in mathe­matics education. She has also provided inservicemathematics education to practicing teachers. Hermost extensive experience with computers hasbeen for personal use and the development ofcomputer literacy for students at the primarylevel.

The educational technology specialist has anEd.D. in Curriculum and Instruction, specializingin instructional technology. She has taught at theelementary school level for 17 years and educa­tional technology courses at the university levelfor two years. In addition, she has used computertechnologies as instructional tools in the elemen­tary classroom for five years and has provided avariety of computer-use workshops for adults.

Development 01 a Common Language andUnderstanding

The main intent of our project was for the con­tent specialists to learn how to enhance the deliv­ery of specific content areas by integrating in­structional technology within the curriculum. Thecontent specialists were already comfortable withthe uses of various technologies. This was an op­portunity for them to experience current uses oftechnology for classroom instruction. It was criti-

cally important that, as a result of this project, the content specialists would be able to internalize the rationale that content drives technology--not the other way around. Specifically, technology should be used to implement, support, supplement, and enhance instruction---not supplant it.

The first step in the process involved a series of organizational strategy meetings scheduled over several months and chaired by the educational technology specialist. These meetings provided a forum for the discussion and sharing of educa- tional philosophies, ideas about learning theory, and concerns about the use of technology in the classroom.

To serve as part of the learning and role-model- ing environment and to enable us to be more effective, technology was always available for use as a tool. Since the organizational sessions were so lively and productive, we audiotaped them to record the ongoing evolution of our merging phi- losophies and to free us from the time-consuming and distracting task of note-taking. On other occa- sions we capitalized on the functional assets of a computer and immediately recorded our thoughts and ideas as we brainstormed aloud.

During earlier sessions the majority of the time was spent spontaneously airing our various views on the use of technology to enhance student learning. These discussions stimulated us to artic- ulate ideas that we had held over time about the use of technology to enhance content learning and teaching, while providing a vehicle for the clarifi- cation of our thoughts.

Even though the mathematics and science teacher educators had verbalized the belief that the subject matter to be taught was of primary importance, there was an initial tendency to ask what new developments in technology were avail- able for classroom use. The solution (delivery sys- tem) was being sought before the goals and objec- tives had been identified. Eventually, instead of asking what could be taught with specific hard- ware or software, there was a focus on how deliv- ery of specific content could be improved by matching objectives and instructional intent with appropriate technology.

Through subsequent discussions, we were able to concentrate on the development of the pilot course content as we recognize that our basic phi- losophies were very similar albeit from different perspectives. A common understanding held throughout was that computer technology could be a powerful tool for the enhancement of instruc- tion and learning; however, improper use of tech- nology could be detrimental to instructional goals and outcomes.

By the end of the organizational meetings there was a fusion of philosophies and perspectives as to how technology could be integrated within the curricula of mathematics and science. The com- bined resources, strengths, interests, and back- grounds resulted in a catalytic and synergistic in- teraction among participants. The final outcome was that the content specialists learned effective ways to employ technology in their teaching, and

the educational technology specialist was better able to detail specifically how technology could enhance the teaching and learning of mathematics and science.

Pilot Course Development

Since the courses were one unit each, 16 hours of class sessions were available. As indicated pre- viously, the courses were open to teachers of K-12 grades. So not only were the topic areas (mathematics and science) extremely broad, we were also dealing with diverse student popula- tions. It was essential to the successful delivery of these two courses that the focus of each course not only be well defined, but also be broad enough to encompass the wide range of abilities and interests we expected to encounter.

For inclusion in the course, the content special- ists targeted only a few of the key themes or strands identified by mathematics and science na- tional organizations--National Council of Teach- ers of Mathematics (NCTM) and National Science Teachers Association (NSTA). The science course emphasized the areas of student preconceptions and misconceptions, theme-based curriculum with interdiscipfinary approaches, careers, and under- represented groups. The mathematics course fo- cused on three strands: concept development, skill acquisition, and problem solving.

Once the focus and the objectives for each course were defined, the graduate assistants, with the aid of the educational technology specialist, developed a matrix onto which to classify relevant software. The next action was to identify appro- priate software and hardware---no small task given the grade levels and content areas involved. We sought to develop content-specific data bases which included standard computer software, CD- ROM, videotapes, and videodiscs. A variety of resources were used, but the most helpful were the State of California's Technology in the Curric- ulum (TIC) guides for mathematics and science. Although these guides dealt only with computer software and videotapes, they served as an excel- lent starting point by identifying companies who consistently produced exemplary materials.

Each of these targeted companies was con- tacted to discover what mathematics and science materials were available and/or currently being developed, and to ask if they would be willing to loan us copies for use in our courses. In conjunc- tion with that effort, the graduate assistants and the educational technology specialist explored other options available for delivery including CD- ROM, videodiscs, and audiotapes.

We endeavored to provide examples of technol- ogy for each content strand and grade level. Add/- tional meetings were held with each of the content specialists, the graduate assistants, and the educa- tional technologist to identify specific software packages for demonstration in the courses.

Course content. Although the educational tech- nology specialist presented options and assisted in the selection of both technological exemplars and non-examples for course use, each course sylla-

Volume 35/Number 2/1990 15

cally important that, as a result of this project, thecontent specialists would be able to internalize therationale that content drives technology-not theother way around. Specifically, technology shouldbe used to implement, support, supplement, andenhance instruction-not supplant it.

The first step in the process involved a series oforganizational strategy meetings scheduled overseveral months and chaired by the educationaltechnology specialist. These meetings provided aforum for the discussion and sharing of educa­tional philosophies, ideas about learning theory,and concerns about the use of technology in theclassroom.

To serve as part of the learning and role-model­ing environment and to enable us to be moreeffective, technology was always available for useas a tool. Since the organizational sessions wereso lively and productive, we audiotaped them torecord the ongoing evolution of our merging phi­losophies and to free us from the time-consumingand distracting task of note-taking. On other occa­sions we capitalized on the functional assets of acomputer and immediately recorded our thoughtsand ideas as we brainstormed aloud.

During earlier sessions the majority of the timewas spent spontaneously airing our various viewson the use of technology to enhance studentlearning. These discussions stimulated us to artic­ulate ideas that we had held over time about theuse of technology to enhance content leaming andteaching, while providing a vehicle for the clarifi­cation of our thoughts.

Even though the mathematics and scienceteacher educators had verbalized the belief thatthe subject matter to be taught was of primaryimportance, there was an initial tendency to askwhat new developments in technology were avail­able for classroom use. The solution (delivery sys­tem) was being sought before the goals and objec­tives had been identified. Eventually, instead ofasking what could be taught with specific hard­ware or software, there was a focus on how deliv­ery of specific content could be improved bymatching objectives and instructional intent withappropriate technology.

Through subsequent discussions, we were ableto concentrate on the development of the pilotcourse content as we recognize that our basic phi­losophies were very similar albeit from differentperspectives. A common understanding heldthroughout was that computer technology couldbe a powerful tool for the enhancement of instruc­tion and leaming; however, improper use of tech­nology could be detrimental to instructional goalsand outcomes.

By the end of the organizational meetings therewas a fusion of philosophies and perspectives asto how technology could be integrated within thecurricula of mathematics and science. The com­bined resources, strengtlJ.s, interests, and back­grounds resulted in a catalytic and synergistic in­teraction among participants. The final outcomewas that the content specialists leamed effectiveways to employ technology in their teaching, and

the educational technology specialist was betterable to detail specifically how technology couldenhance the teaching and learning of mathematicsand science.

Pilot Course DevelopmentSince the courses were one unit each, 16 hours

of class sessions were available. As indicated pre­viously, the courses were open to teachers ofK-12 grades. So not only were the topic areas(mathematics and science) extremely broad, wewere also dealing with diverse student popula­tions. It was essential to the successful delivery ofthese two courses that the focus of each coursenot only be well defined, but also be broadenough to encompass the wide range of abilitiesand interests we expected to encounter.

For inclusion in the course, the content special­ists targeted only a few of the key themes orstrands identified by mathematics and science na­tional organizations-National Council of Teach­ers of Mathematics (NCTM) and National ScienceTeachers Association (NSTA). The science courseemphasized the areas of student preconceptionsand misconceptions, theme-based curriculum withinterdisciplinary approaches, careers, and under­represented groups. The mathematics course fo­cused on three strands: concept development,skill acquisition, and problem solving.

Once the focus and the objectives for eachcourse were defined, the graduate assistants, withthe aid of the educational technology specialist,developed a matrix onto which to classify relevantsoftware. The next action was to identify appro­priate software and hardware-no small taskgiven the grade levels and content areas involved.We sought to develop content-specific data baseswhich included standard computer software, CD­ROM, videotapes, and videodiscs. A variety ofresources were used, but the most helpful werethe State of California's Technology in the Curric­ulum (TIC) guides for mathematics and science.Although these guides dealt only with computersoftware and videotapes, they served as an excel­lent starting point by identifying companies whoconsistently produced exemplary materials.

Each of these targeted companies was con­tacted to discover what mathematics and sciencematerials were available and/or currently beingdeveloped, and to ask if they would be willing toloan us copies for use in our courses. In conjunc­tion with that effort, the graduate assistants andthe educational technology specialist exploredother options available for delivery including CD­ROM, videodiscs, and audiotapes.

We endeavored to provide examples of technol­ogy for each content strand and grade level. Addi­tional meetings were held with each of the contentspecialists, the graduate assistants, and the educa­tional technologist to identify specific softwarepackages for demonstration in the courses.

Course content. Although the educational tech­nology specialist presented options and assisted inthe selection of both technological exemplars andnon-examples for course use, each course sylla-

Volume 35/Number 211990 15

bus was developed by the content specialists. Course syllabi were developed with the follow-

ing goals in mind: 1. Ways to match objectives and instructional

content with appropriate technology will be explained.

2. The uses of technology to improve students' attitudes and perceptions concerning mathe- matics and science will be presented.

3. Effective uses of technology to enhance stu- dent learning in mathematics and science will be examined.

4. Ways to avoid misuse of technology and evaluate techniques for various software will be demonstrated and discussed.

5. Recent articles concerning technology in the classroom will be read and discussed.

6. A variety of technological examples, includ- ing videotapes, computer software, video- discs, and audiotapes will be explored fol- lowing demonstrations by the instructors.

7. Students will develop a unit plan which in- corporates one or more types of technology.

Course Delivery. The courses were team taught. As a result of the overlap of understanding and melding of the partnerships, the students were not subjected to mixed messages concerning the use of technology in the science and mathematics classrooms, just different perspectives on the con- cept. Discussions during the organizational meet- ings empowered the instructors to transform their understanding into concrete instruction for K-12 teachers. The educational technology specialist and the content specialist both contributed com- ments throughout the class time each according to her own expertise and experience. In addition, the team members served as role models by employ- ing a variety of technologies to teach the class.

The students enrolled in the courses were teachers with no more than four years of teaching experience. There was a fairly equal balance of male and female students and nearly every grade level was represented. We even had one correc- tional facility educator who was enrolled in both c o u r s e s .

Basically, the format of the courses involved the content specialist presenting brief introduc- tions to describe how effective teaching strategies can enhance content learning, followed by the ed- ucational technology specialist's demonstration of the use and misuse of technology in mathematics and science instruction. A constant emphasis was placed on the importance of identifying a specific, content-related, instructional objective before se- lecting a technological application. Some time was spent with discussions centered around the in- structors' presentations and the class readings--- brief journal articles concerning the latest in the uses of technology in science and mathematics classrooms. We also examined the data base of available software technologies developed specifi- cally for the courses. The data base designated location, grade level, content strand, and an eval- uation of their qualities.

Students were evaluated primarily on the devel-

16 Tech Trends

opment of a unit plan; in addition they were eval- uated on a short presentation of articles read, and on the quality of their class discussions and par- ticipation. Class time was provided to allow stu- dents an opportunity to explore a variety of tech- nological applications and to develop unit plans. After selecting specific scientific or mathematical concepts for their unit plans, the students were required to integrate the instructional objectives with some form of technology. In addition, they were asked to provide an explanation of how par- ticular technological applications would be imple- mented and/or adapted for use in the classroom.

One disappointment was that many of the stu- dents developed units which presented the con- tent in a fact-oriented manner rather than on a higher order level; as a result, they tended to choose computer software that was oriented toward algorithms or step-by-step procedures rather than problem-solving strategies. One possi- ble explanation was that most students were still in the process of assimilating both the content ar- eas and the delivery methods.

In order to have some indication of the effect that the course had on the students, pre and post- surveys were administered. The results indicated that students had learned much about incorporat- ing technology into their teaching, were more sen- sitive to its misuse, and were more confident about their ability to use technology in the class- room. Overall, considering the amount of class time available, the courses were a success and plans are being made to expand upon them.

a ~ s ~ ~ . ~ " - ~ , ~. , ~ ' ~ { ~ 7 ~ ~ -~ ~ - ~

•

C o n c l u s i o n s

In this Information Age it is important that stu- dents become literate in the areas of both science and mathematics. Unfortunately, negative atti- tudes and misconceptions concerning science and mathematics are pervasive in our society. One way to alter viewpoints is to enhance the teaching and learning of these disciplines by incorporating various technologies within curricula. However, ff

bus was developed by the content specialists.Course syllabi were developed with the follow-

ing goals in mind: .1. Ways to match objectives and instructional

content with appropriate technology will beexplained.

2. The uses of technology to improve students'attitudes and perceptions concerning mathe­matics and science will be presented.

3. Effective uses of technology to enhance stu­dent learning in mathematics and science willbe examined.

4. Ways to avoid misuse of technology andevaluate techniques for various software willbe demonstrated and discussed.

5. Recent articles concerning technology in theclassroom will be read and discussed.

6. A variety of technological examples, includ­ing videotapes, computer software, video­discs, and audiotapes will be explored foJ­lowing demonstrations by the instructors.

7. Students will develop a unit plan which in­corporates one or more types of technology.

Course Delivery. The courses were team taught.As a result of the overlap of understanding andmelding of the partnerships, the students were notsubjected to mixed messages concerning the useof technology in the science and mathematicsclassrooms, just different perspectives on the con­cept. Discussions during the organizational meet­ings empowered the instructors to transform theirunderstanding into concrete instruction for K-12teachers. The educational technology specialistand the content specialist both contributed com­ments throughout the class time each according toher own expertise and experience. In addition, theteam members served as role models by employ­ing a variety of technologies to teach the class.

The students enrolled in the courses wereteachers with no more than four years of teachingexperience. There was a fairly equill balance ofmale and female students and nearly every gradelevel was represented. We even had one correc­tional facility educator who was enrolled in bothcourses.

Basically, the format of the courses involvedthe content specialist presenting brief introduc­tions to describe how effective teaching strategiescan enhance content learning, followed by the ed­ucational technology specialist's demonstration ofthe use and misuse of technology in mathematicsand science instruction. A constant emphasis wasplaced on the importance of identifying a specific,content-related, instructional objective before se­lecting a technological application. Some time wasspent with discussions centered around the in­structors' presentations and the class readings­brief journal articles concerning the latest in theuses of technology in science and mathematicsclassrooms. We also examined the data base ofavailable software technologies developed specifi­cally for the courses. The data base designatedlocation, grade level, content strand, and an eval­uation of their qualities.

Students were evaluated primarily on the devel-

16 Tech Trends

opment of a unit plan; in addition they were eval­uated on a short presentation of articles read, andon the quality of their class discussions and par­ticipation. Class time was provided to allow stu­dents an opportunity to explore a variety of tech­nological applications and to develop unit plans.After selecting specific scientific or mathematicalconcepts for their unit plans, the students wererequired to integrate the instructional objectiveswith some form of technology. In addition, theywere asked to provide an explanation of how par­ticular technological applications would be imple­mented and/or adapted for use in the classroom.

One disappointment was that many of the stu­dents developed units which presented the con­tent in a fact-oriented manner rather than on ahigher order level; as a result, they tended tochoose computer software that was orientedtoward algorithms or step-by-step proceduresrather than problem-solving strategies. One possi­ble explanation was that most students were stillin the process of assimilating both the content ar­eas and the delivery methods.

In order to have some indication of the effectthat the course had on the students, pre and post­surveys were administered. The results indicatedthat students had learned much about incorporat­ing technology into their teaching, were more sen­sitive to its misuse, and were more confidentabout their ability to use technology in the class­room. Overall, considering the amount of classtime available, the courses were a success andplans are being made to expand upon them.

ConclusionsIn this Information Age it is important that stu­

dents become literate in the areas of both scienceand mathematics. Unfortunately, negative atti­tudes and misconceptions concerning science andmathematics are pervasive in our society. Oneway to alter viewpoints is to enhance the teachingand learning of these disciplines by incorporatingvarious technologies within curricula. However, if

technology is misused, its impact on learning can be detrimental.

It is especially difficult to remain current in the areas of science and mathematics teaching and learning, much less the explosive field of educa- tional technology. Our venture, involving both content and educational technology specialists, was important for a number of reasons. The in- structors from both departments were able to spe- cifically address the issues of merging technology with mathematics and science curricula. The con- tent specialists learned not just to employ technol- ogy but to think through the ramifications of using technology within a particular lesson. In addition, they were able to learn about evaluative measures for software from the perspective of an educa- tional technologist. On the other hand, the educa- tional technology specialist was better able to pre- sent definite examples of how technology could enhance the learning of specific mathematical or scientific concepts. Our venture provided a won- derful opportunity for bidirectional learning and a

channel for the sharing of recent developments in all three fields.

A further benefit of our collaboration was the addition of two advocates for implementation of educational technology. The matter-of-fact accept- ance of technology as a logical extension of teach- ing tools in the content areas by the science and mathematics specialists will serve as an excellent model among their peers and their future student teachers.

We did, however, recognize that providing our science and mathematics teacher educators with a one-time experience would not be sufficient for them to truly internalize the uses of technology as instructional tools. There was also the frustration, common to many educators, of possessing the knowledge and skills to incorporate technology into instruction but not having adequate access to equipment. Hans have been made to meet on reg- ular basis to assist and support one another in our continued efforts to implement technology as an instructional tool in the content areas. •

S t , - . -

L-.: ".~'..'~.~': :.~/...~-:. .. i ' ~ ~ , 4 ~ i ~ 1 ~ u ' ' ' ' ~ ' ' O ' m ' ' ~ ' ;? '" "; "'".: ':~,'~-,.~'";:' . . . . i >., " : .> >... , - . /: " : - . _

)~ Education~ ... a t a / / ~ . , .:. ; . . . . . . ; , . . . . . . . ~ " ~ : " " ~~')O/Og), ~Pr~r=~ns ..- . . . . .

)'u~ ~ ~ n Educational Media/TeChnology ~ n ; ~ .'.' . , . . , . . . .

~ : ~ " " " e v a l u a t o ~ ,14~lnts w e r e - ~ : J n p O I b " ' = <':: ~ ~ ;t='~ " : ' !of ~ m ;in t h e ~ , ~ ~ i " , , ,:>.:?,i:;:.~!,,~ ,. <,~, :? ~ ! i ' ,';!~,]~

4

~ l ~ i ~ o r . ~ Dtrect~i ~ a t i o n for Educational Communicatgons and TechnOlogy, ::~ [ ~ ! 023S Vermont Avenue. NW., Suite 820. Washington. DC"3000S. (~.0~') 347-783,4.. . . . . . :..'

~'~',~., . , . . : - . .

Volume 35/Number 2/1990 17

technology is misused, its impact on learning canbe detrimental.

It is especially difficult to remain current in theareas of science and mathematics teaching andlearning, much less the explosive field of educa­tional technology. Our venture, involving bothcontent and educational technology specialists,was important for a number of reasons. The in­structors from both departments were able to spe­cifically address the issues of merging technologywith mathematics and science curricula. The con­tent specialists learned not just to employ technol­ogy but to think through the ramifications of usingtechnology within a particular lesson. In addition,they were able to learn about evaluative measuresfor software from the perspective of an educa­tional technologist. On the other hand, the educa­tional technology specialist was better able to pre­sent definite examples of how technology couldenhance the learning of specific mathematical orscientific concepts. Our venture provided a won­derful opportunity for bidirectional learning and a

channel for the sharing of recent developments inall three fields.

A further benefit of our collaboration was theaddition of two advocates for implementation ofeducational technology. The matter-of-fact accept­ance of technology as a logical extension of teach­ing tools in the content areas by the science andmathematics specialists will serve as an excellentmodel among their peers and their future studentteachers.

We did, however, recognize that providing ourscience and mathematics teacher educators with aone-time experience would not be sufficient forthem to truly internalize the uses of technology asinstructional tools. There was also the frustration,common to many educators, of possessing theknowledge and skills to incorporate technologyinto instruction but not having adequate access toequipment. Plans have been made to meet on reg­ular basis to assist and support one another in ourcontinued efforts to implement technology as aninstructional tool in the content areas.•

Volume 35/Number 211990 17