Preparing Teachers for the Future Gillingham

8/14/2019 Preparing Teachers for the Future Gillingham

1/27

EvaluatigStrategiesUsedToIcorporateTechologyIto

PreserviceEducatio:AReviewOftheLiterature

RobinH.KayUniversity o Ontario Institute o echnology

AbstractTe ollowing paper is based on a review o 68 reereed journal articles that ocused onintroducing technology to preservice teachers. en key strategies emerged rom this review,

including delivering a single technology course; oering mini-workshops; integrating technol-ogy in all courses; modeling how to use technology; using multimedia; collaboration amongpreservice teachers, mentor teachers and aculty; practicing technology in the feld; ocusing oneducation aculty; ocusing on mentor teachers; and improving access to sotware, hardware,and/or support. Tese strategies were evaluated based on their eect on computer attitude,ability, and use. Te ollowing patterns emerged: First, most studies looked at programs thatincorporated only one to three strategies. Second, when our or more strategies were used, theeect on preservice teachers use o computers appeared to be more pervasive. Tird, mostresearch examined attitudes, ability, or use, but rarely all three. Fourth, and perhaps mostimportant, the vast majority o studies had severe limitations in method: poor data collectioninstruments, vague sample and program descriptions, small samples, an absence o statisticalanalysis, or weak anecdotal descriptions o success. It is concluded that more rigorous andcomprehensive research is needed to ully understand and evaluate the eect o key technologystrategies in preservice teacher education. (Keywords: preservice computer technology educa-tion review strategies.)

BACKGROUnD

Overthepast10years,researchers,educators,andadministratorshavede-batedthevalueandeectotechnologyinelementaryandsecondaryeduca-tion.Severalcomprehensivestudieshaveconcludedthatcomputershavehada

minorornegativeeectonstudentlearning(e.g.,Cuban,2001;Russell,Bebell,ODwyer,&OConnor,2003;Roberston,2003;Waxman,Connell,&Gray,2002).However,anumberolarge-scalemeta-analyses(Baker,Gearhart,&Herman,1994;Kozma,2003;Kulik,1994;Mann,Shakeshat,Becker,&Kott-kamp,1999;Scardamalia&Bereiter,1996;SIIA,2000;Sivin-Kachala,1998;Wenglinksy,1998)havereportedsignicantimprovementinachievementscores,attitudestowardlearning,anddepthounderstandingwhencomputerswereintegratedwithlearning.Gainsobservedinthesestudies,however,weredependentonsubjectarea(Kulik,1994),typeosotwareused(Sivin-Kachala,

1998),specicstudentpopulation,sotwaredesign,educatorrole,andlevelostudentaccess(Sivin-Kachala,1998).


2/27

inclassrooms,specicallyocusingonstudent-to-computerratio,high-speedInternetaccess,andpreserviceteachereducation.AccordingtotheUSDepart-mentoEducationsNationalCenterorEducationStatistics(2002),theaver-agestudent-to-computerratioin2001was5.4:1,asignicantincreaseromthe12:1ratioreportedin1998.Furthermore,99%oallpublicschoolsnowhaveaccesstotheInternet,with94%havinghigh-speedbroadbandconnections(USDepartmentoEducation,NationalCenterorEducationStatistics,2002).Othercountrieshaveollowedasimilarpatternoincreasingtechnologyaccessintheclassroom(Compton&Harwood,2003;McRobbie,Ginns,&Stein,2000;Plante&Beattie,2004).Teemphasisonintegratingtechnologyintopreserviceeducationprograms

hadmirroredtherapidriseincomputerandInternetaccess.Alargenumberonationallyrecognizedorganizations(e.g.,CEOForumonEducationandech-nology,2000;NationalCouncilorAccreditationoeacherEducation,2003;OA,1995;ISE/NCAE,2003seeBennett,20002001orareview)havedevelopedcomprehensivestandardsortheuseotechnologyinteacherprepa-ratoryprograms.Testagehasbeensetorpreserviceteacherstousetechnologyintheclassroom.Assumingthatthoughtuluseotechnologyincertaincontextscanhaveasignicantandpositiveeectonstudentlearning(Baker,Gearhart,&Herman,1994;Kozma,2003;Kulik,1994;Mann,Shakeshat,Becker,&Kottkamp,1999;Scardamalia&Bereiter,1996;SIIA,2000;Sivin-Kachala,1998;Weng-linsky,1998),preserviceteachereducationprogramsareanaturalplacetostartwithrespecttointegratingtechnologyintoeducation,particularlywhenthereexistsastronginrastructurethatsupportscomputeruse.Yettheevidencesug-geststhattheseprogramshavenotbeensuccessulinpreparingnewteacherstousetechnologyeectively(CEOForumonEducationandechnology,2000;Moursund&Bieleeldt,1999;OA,1995;USDepartmentoEducation,2000;Yildirim,2000).Anumberoobstaclesthatpreventsuccessulimple-mentationocomputersincludelackotime(Eifer,Greene,&Carroll,2001;Wepner,Ziomek,&ao,2003),teachingphilosophyomentorsandschoolad-ministrationwithrespecttotechnology(e.g.,Dexter&Riedel,2003;Doering,Hughes,&Human,2003;Stuhlmann&aylor,1999),technologicalskilloacultyoeducationmembers(acultyoeducationreerstoColleges,Schools,andDepartmentsoEducation)(Eiferetal.,2001;Strudler,Archambault,Bendixen,Anderson,&Weiss,2003;Tompson,Schmidt,&Davis,2003),earotechnologicalproblems(Bullock,2004;Doeringetal.,2003),alackoclearunderstandingabouthowtointegratetechnologyintoteaching(Cuban,2001),andinsucientaccesstotechnology(e.g.,Bartlett,2002;Brushetal.,2003;Russelletal.,2003).Giventhepotentialproblems,itshouldcomeasnosurprisethatpreserviceteachersareperceivedasunpreparedtousetechnology.

RESEARCH PROBLEM AnD PURPOSE


3/27

well.odate,thereisnoconsolidatedpictureonhowtoeectivelyintroducetechnologytopreserviceteachers.Acomprehensivedescriptionandevaluationostrategiesisanecessarystep,then,toguideresearchers,administrators,andeducators.Tepurposeothispaperistoidentiy,describe,andevaluatestrate-giesusedtoincorporatetechnologyintopreserviceeducation.

METHOD

DataAcomprehensivesearchotheliteraturewasdonebasedontwocriteria.First,

allarticleswereselectedexclusivelyromreereedprintoronlinejournals.Con-erencepapersorreportswerenotincludedinthisreview.Second,theocusothesearticleshadtobeonincorporatingtechnologyintopreserviceeducation.Allrelevantarticleswereincludedintheanalysis.(SeeAppendixA,page403,

oracompletelistoarticlesincludedinthereview.)DataAnalysisEachstudy(thetermstudyreerstoeitherapositionpaperoronethatcol-

lectsempiricaldata)reviewedwasevaluatedintermsomethod,strategiesused,andtheeectothesestrategies.Anexaminationomethodincludedtheol-lowingelements:samplesize,teachinglevel,descriptionoteachereducationprogram,datacollection,addressingindividualdierences,datacollection,anddataanalysis.Inaddition,eachpaperwasevaluatedastowhetheritincludedoneormoreotheollowingtenstrategies:singletechnologycourse;oeringmini-workshops;integratingtechnologyinallcourses;modelinghowtousetechnology;usingmultimedia;collaborationamongpreserviceteachers,mentorteachers,andaculty;practicingtechnologyinthefeld;ocusingoneducationaculty;ocusingonmentorteachers;andimprovingaccesstosotware,hard-ware,and/orsupport.Finally,theeectothestrategiesusedwasdeterminedbythereportedchangesinpreserviceteacherscomputerattitudes,ability,and/oruse.AppendixB,page407,providesadetaileddescriptionothecodingovariablesusedinthisstudy.Itshouldbenotedthatameta-analysiswasnotdonebecause(a)only14

studiesusedreliabledatacollectionmethodscombinedwithormalstatistics,(b)onlyourothese14studiesincludedacompletedescriptionothesample,includingteachinglevel,and(c)ameaningulcomparisonothesestudieswaslimitedduetodierencesindependentvariablesmeasured(e.g.,ninestudieslookedatattitude,sevenlookedatability,andthreestudieslookedatuse).

RESULTSAnDDISCUSSIOn

MethodologyUsedinReviewedStudies

Sample Size.Samplesizevariedrom0to1,313subjects.Temeansamplesizewas52subjectswhenextremecaseswereremoved,however,28%(n=19)o all studies reported a sample size o zero In other words strategies were pro-


4/27

byFraenkelandWallen(2003)asaruleothumb.Giventhecostintimeandmoneyomanyothesetechnology-basedprograms,itisadvisablethatlargersamplesbeassessedintheuture.

Teaching Level.Teuseotechnologyinlearningispartiallydependentongradeleveldierenteducationalsotwareisdesignedwithdierentgoalsandproceduresinmind.Nonetheless,morethan50%othestudiesexamined(n=35)ailedtoreportspecifcteachinglevel.Slightlymorethan25%(n=18)oallstudieslookedatelementarypreserviceteachersand12%(n=8)examinedmixedteachinglevels.Middleschoolandsecondarypreserviceteacherswereclearlyunder-represented.Itwouldbeprudentorutureresearchersto(a)identiythespecifcteachinglevelsopreservicecandidatesand(b)expandtheocustopreserviceteachersoolderstudents.

Description of Program.Acleardescriptionothegeneraleducationpro-gramisnecessaryoracoherentcomparisonoresearchontechnologyandpreserviceeducation.Detailssuchaslengthoprogram,numberoacultyandstudents,andcourseorganizationandocusareimportantwithrespecttoin-terpretingresults.Forexample,asingletechnologycoursestrategymightbee-ectiveoraone-yearprogram,butnotoramulti-yearprogram.Amultimediaapproachusingonlinecoursesmightworkbetterorprogramsinmoreremotelocations.Scienceandmathpreserviceteachersmightadaptmorequicklytotechnologythantheirsocialsciencecounterparts.Tesekindospeculationscannotbeaddressedbyreviewingthestudiesinthispaper,becausemorethan90%(n=62)oallresearchersneglectedtodescribetheireducationalprogramsinsucientdetail.Aclear,completedescriptionotheseprogramsisnecessarytobuildunderstandingohowtechnologyisusedinpreserviceeducation.

Data Collection.Surveyswerethepredominatemodeodatacollection,ac-countingor44%(n=30)oallstudies.However,internalreliabilityestimatesorthesesurveyswerereportedonlyhalthetime.Scalevalidityestimateswerealmostnevernoted(n=3).Qualitativemethodswereusedexclusivelyin16%(n=11)othepapersanalyzed.Tecombinationosurveyandqualitativemeth-odswasemployedinonly12%othepapers.Isurveysareused,reliabilityandvaliditydetailsneedtobedonetoensurethedataaresound.Inaddition,mul-tipledatacollectionmethodsarerecommendedtohelpincreasethevalidityodatabeingcollectedandpresented.

Dependent Variables.Computerattitude,ability,andusearethethreekeydependentvariablesinthevastmajorityotechnologyandpreserviceteacheredu-cationliterature,althoughcleardefnitionsoability,attitude,andusearerarelypresentedortheoreticallyjustifed.Computerabilitywasexaminedmostoten(60%,n=41),ollowedcloselybycomputerattitudes(56%,n=38).Computeruse,ontheotherhand,waslookedatinonlyonethirdothestudiesexamined(n=23).Slightlymorethanonethird(n=24)oallstudiesusedmorethanonedependentvariableandonlyourarticles(6%)lookedatability,attitude,anduse.Multiple dependent variables are recommended or uture research to gain a more


5/27

Individual diferences.Only10%(n=7)othestudiesexaminedinthispaperlookedatindividualdierencesamongpreserviceteacherscomputerat-titudes,ability,oruse.However,dierencesincomputer-relatedbehaviorshavebeenobservedwithrespecttogender(seeKay,1992,inpress;Sanders,inpress;Whitley,1997orareviewotheliterature),SES(e.g.,Becker&Ravitz,1999;Nolan,1992;Shashaani,1994),andculture(Evans,1995;Homan&Novak,1998;Wilkinson,Buboltz,Cook,Matthew,&Tomas,2000).Strategiesthatworkwellorcertaingroupsmaynotbeeectiveorothers.Inordertounder-standthepreciseeectospecifcstrategiesonpreserviceteachersuseotech-nology,itisimportanttoexamineindividualnuancesinmoredetail.

Data Analysis.Temostreasonabledesigntodeterminetheeectoasetostrategiesoncomputerattitude,ability,oruseisapre-postorexperimentalanalysis;however,thisormatwasusedinonly29%(n=20)oallstudies.Teremainingarticlesreportednoresearchmethod(16%,n=11),anecdotalde-scriptions(28%,n=19),orpercentages(27%,n=18).Althoughthereisclearlyaroleorqualitativeresearchinassessingtheeectivenessospecifctechnologystrategies,thisroleisprobablybestusedinconjunctionwithquantitativedata,atleastattheevaluationstage.Futureresearchneedstoeither(a)employapre-posttestorexperimentaldesigntoassesstheeectovariousstrategiesonintro-ducingtechnologytopreserviceteachersor(b)ollowmorerigorousprotocolsincollectingandanalyzingqualitativedata.

StrategiesUsedtoIncorporateTechnology

Overview.Atleasttenstrategieswereusedtoteachtechnologytopreserviceteachers,includingintegratingtechnologyinallcourses(44%,n=30);usingmultimedia(37%,n=25);ocusingoneducationaculty(31%,n=21);deliver-ingasingletechnologycourse(29%,n=20);modelinghowtousetechnology(27%,n=18);collaborationamongpreserviceteachers,mentorteachers,andaculty(25%,n=17);practicingtechnologyinthefeld(19%,n=13);oeringmini-workshops(18%,n=12);improvingaccesstosotware,hardware,and/orsupport(14%,n=10);andocusingonmentorteachers(13%,n=9).

Mostresearchstudies(65%,n=44)havedoneagoodjobatclearlydescrib-

ingthestrategiesusedtoincorporatetechnologyintotheirpreserviceeducationprograms.Inaddition,thetheoreticaloundationsotheseprogramsarepar-tially(n=30)orullyarticulated(n=29)inroughlynineoutoeverytenstudies.Adetaileddescriptionothekeycharacteristicsoeachothetenstrategiesis

providedbelow.Integrated.Anintegratedstrategyweavestheuseotechnologyinallpreser-

viceeducationcourses.Tereisnosinglecoursethatteachesbasiccomputerskills.Severalprominentorganizationshavestronglyendorsedtheintegratedphilosophy(seeMoursund&Bieleeltdt,1999orISE/NCAE,2003).

Althoughthisapproachhasbeensuccessulinimprovingconfdence(Pope,Hare,&Howard,2002)andtechnologyskills(Albee,2003;Popeetal.,2002;


6/27

Kinzie,2000).Disadvantagestousingthismodelincludethelackohardware(Vannatta&Beyerbach,2000),limitedacultyexpertiseandtime(Eiferetal.,2001;Vannatta&Beyerbach,2000;Whetstone&Carr-Chellman,2001),andthedicultyotranserringwhatislearnedatschooltoeldexperienceintheclassroom(Brushetal.,2003;Eiferetal.,2001;Simpson,Payne,Munro,&Hughes,1999;Vrasida&McIsaac,2001).

Multimedia.Tisstrategyisagrabbagomultimedia-basedapproachesusedtoincorporatetechnologyintopreserviceeducation.Examplesincludetheuseotechnologycasestudies(Gillingham&opper,1999),onlinecourses(Marra,2004),andelectronicportolios(Bartlett,2002;Blocher,Echols,deMontes,Willis,&ucker,2003;Doty&Hillman,2000).Casestudiespresentingex-amplesotechnologybeingusedintheclassroomoersimilaradvantagestomodeling,althoughthemodeopresentationisanonlinevideo.Onlinecoursesoertheadvantageoaccessibility;however,problem-based,constructivelearn-ingisdiculttoachievewiththisormat(Marra,2004).Electronicportoliosareessentiallyperormance-basedassessmentsthatrequirepreserviceteacherstodemonstratetheirmasteryotechnologyinavarietyoareas(Doty&Hillman,2000).Temultimediamodelisrelativelynew,thereoreclearadvantagesanddisadvantageshaveyettobesystematicallydocumented.

Education faculty.Anumberoacultieshaveocusedonimprovingtheatti-tudes,ability,anduseocomputersbyeducationacultywiththeultimategoaloimprovingtheoveralluseotechnologyinpreserviceeducationprograms(e.g.,Davis&Falba,2002;Eiferetal.,2001;Howland&Wedman,2004;Seels,Campbell,&alsma,2003;Strudleretal.,2003;Tompsonetal.,2003;Vannatta&Beyerbach,2000).Teargumentismadethatiacultydonotbuyintotheuseotechnologyineducation,itishighlyunlikelythatpreservicecandidateswillbemotivatedinthisendeavor.Teadvantageothisapproachisthatacohesive,coordinatedenvironmentcanbecreatedtoeectivelyintroduceandmodeltechnology.Itisunclear,however,whetherimprovingacultyatti-tudeandskillsactuallytranserstopreserviceteachersuseotechnologyintheclassroom.Creatingastrongocusontechnologyoracultymaybeanecessaryrststep,butotherstrategiesmightneedtoollow.

Single course.Manyacultiesoeducationusethesingle-coursestrategytoteachtechnology(Hargrave&Hsu,2000;Stuhlmann&aylor,1999).ypi-cally,astand-alonecourseisdevotedtoteachingawiderangeobasiccom-puterskillstoallstudents,althoughseveralormatshavebeenused,includingcontent-based(e.g.,Doeringetal.,2003),project-based(e.g.,McRobbieetal.,2000),orprocess-based(Francis-Pelton,Farragher,&Riecken,2000;Willis&SujodeMontes,2002).Principleadvantagesothisstrategyarethatitcanimprovesel-ecacy(Albion,2001;Gunter,2001),provideagoodoverviewotheuseotechnologyinteaching(McRobbieetal.,2000)anddevelopastrongoundationotechnologyskills(Hargrave&Hsu,2000;Strudleretal.,2003).Disadvantages observed in using this strategy include learning technology skills


7/27

Modelling.Temodelingapproachinvolvesdemonstratinghowtechnologycanbeusedintheclassroomandisotencombinedwithanintegratedstrat-egy.However,theemphasiswithmodelingistoprovidepreservicecandidateswithconcreteexamplesohowtechnologycanbeusedintheclassroom.TeISE/NCAEstandards(2003)supporttheuseomodelingasaneectiveap-proachtoteachingtechnologyinpreserviceeducation.Teclearadvantagetousingmodelingisthatittransersdirectlytothereal-worldclassroom,unlikethesinglecourseandintegratedstrategies(Howland&Wedman,2004;Marra,2004).Disadvantagestomodelingincludetheinabilityoacultytoprovidemeaningulandeectivetechnologyexamples(Eiferetal.,2001;Vannatta&Beyerbach,2000)andpreserviceteachersnotbeinggiventheopportunitytoconstructtheirowntechnology-basedlessons.Collaboration.Acollaborationstrategyinvolvesestablishingpartnerships

amonguniversities,colleges,andpublicschoolstocreatetechnology-richlearn-ingexperiences.Tisapproachinvolvesdevelopingcommunitiesopractice,knowledgerepositories,expertisedirectories,peerandmentorassistance,andbestpracticeexamples(Carrolletal.,2003).Placingpreserviceandinserviceteachersinteamstocollaborativelyidentiywaystointegratetechnologyintothecurriculumhasanumberobenets,includingprovidingopportunitiestoexploreandpracticetechnologicalapplicationsinasupportiveenvironment,developingpositiverelationshipsbetweenlocalpublicschoolsandtheuniver-sity,andincreasingthecomortlevelousingtechnology(Dawson&Norris,2000;Tompsonetal.,2003).Tekeychallengesoapplyingthisapproachare(a)theconsiderableorganizationandtimeneededtodevelopeectivelearningcommunitiesand(b)therequirementthatallpartiesmustbemotivated(Car-rolletal.,2003;Dawson&Norris,2000;Tompsonetal.,2003).Ionepartothecommunityisresistanttotheuseotechnology,theeectivenessothestrategyiscompromised(Carrolletal.,2003).Field-based.Teeld-basedstrategy,althoughhighlyrecommendedbythe

ISE/NACEstandards(2003),hasbeenusedsparinglybyacultiesoedu-cation(Balli,Wright,&Foster,1997;Beyerbach,Walsh,&Vannatta,2001;Brushetal.,2003).Tephilosophybehindthisstrategyistoactivelysupporttheproductionanddeliveryotechnology-basedlessonsbypreserviceteachers.Temainadvantageothisapproachisthatstudentslearnromhands-onexpe-rienceandcanocusonhowtechnologyaectslearningintheclassroom(Ballietal.,1997;Beyerbachetal.,2001;Brushetal.,2003).However,ithisistheonlystrategyusedtoteachtechnology,preserviceteacherscaneelunpreparedduetoalackoskill(Brushetal.,2003).Workshops.Anumberoeducationacultiesuseworkshopseitherexclusively

ortosupportotheraspectsoatechnologyenhancedprogram(e.g.,Ballietal.,1997;Bashman,Palla,&Pianetti,2005;Beyerbachetal.,2001;Collier,Weinburgh,&Rivera,2004;Seelsetal.,2003).Teideaisthatshort,ocusedseminars or labs can help preservice teachers and aculty in key areas. Within a


8/27

however,somecomputerskillsmightbesacrifced.Aswell,thelong-termeectoaworkshoponpreserviceteachersattitudesanduseinclassroomhasyettobeestablished.

Access.Tisstrategyaddressestheaccessthatpreserviceteachershavetosotware,hardware,andsupport.Forexample,someprogramsprovidepreser-vicestudentswithlaptopsandsotware(e.g.,Kay&Knaack,2005;Pierson&McNeil,2000).Otherprogramsoertechnologyonwheelstobeusedintheclassroomandinthefeld(Wright,Wilson,Gordon,&Stallworth,2002).Stillothersprovideextensivetechnologicalsupportoracultyandpreserviceteachers(e.g.,Kay&Knaack,2005;Strudleretal.2003;Wrightetal.,2002).Withoutkeyaccesselements,otherstrategiesareboundtohavelimitedeect.Inotherwords,onecanprovidetechnologicaltrainingandguidanceorpre-servicecandidatesinacomputerlab,butithereislimitedaccesstocomputersattheuniversityorintheK12schools,itisdiculttousethetechnologyinaneectivemanner.Nonetheless,onlyahandulostudiesusedanaccessstrategy(e.g.,Howland&Wedman,2004;Johnson-Gentile,LonBerger,Pa-rana,&West,2000;Kay&Knaack,2005;Pierson&McNeil,2000;Strudleretal.2003;Tompsonetal.,2003;Wrightetal.,2002)toimprovepreservicetechnologyeducationprograms.Itshouldbenotedthatprovidingsotware,hardware,andsupportiscritical,butotherstrategieswillhavetocomeintoplayitechnologyistobeusedinameaningulandeectivemanner.

Mentor teachers.Tisstrategyistypicallyusedwiththecollaborativeap-proach;however,specialemphasisisplacedontherelationshipbetweenthepreserviceandmentorteacherwhoworktogethertoproducemeaninguluseotechnology(e.g.,Aust,Newberry,OBrien,&Tomas,2005;Bullock,2004;Dawson&Norris,2000,Doeringetal.,2003;Pierson&McNeil,2000;Seelsetal.,2003;Strudleretal.2003;Tompsonetal.,2003;Wrightetal.,2002).Tepreserviceteacherisotenguidedbythementorteacherintermsopeda-gogyandrealworldexperience.Tementorteacher,inturn,issupportedbythepreserviceteacherwithrespecttothelatesttechnologyandsotware.Tisstrategy,althoughusedsparingly,appearstohaveconsiderablepotentialorpromotingeectiveuseotechnologyintheclassroom,eventhoughempiricalevidenceislimited.Italsotakeslesstimethantheull-collaborativemodelin-volvingpartnershipsamongaculty,mentorteachers,andpreservicecandidates.

Combination of strategies.Tecombinedstrategyinvolvesusingtwoormoreapproachestoincorporatingtechnology.Forexample,modeling/integration,sin-gle-course/integration,andintegration/communitystrategiesarecombinationsregularlyobservedinacultiesoeducation(e.g.,Collieretal,2004;Compton&Harwood,2003;Smith&Robinson,2003).Tirtypercent(n=21)oallstudiesevaluatedinthispaperusedonlyonestrategy.Morethanhal(57%,n=39)usedtwoorewerstrategiestohelpintroducetechnologytopreserviceteachers.

Strudler&Wetzel(1999)reportedthatexemplarycollegesoeducationuseacombined strategy or introducing technology and include stand-alone technol-


9/27

Aprincipalcomponentsanalysiswasdonetoexplorewhethercertaincom-binationsothetenstrategiesexaminedinthispaperwereevident.Becauseallcommunalitieswereabove0.4(Stevens,1992),theprincipalcomponentanalysiswasdeemedanappropriateexploratorymethod(Guadagnoli&Velicer,1988).Bothorthogonal(varimax)andoblique(directoblimin)rotationswereused,giventhatthecorrelationamongpotentialstrategycombinationswasunknown.Teserotationalmethodsproducedidenticalactorcombinations,sotheresultsromthevarimaxrotation(usingKaisernormalization)arepre-sentedbecausetheysimpliytheinterpretationothedata(Field,2005).TeKaiser-Meyer-Olkinmeasureosamplingadequacy(0.546)andBartlettstestosphericity(p


10/27

technologyintopreserviceeducation.Tird,althoughthesestudiesarethebestquantitativeexamplesinthisreviewpaper,theyarearromexemplary.Mostothemethodologicalproblemsreportedinthelargersampleapplytothissubset.Inaddition,onlyonestudy(Strudleretal.,2003)usedqualitativemethodstosupportthequantitativesurveydata.

ImplicationsforEducationAterreading,coding,analyzing,andevaluatingthe68studiesorthispaper,oneconclusionisirreutable.Extensivetimeandmoneyhasbeenspentdevel-

opingstrategiesandprogramstohelppreserviceteachersusetechnologyeec-tively.Anumberoelaborate,theory-drivenblueprintshavebeencollaborative-lycratedtoaddressthetechnologyneedsopreserviceteachers,aculty,mentorteachers,andstudents(Beyerbachetal.,2001;Gillingham&opper,1999;Howland&Wedman,2004;Johnson-Gentileetal.,2000;Pierson&McNeil,2000;Seelsetal.,2003;Strudleretal.,2003;Tompsonetal.,2003;Wrightetal.,2002).Itisunortunatethatmanyotheauthorsotheseprogramshavenotputthesameeortintosystematicallyevaluatingtheireectoneducation.Consequently,itwouldbeirresponsibletoprovideanystrongrecommenda-

tionswithrespecttowhichstrategiesworkandhowwell.Whenmorethoroughresearchisdone,itappearsthatthestrategiesusedhaveasignifcantandpositive

Table1:VarimaxRotatedFactorLoadingsonStrategiesUsedtoIncorporateTechnology

Strategy Factor1 Factor2 Factor3 Factor4Collaboration .87Mentorteacher .77Fieldbased .69Access .61 .45SingleCourse -.78Integrated .77Faculty .40 .48 Multimedia .77

Workshops .77 Modeling .88

FACOR EIGENVALUE PCOFVAR CUMPC 1 2.42 24.2 24.2 2 1.56 15.6 39.8 3 1.44 14.4 54.2 4 1.08 10.8 65.2


11/27

Table2:Top

QuantitativeStudiesinT

echnologyandPreservice

Education

SurveyQ

ual*

L*

Size

Program

Desc.

Model

Desc.

ot.

Strat.Teory

Att.

Chng.

Abil.

Chng.

Use

Chng.

001)

Yes

No

Elem

89

No

Partial

2

Part

Yes

Ye

s

NE2

al.(

2004)

Yes

No

Elem

43

No

Yes

2

Yes

NE

Ye

s

NE

al.(20

03)

Yes

No

NR1

69

No

Yes

2

Yes

Yes

NE

NE

001)

Yes

No

NR

171

No

Yes

2

Partial

Yes

NE

NE

&Wedman(2004)3

Yes

No

NR

21

Partial

Yes

5

Yes

Yes

Ye

s

Yes

aack(2005)3

Yes

No

Mix

52

Yes

Yes

4

Yes

Yes

Ye

s

Yes

(2003)

Yes

No

NR

102

No

Partial

1

Partial

Yes

NE

NE

.(199

5)

Yes

No

NR

17

No

Yes

1

Yes

Yes

Ye

s

NE

03)

Yes

No

NR

66

Partial

Yes

2

Yes

No

Ye

s

NE

al.(2

003)3

Yes

Yes

NR

273

No

Yes

6

Yes

NE

NE

Yes

&Beyerbach(2000)

Yes

No

Mix

122

No

Yes

3

Yes

NE

Ye

s

NE

02)

Yes

No

NR

74

No

Partial

1

Partial

NE

NE

NE

.(200

4)

Yes

No

NR

280

Partial

Yes

2

Yes

Yes

NE

NE

2000)

Yes

No

NR

114

No

Yes

1

No

Yes

NE

NE

Reported

Examined

4strategiesused


12/27

Finally,aguidingmodel,basedonanumberowell-developedprogramsre-portedinthispaper(e.g.,Beyerbachetal.,2001;Gillingham&opper,1999;Howland&Wedman,2004;Johnson-Gentileetal.,2000;Pierson&McNeil,2000;Seelsetal.,2003;Strudleretal.,2003;Tompsonetal.,2003;Wrightetal.,2002),ispresentedinFigure1.Tedynamicsothismodelincludeseveralcriticalandinteractivecomponents.First,goodaccesstosotware,hardware,andsupportisnecessaryintheuni-

versityclassroomandinthefeldplacement.Iyoudonothaveadequateaccessineitherarea,itisunlikelythattheotherstrategieswillwork.Second,regard-lessowhetherthestrategyissingle-course,workshop,integration,multime-dia-based,oracombination,itisimportantthateveryeortbemadetomodelandconstructauthenticteachingactivities.Althoughanumberoleadingor-ganizationshavestronglyendorsedanintegratedapproach(e.g.,Moursund&Bieleeltdt,1999orISE/NCAE,2003),theempiricalevidencesupportingonestrategyoveranotherislackingatthispoint.Tird,collaborationamongpreserviceteachers,aculty,andmentorteachersisideal;however,partnershipsbetweenpreserviceandmentorteachersmayworkjustaswell.Withoutcol-laborationinvolvingthementorteacher,itseemsunlikelythatgainsinattitudeandabilitywilltranslatetomeaninguluseotechnology.

RecommendationsforFutureforResearch

Firstandoremost,utureresearchersopreservicetechnologyineducationneedtoincludetheollowingsixelementsintheirinvestigations:

1. acleardescriptionothesampleincluding,astheminimum,numberostudents,age,gender,andteachinglevel

2. acomprehensivedescriptionotheeducationprogramincludingnumberoyearsostudy,numberostudents,andorganizationotheprogramwithrespecttotheuseotechnology

3. reliabilityandvalidityestimatesoanydatacollectioninstrumentsused4. bothqualitativeandquantitativedata


13/27

5. ormalanalysisoindividualdierencesithesamplesizeislargeenough,and

6.measuresthatlookatattitude,abilityanduseinthesamestudy.Asensiblestartingpointistoexaminetheexemplarprogramsnotedearlier(e.g.,Beyerbachetal.,2001;Gillingham&opper,1999;Howland&Wed-man,2004;Johnson-Gentileetal.,2000;Pierson,2000;Seelsetal.,2003;Strudleretal.,2003;Tompsonetal.,2003;Wrightetal.,2002).Goodtheoryandstructureistheoundationoanygoodprogram.Itwouldalsobebenecialtolookatresearchpracticesinthe14quantitativestudies(seeable2)alreadyinvestigatedinthisarticle.Althoughthesestudieshavefaws,theresearchde-signsarereasonablysolid.Itiscriticaltoaddressthemethodologicalconcernsnotedaboveinorderto

buildacoherentunderstandingohowtoguidepreserviceteachersintheuseotechnology.Withoutthesekeychanges,researchers,administrators,andeduca-torswillcontinuealongarudderlesspathousingtechnologyineducation.

SummaryTisarticleoeredadetailedanalysiso68studiesexaminingtheuseotech-

nologyinpreserviceeducation.Althoughsomesolid,thoughtultechnology-basedprogramshavebeendeveloped,onlyahandulostudieshavecareullyandrigorouslypursuedtheevaluationprocess.Tejuryisstilloutonwhichstrategiesworkbest,althoughthereissomepreliminaryevidencetosuggestthatmultiplestrategiesworkwellwithrespecttouseocomputersbypreservice

teachersintheclassroom.Inordertobuildamorecoherentknowledgebaseintechnologyandpreserviceeducation,thereisaobviousmandateormorethor-oughanalysisthatincludesacleardescriptionothesampleandprogrambeingevaluated,reliableandvalidmeasurestocollectdata,andabroaderocusthatlooksatchangesincomputerattitudes,ability,anduse.

Contributor

RobinKay,PhD,isanassistantproessorintheFacultyoEducationattheUniversityoOntarioInstituteoechnology.Hehaspublishedmorethan20articlesintheareaocomputersineducation,presentednumerouspapersatteninternationalconerences,reereedthreeprominentcomputereducationjour-nals,andtaughtcomputers,mathematics,andtechnologyor17years.Currentprojectsincluderesearchonlaptopuseinteachereducation,discussionboarduse,learningobjects,educationalmini-clips,andactorsthatinfuencehowstudentslearnwithtechnology.(Address:RobinH.Kay,UniversityoOntarioInstituteoechnology,2000SimcoeStreetNorth,Oshawa,ONL1H7K4,Canada;[email protected].)

References

Albee J J (2003) A study o preservice elementary teachers technology skill


14/27

orcomputeruseamongteachereducationstudents.Journal of Technology andTeacher Education,9(3),321347.Albion,P.R.(2003).PBL+IMM=PBL2:Problembasedlearningandinter-activemultimediadevelopment.Journal of Technology and Teacher Education,11(2),243257.Albion,P.R.,&Gibson,I.W.(2000).Problem-basedlearningasamulti-mediadesignrameworkinteachereducation.Journal of Technology and TeacherEducation,8(4),315316.Aust,R.,Newberry,B.,OBrien,J.,&Tomas,J.(2005).Learninggenera-tion:osteringinnovationwithtomorrowsteachersandtechnology.Journal ofTechnology and Teacher Education, 13(2),167195.Baker,E.L.,Gearhart,M.,&Herman,J.L.(1994).EvaluatingtheAppleclass-roomsotomorrow.InE.L.Baker&H.F.ONeile,Jr.(Eds.). Technology assess-ment in education and training(pp.173197).Hillsdale,NJ:LawrenceErlbaum.Balli,S.J.,Wright,M.D.,&Foster,P.N.(1997).Preserviceteacherseldexperienceswithtechnology.Education Technology,37(5),4046.Bartlett,A.(2002).Preparingpreserviceteacherstoimplementperormanceassessmentandtechnologythroughelectronicportolios.Action in Teacher Edu-cation,24(1),9097.Basham,J.,Palla,A.,&Pianetti,E.(2005).Anintegratedrameworkusedtoincreasepreserviceteachernets-tability.Journal of Technology and TeacherEducation, 13(2),257276.Becker,H.J.&Ravitz,J.(1999).Teinfuenceocomputerandinternetuseonteacherspedagogicalpracticesandperceptions.Journal of Research on Com-puting in Education, 31(4),356384.Bennett,L.(20002001).echnologystandardsorthepreparationoteach-ers.International Journal of Social Education, 15(2),111.Beyerbach,B.,Walsh,C.,&Vannatta,R.A.(2001).Fromteachingtech-nologytousingtechnologytoenhancestudentlearning:Preserviceteacherschangingperceptionsotechnologyinusion.Journal of Technology and TeacherEducation,9(1),105127.Blocher,J.M.,Echols,J.,deMontes,L.S.,Willis,E.,&ucker,G.(2003).Shitingrominstructiontoconstruction:Apersonalmeaningulexperience.Action in Teacher Education,24(4),474478.Brush,.,Glazewski,K.,Rutowski,K,Berg,K.,Stromors,C.,Van-Nest,M.,etal.(2003).Integratingtechnologyinaeld-basedteachertrainingprogram:[email protected] Technology,Research and Development,51(1),5773.Bucci,..(2003).Tetechnologyteachinglab:MeetingtheISEchal-lenge.Action in Teacher Education,24(4),19.Bullock,D.(2004).Movingromtheorytopractice:Anexaminationotheactorsthatpreserviceteachersencounterastheattempttogainexperienceteachingwithtechnologyduringeldplacementexperiences.Journal of Technol-ogy and Teacher Education, 12(2), 211237.


15/27

CEOForumonEducationandechnology(2000).eacher preparation StaRchart: A self-assessment tool for colleges of educationPreparing a new generationof teachers.RetrievedAugust30,2004,romhttp://www.ceoorum.org/down-loads/tpreport.pd.Cherup,S.,&Snyder,L.(2003).Amodelorintegratingtechnologyintoteachereducation:Onecollegesjourney. Contemporary Issues in echnology andeacher Education, 3(1),4352.Clit,R..,Mullen,L.,Levin,J.,&Larson,A.(2001).echnologiesincontexts:Implicationsorteachereducation.eaching and eacher Education, 17,3350.Collier,S.,Weinburgh,M.H.,&Rivera,M.(2004).Inusingtechnologyskillsintoateachereducationprogram:Changeinstudentsknowledgeabouttheuseotechnology.Journal of echnology and eacher Education,12(3),447468.Compton,V.,&Harwood,C.(2003).Enhancingtechnologicalpractice:AnassessmentrameworkortechnologyeducationinNewZealand.InternationalJournal of echnology and Design Education,13(1),126.Cuban,L.(2001).Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom.Cam-bridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress.Davis,K.S.,&Falba,C.J.(2002).Integratingtechnologyinelementarypre-serviceteachereducation:orchestratingscienticinquiryinmeaningulways.Journal of Science eacher Education,13(4),303329.Dawson,K.,&Norris,A.(2000).PreserviceteachersexperiencesinaK12/universitytechnology-basedeldinitiative:benets,acilitators,constraints,andimplicationsorteachereducators.Journal of Computing in eacher Educa-tion, 17(1),412.Dexter,S.,&Riedel,E.(2003).Whyimprovingpreserviceteachereducation-altechnologypreparationmustgobeyondthecollegeswalls.Journal of eacherEducation,54(4),334346.Doering,A.,Hughes,J.&Human,D.(2003).Preserviceteachers:Arewethink-ingwithtechnology?Journal of Research on echnology in Education, 35(3),342361.Doty,L.,&Hillman,C.(2000).rainingpreserviceteachersintechnology:

Aportolioapproach.International Journal of Social Education,15(1),1318.Eifer,K.,Greene,.,&Carroll,J.(2001).Walkingthetalkistough:Fromasingletechnologycoursetoinusion.Te Educational Forum,65(4),366375.Ertmer,P.A.,Conklin,D.,Lewandowski,J.,Osika,E.,Selo,M.,&Wignall,E.(2003).Increasingpreserviceteacherscapacityortechnologyintegrationthroughtheuseoelectronicmodels.eacher Education Quarterly,30(1),95112.Evans,V.(1995).Blackout:Preventingracialdiscriminationonthenet.Li-

brary Journal,120,4446.Evans,B.P.,&Gunter,G.A.(2004).Acatalystorchange:Infuencingpre-serviceteachertechnologyprociency.Journal of Educational Media & LibrarySciences, 41(3),325336.Field,A.(2005).Discovering Statistics Using SPSS(2nded.)TousandOaks,CA: SAGE Publications.


16/27

Francis-Pelton,L.,Farragher,P.&Riecken,.(2000).Contentbasedtechnology:Learningbymodeling.Journal of Technology and Teacher Education 8(3),177186.

Fraenkel,J.R.,&Wallen,N.E.(2003).How to Design and Evaluate Researchin Education (5thed.).Boston:McGraw-Hill.

Gibson,S.(2002).Incorporatingcomputer-basedlearningintopreserviceeducationcourses.Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education On-line, 2(1),97118.

Gillingham,M.G.,&opper,A.(1999).echnologyinteacherpreparation:Preparingteachersortheuture.Journal of Technology and Teacher Education,7(4),303321.

Gimbert,B.,&Zembal-Saul,C.(2002).Learningtoteachwithtechnology:romintegrationtoactualization.Contemporary Issues in Technology and TeacherEducation, 2(2),204217.

Guadagnoli,E.,&Velicer,W.(1988).Onmethodsintheanalysisoprofledata.Psychometrika,24,95112.

Gunter,G.A.(2001).Makingadierence:Usingemergingtechnologiesandteachingstrategiestorestructureanundergraduatetechnologycourseorpreser-viceteachers.Education Media International, 38(1),1320.

Halpin,R.(1999).Amodelorconstructivistlearninginpractice:Computerliteracyintegratedintoelementarymathematicsandscienceteachereducation.Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 32(1),128138.

Hargrave,D.,&Hsu,Y.(2000).Surveyoinstructionaltechnologycoursesorpreserviceteachers.Journal of Technology and Teacher Education,8(4),303314.

Hattler,J.A.(1999).echnologyorpreserviceteachers:drivereducationortheinormationsuperhighway.Journal of Technology and Teacher Education,7(4),323332.

Homan,D.L.&Novak,.P.(1998),BridgingtheracialdivideontheIn-ternet.Science,280(April17),390391.

Howland,J.,&Wedman,J.(2004).Aprocessmodeloracultydevelop-ment:individualizingtechnologylearning.Journal of Technology and TeacherEducation, 12(2),239263.

ISE/NCAE(2003).ISTE/NCATE Standards for educational technology pro-grams.RetrievedAugust30,2004,romhttp://cnets.iste.org/ncate/.

Johnson-Gentile,K.,Lonberger,R.,Parana,J.,&West,A.(2000).Preparingpreserviceteachersorthetechnologicalclassroom:Aschool-collegepartner-ship.Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 8(2),97109.

Kariuki,M.,&Duran,M.(2004).Usinganchoredinstructiontoteachpre-serviceteacherstointegratetechnologyinthecurriculum.Journal of Technologyand Teacher Education, 12(3),431445.

Kay,R.H.(1992).Ananalysisomethodsusedtoexaminegenderdierencesincomputer-relatedbehaviour.Journal of Educational Computing Research, 8(3),323336.

Kay, R. H. (in press). Addressing gender dierences in computer ability, atti-


17/27

Kozma,R.B.(2003).Technology, innovation, and educational change. A globalperspective.Eugene,OR:InternationalSocietyorTechnologyinEducation.Kulik,J.A.(1994).Meta-analyticstudiesofndingsoncomputer-basedinstruction.InE.L.Baker,&H.F.ONeile,Jr.(Eds.),Technology assessment ineducation and training, (pp.933).Hillsdale,NJ:LawrenceErlbaum.Krueger,K.,Boboc,M.,Smaldino,S.,Cornish,Y.,&Callahan,W.(2004).InTimeimpactreport.WhatwasInTimeseectivenessandimpactonacultyandpreserviceteachers?Journal of Technology and Teacher Education,12(2),185210.Lohr,L.,Javeri,M.,Mahoney,C.,Gall,J.,Li,K.,&Strongin,D.(2003).Usingrapidapplicationdevelopmenttoimprovetheusabilityoapreserviceteachertech-nologycourse.Educational Technology Research and Development,51(2),4155.Luan,W.S.,Jalil,H.A.,Ayub,A.F.M.,Bakar,K.A.,&Hong,T.S.(2003).Teachingadiscreteinormationtechnologycourseinaconstructivistlearn-ingenvironment:IsiteectiveorMalaysianpreserviceteachers?Internet andHigher Education, 6,193204.Maeers,M.,Browne,N.,&Cooper,E.(2000).Pedagogicallyappropriatein-tegrationoinormationaltechnologyinanelementarypreserviceteacheredu-cationprogram.Journal of Technology and Teacher Education,8(3),219229.Mann,D.Shakeshat,C.,Becker,J.,&Kottkamp,R.(1999).West Virginias

Basic Skills/Computer Education program: An analysis of student achievement.SantaMonica,CA:MilkenFamilyFoundation.Marra,R.(2004).Anonlinecoursetohelpteachersusetechnologytoen-hancelearning:Successesandlimitations.Journal of Technology and TeacherEducation,12(3),411429.McRobbie,C.J.,Ginns,I.S.,&Stein,S.J.(2000).Preserviceprimaryteach-ersthinkingabouttechnologyandtechnologyeducation.International Journalof Technology and Design Education,10,81101.Milbrath,Y.L.,&Kinzie,M.B.(2000).Computertechnologytrainingorprospectiveteachers:computerattitudesandperceivedsel-ecacy.Journal ofTechnology and Teacher Education,8(4),373396.Moursund,D.,&Bieleeldt,T.(1999).Will new teachers be prepared to teach

in a digital age? A national survey on information technology in teacher education. SantaMonica,CA:MilkenExchangeonEducationalTechnology.Available:http://www.m.org/publications/publications.ta?page=154.Mullen,L.(2001).Beyondinusion:Preservicestudentsunderstandingsabouteducationaltechnologiesorteachingandlearning.Journal of Technologyand Teacher Education,9(3),447466.NationalCenterorEducationStatistics.(2001).Internet Access in U.S. Public

Schools and Classrooms: 19942001.RetrievedAugust20,2004,romhttp://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d02/tables/dt419.asp.NationalCouncilorAccreditationoTeacherEducation.(2003).International Tech-

nology Education Association/Council on Technology Teacher Education (ITEA/CTTE).Retrieved July 27, 2004, rom http://www.ncate.org/standard/programstds.htm.


18/27

Nolan,P.(1992).Computersineducation;Achievingequitableaccessanduse.Journal of Research on Computing in Education,24(3)299314.OReilly,D.(2003).Makinginormationandcommunicationstechnology

work.echnology, Pedagogy and Education,12(3),417446.OTA(1995).Teachersandtechnology:Makingtheconnection.(OTA-EHR-

616).Washington,DC:U.S.GovernmentPrintingOfce.Available:http://www.wws.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/byteserv.prl/~ota/disk1/1995/9541/9541.PDF.Peters,J.M.,OBrien,G.,Briscoe,C.,&Korth,W.W.(1995).Along-term

assessmentoanintegratedmicrocomputercomponentorpreservicesecond-aryscienceteachers.Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science eaching,14(4),499520.Pierson,M.E.,&McNeil,S.(2000).Preservicetechnologyintegration

throughcollaborativeactioncommunities.Contemporary Issues in echnologyand eacher Education, 1(1),189199.Plante,J.&Beattie,D.(2004).Education, skills, and learningResearch papers:

Connectivity and IC integration in Canadian elementary and secondary schools: Firstresults from the Information and Communications echnologies in Schools Survey, 20032004.StatisticsCanada.RetrievedAugust29,2004,romhttp://www.schoolnet.ca/home/documents/Report_EN.pd.Pope,M.,Hare,P.,&Howard,E.(2002).Technologyintegration:Closingthegap

betweenwhatpreserviceteachersaretaughttodoandwhattheycando.Journal ofechnology and eacher Education,10(2),191203.Robertson,H.(2003).Towardatheoryonegativity:Teachereducationand

inormationandcommunicationstechnology.Journal of eacher Education,54(4),280296.Rowley,J.,Dysard,G.,&Arnold,J.(2005).Developinganewtechnologyinu-

sionprogramorpreparingtomorrowsteachers.Journal of echnology and eacherEducation, 13(1),105123.Russell,M.,Bebell,D.,ODwyer,L.,&OConnor,K.(2003).Examiningteacher

technologyuse:Implicationsorpreserviceandinserviceteacherpreparation.Journalof eacher Education,54(4),297310.Sahin,T.Y.(2003).Studentteachersperceptionsoinstructionaltechnology:De-

velopingmaterialsbasedonaconstructivistapproach.British Journal of Educationalechnology,34(1),6774.Sanders,J.(inpress).Genderandtechnology:Aresearchreview.InC.Skelton,B.

Francis,&L.Smulyan(Eds.),Handbook of gender and education.London:Sage.Scardamalia,M.&Bereiter,C.(1996).Computersupportorknowledge-build-

ingcommunities.InT.Koschmann(Ed.),CSCL: Teory and practice of an emergingparadigm (pp.249268).Mahwah,NJ:Erlbaum.Seels,B.,Campbell,S.,&Talsma,V.(2003).Supportingexcellenceintech-

nologythroughcommunitiesolearning.Educational echnology Research andDevelopment,51(1),91104.Shashaani, L. (1994). Socioeconomic status, parents sex-role stereotypes, and


19/27

Shoner,M.B.,Dias,L.B.,&Tomas,C.D.(2001).Amodelorcollabor-ativerelationshipsbetweeninstructionaltechnologyandteachereducationpro-grams.Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 1(3),395411.SIIA.(2000).Report on the eectiveness o technology in schools.Washington,DC:SotwareandInormationIndustryAssociation.Simpson,M.,Payne,F.,Munro,R.,&Hughes,S.(1999).Usinginormationandcommunicationstechnologyasapedagogicaltool:Whoeducatestheedu-cators?Journal o Education or Teaching,25(3),247262.Simpson,M.,Payne,F.,Munro,R.,&Lynch,E.(1998).Usinginorma-tionandcommunicationstechnologyasapedagogicaltool:AsurveyoninitialteachereducationinScotland.Jouranl o Inormation Technology or TeacherEducation,7(3),431446.Sivin-Kachala,J.(1998).Report on the eectiveness o technology in school,

19901997.Washington,DC:SotwarePublishersAssociation.Smith,S.J.,&Robinson,S.(2003).echnologyintegrationthroughcol-laborativecohorts:Preparingutureteacherstousetechnology.Remedial andSpecial Education,24(3),154160.Snider,S.L.(2003).Exploringtechnologyintegrationinafeld-basedteachereducationprogram:Implementationeortsandfndings.Journal o Research onTechnology in Education, 34(3),230249.Stevens,J.P.(1992).Applied multivariate statistics or the social science applica-

tions(2nded.).Hillsdale,NJ:Erlbaum.Stuhlmann,J.M.,&aylor,H.G.(1999).Preparingtechnicallycompetentstudentteachers:Athreeyearstudyointerventionsandexperiences.Journal oTechnology and Teacher Education,7(4),333350.Strudler,N.,&Wetzel,L.(1999).Lessonsromexemplarycollegesoeduca-tion:Factorsaectingtechnologyintegrationinpreserviceprograms.Educa-tional Technology Research and Development,47(4),6381.Strudler,N.,Archambault,L.,Bendixen,L.,Anderson,D.,&Weiss,R.(2003).ProjectHREAD:echnologyhelpingrestructureeducationalaccessanddelivery.Educational Technology Research and Development,51(1),3954.Tompson,A.D.,Schmidt,D.A.,&Davis,N.E.(2003).echnologycol-laborativesorsimultaneousrenewalinteachereducation.Educational Technol-ogy Research and Development,51(1),7389.U.S.DepartmentoEducation.(2000).E-Learning: Putting a world-class

education at the fngertips o all children[Report].Washington,DC.RetrievedAugust30,2004,romhttp://www.ed.gov/about/oces/list/os/technology/re-ports/e-learning.pd.U.S.DepartmentoEducation,NationalCenterorEducationStatistics.(2002).Internet access in U.S. public schools and classrooms: 19942002.RetrievedAugust30,2004,romhttp://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d02/tables/dt419.asp.Vannatta,R.A.,&Beyerbach,B.(2000).Facilitatingaconstructivistvisiono technology integration among education aculty and preservice teachers.


20/27

Vrasida,C.,&McIsaac,M.S.(2001).Integratingtechnologyintoteachingandteachereducation:Implicationsorpolicyandcurriculumreorm.Educa-tional Media International,23,127132.Wang,Y.(2002).Fromteacher-centrednesstostudent-centredness:Arepre-

serviceteachersmakingtheconceptualshitwhenteachingininormationageclassrooms?Educational Media International,39(34),257265.Wang,L.,Ertmer,P.A.,&Newby,.J.(2004).Increasingpreserviceteach-

erssel-ecacybeliesortechnologyintegration.Journal o Research on ech-nology in Education, 36(3),231250.Wang.Y.,&Holthaus,P.(1999).Facingtheworld:Studentteacherscom-

puteruseduringpracticum.Journal o Educational echnology Systems,27(3),207223.Waxman,H.C.,Connell,M.L.,&Gray,J.(2002).A quantitative synthesis

o recent research on the efects o teaching and learning with technologyon studentoutcomes.Naperville,IL:NorthCentralRegionalLaboratory.Wenglinsky,H.(1998).Does it compute?Te relationship between educational

technology and student achievement in mathematics.Princeton,NJ:EducationalestingService.Wepner,S.B.,Ziomek,N.,&aoL.(2003).Treeteachereducatorsper-

spectivesabouttheshitingresponsibilitiesoinusingtechnologyintothecur-riculum.Action in eacher Education,24(4),5363.Whetstone,L.,&Carr-Chellman,A.A.(2001).Preparingpreserviceteachers

tousetechnology:Surveyresults.echrends,45(4),1119.Whitley,B.E.,Jr.(1997).Genderdiferencesincomputer-relatedattitudes

andbehaviors:Ameta-analysis.Computers in Human Behavior,13,122.Willis,E.M.,&SujodeMontes,L.(2002).Doesrequiringatechnology

courseinpreserviceteachereducationafectstudentteacherstechnologyuseintheclassroom?Journal o Computing in eacher Education,18(3),7680.Wilkerson,.L.(2003).Atrialmodelorpreparingpreserviceteachersor

theintegrationotechnologyinteachingandlearning.Action in eacher Educa-tion,24(4),2732.Wilkinson,L.,Buboltz,W.,Cook,J.,Matthew,K.,&Tomas,D.(2000).

Minoritiesandmainstreamculture:Doesatechnologygapexist?InC.Craw-ord,D.Willis,R.Carlsen,I.Gibson,K.McFerrin,J.Price,etal.(Eds.),Pro-ceedings o society or inormation technology and teacher education internationalconerence 2000(pp.25142519).Chesapeake,VA:AACE.Wright,V.H.,Wilson,E.K.,Gordon,W.,&Stallworth,J.B.(2002).Master

technologyteacher:Apartnershipbetweenpreserviceandinserviceteachersandteachereducators.Contemporary Issues in echnology and eacher Education,2(3),353362.

Yildirm,S.(2000).Efectsoaneducationalcomputingcourseonpreserviceandinserviceteachers:Adiscussionandanalysisoattitudesanduse. Journal oResearch on Computing in Education, 32(4), 479495.


21/27

DIxA

fStudiesReviewed Su

rveyRel*

Qua

l*L*

Size

Pro

gram

D

esc.

Model

Desc.

ot.

Strat.T

eory

Data

Aa

l.

Att.

Chg.

Abil.

Chg.

Use

Chg.

01)

Yes

No

No

Elem

57

Partial

Partial

1

No

Form4

No

Yes

No

Gibson

(2000)

Yes

No

No

NR1

14

No

Yes

1

Yes

Desc2

No

No

No

001)

Yes

Yes

No

Elem

89

No

Partial

2

Part

Form

Yes

Yes

No

003)

No

No

No

NR

0

No

Yes

1

Yes

None

No

No

No

(2005)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Mix

244

No

Yes

4

Yes

Form

No

No

No

(1997)

No

No

Yes

Mix

285

No

Yes

3

Part

Perc3

No

No

No

003)

No

No

Yes

Elem

26

Yes

Partial

1

Part

Perc

No

No

No

al.

(20

05)

Yes

No

No

NR

34

Partial

Yes

4

Part

Form

No

Yes

No

etal.(

2001)

Yes

No

Yes

NR

60

No

Yes

5

Yes

Form

No

Yes

No

al.

(20

03)

No

No

Yes

NR

1

No

Partial

1

Part

Desc

No

No

No

l.(2003)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Elem

100

Partial

Yes

4

Part

Perc

No

No

No

03)

No

No

Yes

Elem

21

No

Yes

1

No

Perc

No

No

No

004)

No

No

Yes

MS

2

No

No

2

Part

Desc

No

No

No

Snider(2003)

No

No

No

NR

0

No

Yes

1

Yes

None

No

No

No

(2001)

Yes

No

Yes

Mix

0

No

Yes

2

Part

Desc

No

No

No

al.

(2004)

Yes

Yes

No

Elem

43

No

Yes

2

Yes

Form

No

Yes

No

&Har

wood

No

No

No

NR

0

No

Yes

2

Yes

Desc

No

No

No


22/27

SurveyRel*

Qual*L*

Size

Pro

gram

D

esc.

Model

Desc.

ot.

Strat.T

eory

Data

Aal.

Att.

Chg.

Abil.

Chg.

Use

Chg.

alba(2

002)

Yes

No

Yes

Elem

101

No

No

2

Part

Desc

No

No

No

&Norris(2000)

No

No

Yes

NR

16

Partial

Yes

4

Partial

Desc

No

No

No

Riedel

(2003)

Yes

No

No

Mix

201

Partial

Partial

3

Partial

Perc

No

No

No

tal.(2

003)

No

No

Yes

NR

10

Partial

Partial

3

No

Desc

No

No

No

illman

(2000)

No

No

No

NR

0

No

Partial

4

No

Desc

No

No

No

.(2001

)

No

No

Yes

Fac

12

Partial

No

2

Partial

Perc

No

No

No

al.

(2003)

Yes

Yes

No

NR

69

No

Yes

2

Yes

Form

Yes

No

No

Gunter

(2004)

Yes

No

No

NR

40

No

Partial

3

Partial

Perc

No

No

No

l.(2002)

No

No

No

Sec

0

Yes

Yes

3

Yes

None

No

No

No

ltonet

al.

(2000)

No

No

No

NR

0

No

Yes

2

Partial

None

No

No

No

002)

No

No

No

Elem

18

No

Yes

3

Yes

Perc

No

No

No

m&To

pper

No

No

No

NR

0

No

Yes

5

Yes

None

No

No

No

&Zembal-Saul

No

No

Yes

Elem

0

No

Yes

3

Partial

Desc

No

No

No

001)

Yes

Yes

No

NR

171

No

Yes

2

Partial

Form

Yes

No

No

999)

Yes

Yes

No

Elem

73

Partial

Yes

1

Partial

Perc

No

No

No

999)

No

No

No

NR

0

No

Yes

1

Yes

None

No

No

No

&Wed

man

Yes

Yes

No

NR

21

Partial

Yes

5

Yes

Form

Yes

Yes

Yes

DIxA,COn'


23/27

SurveyRel*

Qual*L*

Size

Pro

gram

D

esc.

Model

Desc.

ot.

Strat.T

eory

Data

Anal.

Att.

Chng.

Abil.

Chng.

Use

Chng.

Gentile

&Lon-

00)

Yes

No

No

Elem

0

Partial

Yes

5

Partial

Perc

No

No

No

Duran

(2004)

No

No

No

NR

22

No

Yes

2

Yes

None

No

No

No

aack(2

005)

Yes

Yes

No

Mix

52

Yes

Yes

4

Yes

Form

Yes

Yes

Yes

al.(20

04)

Yes

No

No

Fac

0

No

Yes

3

Yes

Perc

No

No

No

(2003)

Yes

Yes

No

NR

570

No

Yes

3

Partial

Desc

No

No

No

(2003

)

Yes

Yes

No

NR

102

No

Partial

1

Partial

Form

Yes

No

No

al.(2000)

No

No

No

Elem

0

No

Yes

2

Yes

Desc

No

No

No

etal.(2000)

No

No

Yes

Elem

21

Partial

Yes

2

Partial

Desc

No

No

No

&Kinz

ie(2000)

Yes

No

No

NR

42

Yes

Partial

2

No

Form

Yes

No

No

001)

No

No

Yes

NR

4

No

Partial

1

Partial

Desc

No

No

No

1)

No

No

No

NR

0

Partial

Yes

1

Partial

None

No

No

No

2003)

Yes

No

Yes

NR

18

Partial

Partial

1

Partial

Perc

No

No

No

l.(1995)

Yes

Yes

No

NR

17

No

Yes

1

Yes

Form

Yes

Yes

No

McNe

il(2000)

No

No

No

NR

0

Yes

Yes

9

Yes

None

No

No

No

(2002)

Yes

No

No

Elem

26

No

Yes

2

Partial

Form

Yes

No

No

al.(2005)

Yes

No

No

NR

0

No

Yes

3

Yes

Perc

No

No

No

03)

Yes

No

No

Elem

80

No

No

1

Yes

Perc

No

No

No

(2003)

Yes

No

Yes

NR

98

Partial

Yes

5

Yes

Perc

No

No

No

tal.(2001)

Yes

No

No

MS

0

No

Yes

3

Yes

Desc

No

No

No


24/27

SurveyRel*

Qual*L*

Size

Pro

gram

D

esc.

Model

Desc.

ot.

Strat.T

eory

Data

Aal.

Att.

Chg.

Abil.

Chg.

Use

Chg.

tal.(1

999)

Yes

No

No

Mix

243

No

No

1

Partial

Perc

No

No

No

tal.(1

998)

Yes

No

No

Mix

1313

Yes

No

0

No

Perc

No

No

No

Robinson(2003)

No

No

Yes

Spec

1

No

Partial

2

Partial

Desc

No

No

No

03)

Yes

Yes

No

NR

66

Partial

Yes

2

Yes

Form

No

Yes

No

n&aylor

No

No

Yes

Elem

4

No

Partial

4

No

Desc

No

No

No

al.(20

03)

Yes

Yes

Yes

NR

273

No

Yes

6

Yes

Form

No

No

Yes

netal.(2003)

No

No

Yes

Elem

28

No

Yes

6

Yes

Desc

No

No

No

&Beye

rbach

Yes

Yes

No

Mix

122

No

Yes

3

Yes

Form

No

Yes

No

&McIsaac(2001)

No

No

No

NR

0

No

No

3

Yes

None

No

No

No

02)

Yes

Yes

No

NR

74

No

Partial

1

Partial

Form

No

No

No

.(2004)

Yes

Yes

No

NR

280

Partial

Yes

2

Yes

Form

Yes

No

No

Holthau

s(1998

Yes

No

No

Elem

64

No

Partial

1

No

Perc

No

No

No

(2003)

No

No

No

NR

0

No

Yes

1

Partial

None

No

No

No

al.(

2002)

No

No

Yes

Sec

10

Partial

Partial

6

Partial

Desc

No

No

No

2000)

Yes

Yes

No

NR

114

No

Yes

1

No

Form

Yes

No

No

Reported

scriptiveDataOnly

centagesReported

rmalStatistics(e.g.,t-test,

ANOVA,correlations)

DIxA,COn'


25/27


26/27

APPEnDIxB,COn'T

Variable DescriptioScorigCriteria

Multimedia

Wasmultimedia(e.g.,portolios,

onlinelearning,videocasestudies)usedtoteachtechnology?

0No

1Yes

Collaborative

Wastherecollaborationamongpreserviceteachers,educationac-ulty,andmentorteacherstousetechnology?

0No1Yes

FieldBased

Didpreserviceteacherspracticetheuseotechnologyintheclassroom?

0No1Yes

Faculty

Didthetechnologyprogramocus

onimprovingacultyuseotech-nology?

0No

1Yes

Mentoreachers

Didthetechnologyprogramocusonimprovingmentorteachersuseotechnology?

0No1Yes

Access

Didthetechnologyprogramocusonaccesstosotware,hardware,and/ortechnologicalsupport?

0No1Yes

TeorybehindStrategies

Wasthetheorybehindusingspe-cifcstrategiesusedtoincorporatetechnologybasedonsoundtheory?

0Notprovided1Partially2Yes

DescriptionoStrategies

Wasthereaclear,coherentdescrip-tionothestrategiesusedtoincor-poratetechnologyintotheteachereducationprogram?

0Notprovided1Partially2Yes

EFFECONLEARNING

ComputerAttitudes

Didcomputerattitudesimproveasaresultothestrategiesusedtoincorporatetechnology?

0No1Yes

ComputerAbility

Didcomputerabilityimproveasaresultothestrategiesusedtoin-corporatetechnology?

0No1Yes

ComputerUse Didcomputeruseimproveasaresultothestrategiesusedtoin-corporate technology?

0No1Yes


27/27

Documents

Preparing Teachers for the Future Gillingham