Technology Professional Development for Teachers

[] Lynne Schrum

This article examines technology professional development for preservice and inservice teach- ers. It reviews the current status of technology in our schools, what we know about profes- sional development in the area of technology, and research on efforts to increase preservice teacher use of technology in appropriate ways.

[] "In our schools, every classroom in America must be connected to the information super- highway, with computers and good software, and well-trained t eache r s . . . " (President Clin- ton, State of the Union Address, 1997)

President Clinton's challenge requires that teachers be ready to use technology and teach with it. In response to this call, many organiza- tions have focused on the appropriate use of technology by current and future teachers. Enti- ties such as the United States Department of Education, the CEO Forum, the Milken Exchange on Education Technology, the Associ- ation for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT), and the International Soci- ety for Technology in Education (ISTE) have rec- ognized that without focused and purposeful energy, educators in our schools would be unable to maximize the potential of technology. The goal ~or universities and school districts is to ensure that preservice and inservice teachers can use technology appropriately.

Before the education profession can accom- plish this task, we must take stock of the current situation. The purpose of this article is to describe that situation, first by providing an overview of the status of technology use in our schools. Next, a review of the research and prac- tice of technology professional development is presented, along with a description of successful models. Finally, the article discusses research and efforts to prepare preservice educators to use and teach with technology.

Current Status of Technology in Schools

Educators are making progress in learning about and using technology, but we have a long way to go. Results of survey research in this area

ETR&D, Vol. 47, No. 4, 1999, pp. 83-90 ISSN 1042-t629 8 3

84 ETR&D, Vol. 47, No. 4

are contradictory. In 1995, the Office of Technol- ogy Assessment found that a majority of teach- ers felt inadequately trained to use technology resources (OTA, 1995). Two years later, a major- ity of teachers reported having had some train- ing on technology, but far fewer had had training on multimedia or use of the Internet (Corporation for Public Broadcasting, 1997). A more recent survey conducted by the National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES, 1999) indicated that less than 20% of current teachers reported feeling very well prepared to integrate educational technology into classroom instruc- tion.

However, a recent study by Becket (1999) painted a more hopehll picture. In a large sur- vey of more than 2,200 teachers in grades 4--12, more than one third (39%) reported having Internet access in their rooms and another 25-- 30% indicated that their school had some instructional rooms with connectivity. More- over, a majority of teachers (68%) reported that they use the Internet to find information resources for their lessons. Interestingly, only 16% of the teachers communicated by e-mail with teachers at other schools and only 18% posted information on the World Wide Web. These results may mean that educators are inter- ested in using information technologies for themselves, and may soon become more inter- ested in using them in their teaching.

It is important to look carefully at how teach- ers learn about using technology, for they are quite clearly the key to transforming teaching and learning. As Collis (1996) contends, the teacher shapes "the eventual success or lack of success of any computers-in-education initia- tive" (p. 22).

Professional D e v e l o p m e n t for Teachers

Educators are encouraged to practice lifelong learning by constantly enhancing their knowl- edge and skills. While many teachers pursue advanced degrees on their own, the largest cate- gory of professional development is classified as staff development and is conducted by school districts or states. According to Maurer and Davidson (1998), "staff development is a process

for guiding improvement of instruction" (p. 225).

Traditional staff development tends to be a four-hour session after school when everyone is tired and focused on other issues. Frequently, the school hires an expert who arrives, delivers the program, and goes home. Most typically, the entire teaching staff is required to show up for the session. Variations on this model have evolved. For example, a district or individual school might choose a topic for an expanded version--an entire year of intensive staff devel- opment -of ten a hot topic found in the popular press. These sessions tend to be of the "chalk and talk" or "spray and pray" variety.

Unfortunately, there is very little evidence that this type of staff development makes a dif- ference. While the research on professional development is extensive, most of it documents inadequacies. Fullan and Stiegelbauer (1991) summarized this by saying, "Nothing has prom- ised so much and has been so frustratingly wasteful as the thousands of workshops and conferences that led to no significant change in practice when the teachers returned to their classrooms" (p. 315).

A good deal of research has been done on effective staff development models; much of the implementation of that research can be seen in the work of Joyce and Showers (1983; 1988; 1995). For almost two decades, these researchers have studied the ways in which teachers in schools do or do not actually transfer new skills and knowledge into classroom practice. Further- more, they identified four different models for staff development--presentation of: (a) theoreti- cal basis or rationale; (b) theory, plus observa- tions of demonstrations by relative experts in the model; (c) theory and demonstrations, p l u s practice-plus-feedback in relatively protected conditions; and (d) theory, demonstrations, and practice, plus coaching each other as ongoing, collegial follow-up. (Joyce & Showers 1983).

In their most recent analyses, Joyce and Showers have clarified the extent to which the use of these four models actually supports edu- cators adopting and implementing new skills and knowledge (1995). When staff-development efforts provided no peer structure for follow-up, a 5-10% implementation resulted. When partici-

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 85

pation by peer-coaching teams was involved, implementation was at 75%. When participation of whole-school faculties was organized into peer-coaching teams for the follow-up, the resulting implementation was at 90%. Clearly, using their last model with presentation of the- ory, clear demonstrations, practice with feed- back, and coaching (with ongoing follow-up), increased the probability that change will impact the classroom and ultimately students.

Professional Development for Technology

Even with a clear understanding of staff-devel- opment research and principles, teaching about technology requires another layer of consider- ation. Many traditional models do not take into account the significant and unique qualities that make technology-staff development different from other types of staff development. Cuban (1986, 1995) has looked carefully at the issue of technology and the promise that it will create a change in education. He has concluded that little has changed because the fundamental goals and understandings of education have not changed. Bradshaw (1997) has indicated that learning about technology is a nontrivial and life-chang- ing event, and is qualitatively different from learning other new skills, knowledge, and activ- ities.

Anyone who has struggled to learn about technology, or who has taught others to use it, is aware that brief exposure does not provide suffi- cient training or practice to incorporate technol- ogy into a classroom (Macmillan, Liu, & Timmons 1997; Schrum, 1994, 1997). For a vari- ety of reasons, this makes traditional staff-devel- opment models even less effective than traditional staff development. First, it takes con- siderably longer to learn about using technology for personal use than it does to learn a new teaching model. It is estimated that more than 30 hr of training and experience are necessary to see actual adoption of new technologies (Mehlinger, 1997). Second, it is essential that those learning about technology have access to equipment at home and at school for extended practice and to build comfort (Honey &

Henriquez, 1993; OTA, 1995; Schrum, 1993, 1995). Third, the use of computers and other technologies is more frightening to some indi- viduals than the typical new plan for teaching reading or a system for better discipline (Hignite & Echternact, 1992; Robinson, 1995; Schrum, 1995). Many adults feel uncomfortable with technology and are fearful of looking foolish. Last, the use of technology in instructional or personal use may require educators to reconcep- tualize the ways in which they have completed their tasks for many years (Becker, 1999; Marcinkiewicz, 1993; Maurer & Simonson, 1993; Prawat, 1992). Teachers need compelling rea- sons to dramatically change their practice. If change is forced or mandated from administra- tion, the result may be tenuous acceptance, with- out real change (Evans, 1996; Schrum, 1993; Wolcott, 1977).

The manner in which technology workshops take place can serve to exacerbate these challenges. Typically, all teachers are expected to attend, regardless of their readiness. Teachers who are not ready to use technology, or who remain fearful, are likely to learn little from it. Learning-style differences are not taken into consideration in planning. Furthermore, work- shops are often held in labs away from the teachers' schools, further distancing the teachers from their comfort zone. More significantly, technology training tends to be "just in case" learning instead of "just in time" learning (Schrum, 1995; 1997). For example, teaching a group of teachers how to use a spreadsheet pro- gram, just in case they ever want to use it, would gain little acceptance. Offering participants authentic reasons from their daily lives to learn that particular activity might produce educators willing to experiment with that type of program (Schrum, 1993).

Brand (1998) cautions against the "one size fits all" model. He suggests that it is essential to involve everyone in planning to create owner- ship of the process. Once teachers identify their current interests, training can be geared to their needs and perceived goals, which supports sup- plementing current strengths and encourages diversified instructional strategies.

Clearly, access to technology and lack of ongoing support are major obstacles for educa-

86 ETR&D, Vol. 47, No. 4

tors interested in implementing information technologies in teaching (Honey & Henriquez, 1993; OTA, 1995; Schrum, 1995). Studies consis- tently report that extensive practice, comfortable atmosphere, individualized attention, and vol- untary participation are essential elements to encourage teachers to adopt technology (Schrum & Fitzgerald, 1996; Zammit, 1992). Although a district might mandate participation and use, adoption of technology is still an indi- vidual decision. Rogers (1995) offered a signifi- cant review of adoption of technological innovation and found that the adoption depends on the potential adopter's determina- tion of five criteria. These include (a) the relative advantage; (b) the compatibility with personal values, experiences, and needs; (c) the complex- ity of use; (d) the availability for experimenta- tion; and (e) the observability of results to others. These factors all require attention prior to the initiation of the innovation.

Not surprisingly then, much of the technol- ogy-professional development has been unsuc- cessful. In general, K-12 teachers do not receive enough time, access, support, or encouragement to become comfortable with computers (Hurst, 1994; Siegel, 1995). Recent research indicates that although teachers are eager to use technol- ogy for professional and curricular activities, a lack of teacher-development programs and time dedicated to experimentation hinder teachers' skills and knowledge (OTA, 1995; Schrum, 1995; Schrum & Fitzgerald, 1996; Shelley, 1998; Wyld & Eklund, 1997).

It is important that those working to change the status quo remember that a comfortable and encouraging environment is essential. Further- more, teachers should have an opportunity to try the technology in the classroom where they know that it will work, or with a mentor present to provide support. One possibility is the addi- tion of a "cognitive apprenticeship" model of teachers helping teachers, with specific focus workshops followed by time spent observing and working with educators who are comfort- able using technology (Browne & Ritchie, 1991). Witmer (1998) suggests creating a shared vocab- ulary, and stressing that educators understand when technology is appropriate, rather than suggesting that it is always preferred. One other

significant, but difficult, concern is the need to change the culture of the typical school--to cre- ate an environment in which participants feel it is safe to try and even to fail, and in which the organization understands that resistance to change is normal and necessary (Evans, 1996).

Unfortunately, the literature offers few rigor- ously conducted longitudinal studies, with suffi- cient training, and a high enough concentration of technology to impact instruction. The Apple Classroom of Tomorrow project is an exception. This multisite, multiyear investment demon- strated interesting growth and development of educators and is worthy of note. Over time, researchers recognized that each educator arrived into the classroom with long-standing views of education, based on a personal model of learning, and that these beliefs persisted despite the best efforts at reform. It took incredi- ble time and energy to change that belief system (Dwyer, 1994).

In the first year, teachers began to be comfort- able with the technology, and then to figure out how to make it fit into their classroom work. Later, as they began to cover the traditional cur- riculum faster, they found time to work on higher-order activities. By the third year of the project, the teachers were completely comfort- able and used the technology naturally. Only then were they willing to use technology for innovative activities such as team teaching, col- laborative learning, and interdisciplinary pro- jects. Finally, when it was an integral part of their lives, they began to develop new learning environments (Fisher, Dwyer, & Yocam, 1996). Unfortunately, not many researchers have dedi- cated appropriate amounts of time, support, or technology before they declared the adoption of technology to be a failure.

Technology and Preservice Teachers

Preservice education planners have also recog- nized that it is essential to address this issue and provide opportunities for learning about tech- nology in education during the preservice expe- rience. According to Green and Gilbert (1995), "colleges and universities would be doing a major disservice to their students if they failed to

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 8 7

provide appropriate opportunities (including structured curricular experiences) to develop and enhance information technology skills as part of the undergraduate experience" (p. 13).

Unfortunately, Colleges of Education have typically lagged behind the public sector and K- 12 schools wnen it comes to technology implementation. After an extensive review of related research, Brooks and Kopp (1990) found that "the best and most consistent exposure for teachers to classroom-relevant technologies is often at the inservice or private sector level. In short, the information age has yet to signifi- cantly influence teacher training" (1990, p. 499). More recently, Willis and Mehlinger (1996) examined preservice education and concluded, "the idea may be expressed aggressively, asser- tively, or in more subtle forms, but the virtually universal conclusion is that teacher education, particularly preservice, is not preparing educa- tors to work in a technology-enriched class- room" (p. 978). Thus, although efforts have been made, results still lag behind expectations and identified needs.

Various organizations and individuals have conducted surveys to determine the current sta- tus of technology in teacher preparation institu- tions. In one survey, Willis, Austin, and Willis (1994) found that teacher educators believe that information technology is an important element for K-12 and teacher education. While these educators stated that they do use technology for routine tasks (e.g., word processing), few reported teaching with or about technology, pri- marily because of lack of time and support. A study of schools of education by the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (1997) reported that only 45% of faculty regu- larly use computers, televisions, and VCRs as interactive instructional tools during class, 53% occasionally used some electronic technology, but 58% didn't have any classrooms wired for the Internet.

Another recent survey looked at schools, col- leges, and departments of education in an effort to collect baseline data on the status of technol- ogy use in teacher-training programs in the United States (Moursund & Bielefeldt, 1999). Information was gathered from 416 teacher- preparation programs, representing approxi-

mately 90,000 graduates. More than 70% of respondents required students to take three or more credit hours of technology instruction, with an equivalent amount built into their tradi- tional classes. Yet most faculty did not feel that instructional technology training was adequate or effectively modeled for these future teachers. Moreover, many of the faculty members know quite a lot about using the technologies for their own professional work, but they are uncertain how to integrate it into their classes.

Over the past several years, some institutions have taken steps to include more technology instruction in preservice teacher preparation programs. Some have turned the traditional media course into an optional or mandatory Introduction to Computers course. Other efforts have tried to infuse technology into methods courses, with varying degrees of success. In a study of recent education graduates, Handler (1993) found that those individuals who were more prepared to use technology reported more experience in their methods classes and during student teaching. Still others have used the con- cept of field-based teacher education, and worked to create technology-rich placements for observations and teaching-practicum experi, ences in'schools (Smith, Houston, & Robin, 1995, Wetzel, 1996). Alternative assessments, through electronic portfolios, have been used to create authentic activities for preservice educators (Kovalchick, 1997). Concentration on one of the three components is apparently not sufficient, but combining all three---(a) skills-based course, (b) integration of technology into methods courses, and (c) technology rich field place- ments--may be necessary for students to develop meaningful comfort and expertise (BaUi, Wright, & Foster, 1997; Betz & Mitchell, 1996; Schrum, 1994; Strudler, McKinney, & Jones, 1995; Wetzel & McLean, 1997).

One recent Study included all three ~ompo- nents, and also provided extensive planning and infrastructure (Schrum & Dehoney, 1998). This study was part of one teacher education program's efforts to incorporate technology into an ongoing project to improve teacher educa- tion. The goal was to foster substantive changes within the curriculum, facilities, and faculty, and provide new educators with broad perspec-

88 ETR&D, Vol. 47, No. 4

fives on the ways technology might enhance teaching and learning.

Twenty-seven preservice teachers were each given a laptop computer for use throughout their professional development year. They were also given extensive training, support, and opportunities to use the technologies. Faculty participated in the technology lessons and sup- port, and received assistance as they worked to integrate technology into methods classes. Unique in this project were collaborative plan- ning with cooperating teachers, supportive administration, and grant money for release time and equipment.

Data were gathered through pre- and postsurveys and open-ended questions, as well as interviews. Results indicated that a large majority of students reported increased comfort and more positive attitude toward using tech- nology, a greatly expanded idea of the potential for using technology for themselves and with their future students, and improved confidence in their abilities to solve technological problems. The researchers concluded that success came from the combination of "personal laptop com- puters, ongoing technology lessons and support, integration of technology into methods classes-- and at the same time modeling a co-reform proj- ect that includes cooperating teachers, faculty, students, and technology support personnel" (Schrum & Dehoney, 1998, p. 36).

Other examples exist in which students in schools of education, practicing teachers, and students have worked together to create innova- tive curricular projects in which everyone gains (Stuhlmann & Taylor, 1998). In one project, out- comes included meaningful learning for stu- dents, creation of a classroom environment in which they were invited to think freely and par- ticipate in open-ended projects, and increased comfort and appreciation for technological applications from preservice and inservice teachers (Cifuentes, 1997).

C o n c l u s i o n

This paper considered the current status of tech- nology-professional development for educators at the preservice and inservice levels and

described efforts to improve the situation. It also described information about the use of technol- ogy in our schools and Colleges of Education today.

Challenges to the transformation of educa- tion and the implementation of technology in our educational community abound. Some are primarily external and others are from internal tensions. It is important to recognize that to sep- arate these challenges would be artificial, because education is woven into our entire cul- tural and political fabric. We need to examine these issues more broadly, within that context (House, 1974; Plank, 1987; Sarason, 1982, 1990).

Yet we might at least agree that "helping teachers use technology effectively may be the most important step to assuring current and future investments in technology are realized" (OTA, 1995, p. 2). The possible benefits to soci- ety, the educational community, and individual teachers are enormous. Although we know a good deal about effective ways to assist this pro- cess, and exemplars do exist, we have not yet made great progress.

Hawkins (1997) summarized the important factors in creating technology-using educators. Her words reflect the experiences of many edu- cators and researchers who have been involved in this endeavor:

Intensive sessions where teachers are able to explore new ideas and materials; follow-up support over an extended period of time with mentors . . , ongoing, reflective conversations with colleagues doing the same job and trying to make similar changes; and observation of other teachers in their classrooms, both for exemplary practice and observing the process of change. (p. 215)

Although research suggests that these items will result in improvement of thoughtful use of technology, they are not often put into practice in a well-articulated manner. Implementing this complex model is a nontrivial matter. More research must focus on alternative ways to pro- vide effective professional development for our current and fu~tre educators. We who are involved in this endeavor certainly have the ability to communicate rapidly and effectively, yet it appears that we do often fail to work together to share our experiences to impact this

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 89

enormous issue. Perhaps now is the right t~ne for universities, K-12 schools, politicians, and communi ty stakeholders to work together to ensure that time, energy, support , and interac- tion will be devoted to reach a jointly created and shared vision. [ ]

Lynne Schrum is an associate professor in the Department of Instructional Technology at The University of Georgia. Her e-mail address is Lschrum@coe.uga.edu.

REFERENCES

Balli, S.J., Wright, M.D., & Foster, P.N. (1997). Pre- service teachers' field experiences with technology. Educational Technology, 37(1), 40--46.

Becker, H.J. (1999.). Internet use by teachers: Condi- tions of professional use and teacher-directed stu- dent use. Teaching, learning, and computing: 1998 national survey. Report #1. Irvine, CA: Center for Research on Information Technology and Organiza- fions, University of California, Irvine. Available on- line: http: //www.crito.uci.edu/TLC/FINDINGS/ internet-use/.

Betz, M.K., & Mitchell, J.W. (1996). Ed tech in teacher education: Curricular space required. Journal of Tech- nology and Teacher Education, 4(3/4), 181-195.

Bradshaw, L.K. (1997). Technology-supported change: A staff development opportunity. NAASP Bulletin, 81(593), 86-92.

Brand, G.A. (1998). What research says: Training teachers for using technology. Journal of StaffDevel- opment, 19(1), 10-13.

Brooks, D., & Kopp, T.W. (1990). Technology and teacher education. In W.R. Houston (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education, (pp. 498-513). N.Y.: Macmillan.

Browne, D.L., & Ritchie, D.C. (1991). Cognitive apprenticeship: A model of staff development for implementing technology in schools. Contemporary Education, 63(1), 28--34.

Cifuentes, L. (1997). From sages to guides: A profes- sional development study. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 5(1), 67-77.

Collis, B. (1996). The Internet as an educational innova- tion: Lessons from experience with computer implementation. Educational Technology, 36(6), 21- 30.

Corporation for Public Broadcasting. (1997). Study of school uses of television and video. Alexandria, VA: Author.

Cuban, L. (1986). Teachers and machines: The classroom use of technology since 1920. New York: Teachers Col- lege Press.

Cuban, L. (1995). Computers meet classrooms: Class-

room wins. Teachers College Record, 95(2), 185-210. Dywer, D. (1994). Apple classrooms of tomorrow:

What we've learned. Educational Leadership, 5I(7), 4- 10.

Evans, R. (1996). The human side of school change: Reform, resistance, and the real-l~e problems of innovation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Fisher, C., Dwyer, D.C., & Yocam, K. (1996). Education and technology: Reflections on computing in classrooms. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Fullan, M.G., & Stiegelbauer, S. (1991). The new mean- ing of educational change (2nd ed.). New York: Teach- ers College Press.

Green, K.C., & Gilbert, S.W. (1995). Great expectations. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 27(2), 8-18.

Handler, M.G. (1993). Preparing new teachers to use computer technology: Perceptions and suggestions for teacher educators. Computers and Education, 20(2), 147-156.

Hawkins, J. (1997). Imagine the possibilities: The world at your fingertips. In P. Burness & W. Snider (Eds.). Learn & live (pp. 212-215). Nicasio, CA: The George Lucas Educational Foundation.

Hignite, M., & Echternact, L. (1992). Assessment of the relationships between computer attitudes and com- puter literacy levels of prospective educators. Jour- nal of Research on Computing in Education, 24(3), 381-391.

Honey, M., & Henriquez, A. (1993). Telecommunications and K-12 educators: Findings from a national survey. New York: Bank Street College of Education.

House, E. (1974). The politics of educational innovation. Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.

Hurst, D. (1994). Teaching technology to teachers. Edu- cational Leadership, 51 (7), 74- 76.

Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (1983). Power in staff develop- ment through research on training. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Devel- opment.

Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (1988). Student achievement through staff development. White Plains, NY: Long- man Publishing, Inc.

Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (1995). Student achievement through staff development: Fundamentals of school renewal. (2nd Ed.). White Plains, NY: Longman Pub- lishing, Inc.

Kovalchick, A. (1997). Technology portfolios as instructional strategy: Designing a reflexive approach to preservice technology training. Tech- Trends, 42(4), 31-36.

Macmillan, R.B., Liu, X., & Timmons, V. (1997). Teach- ers, computers, and the Internet: The first stage o f a

community-initiated project for the integration of technology into the curriculum. The Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 63(4), 222-234.

Marcinkiewicz, H. (1993). Computers and teachers: Factors influencing computer use in the classroom. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 26(2), 220-237.

Maurer, M., & Davidson, G.S. (1998). Leadership in

90 ETR&D, Vot. 47, No. 4

instructional technology. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Maurer, M., & Simonson, M.R. (1993). The reduction of computer anxiety: Its relation to relaxation training, previous computer coursework, achievement, and need for cognition. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 26(2), 295-319.

Mehlinger, H.D. (1997, June). The next step. Electronic School, A22-A24.

Moursund, D., & Bielefeldt, T. (1999). Information tech- nology in teacher education. Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE).

National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES). (1999). Teacher quality: A report on teacher preparation and qual~cations of public school teachers. Washington, DC'. Author.

National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Educa- tion. (1997). Technology and the new professional teacher: Preparing for the 21st century classroom. Wash- ington, D.C: Author.

Office of Technology Assessment (OTA). (1995). Teach- ers and technology: Making the connection (OTA-EHR- 616). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Plank, D.N. (1987). Why school reform doesn't change schools: Political and organizational perspectives. In W.L. Boyd & C.T. Kerchner (Eds.), The politics of excellence and choice in education, (pp. 143-152). New York: The Falmer Press.

Prawat, R. (1992). Teachers' beliefs about teaching and learning: A constructivist perspective. American Journal of Education, 100(3), 354-395.

Robinson, B. (1995). Teaching teachers to change: The place of change theory in the technology education of teachers. Journal of Technology and Teacher Educa- tion, 3(2/3), 107-117.

Rogers, E.M. (1995). D~fusion of innovations. (4th ed.). New York: Free Press.

Sarason, S.B. (1982). The culture of the school and the prob- lem ofchange (2n d ed.). Boston: AUyn and Bacon, Inc.

Sarason, S.B. (1990). The predictable failure of educational reform: Can we change course before it's too late? San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Schrum, L. (1993). Tales from the trenches: Educators' perspective on technology implementation~ Journal of Teacher Education and Technology, 1(4), 409-421.

Schrum, L. (1994). First steps into the information age: Technology infusion in a teacher education pro- gram. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 10(4), 12-14.

Schrum, L. (1995). Educators and the Internet: A case study of professional development. Computers and Education, 24(3), 221-228.

Schrum, L. (1997). Rural telecommunication for educa- tional professional development and instructional improvement: Two federally funded models. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 4(3/4), 247-262.

Schrum, L., & Dehoney, J. (1998). Meeting the future: A teacher education program joins the information age. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 6(1),

23-38. Schrum, L., & Fitzgerald, M.A. (1996). A challenge for

the information age: Educators and the Internet. International Journal of Educational Telecommunica- tions, 2(2/3), 107-120.

Shelley, J.O. (1998). Factors that affect the adoption and use of electronic mail by K-12 foreign language educators. Computers in Human Behavior, 14(2), 269- 285.

Siegel, J. (1995). The state of teacher training: The results of the first national survey of technology staff development in schools. Electronic Learning, I4(8), 43-53.

Smith, R.A., Houston, W.R., & Robin, B.R. (1995). Pol- icy and leadership: Preparing preservice teachers to use technology in the classroom. Learning and Lead- ing with Technology, 22(4), 57-59.

Strudler, N.B., McKinney, M.O., & Jones, W.P. (1995). Integrating technology into teacher education courses: Longitudinal perspectives on overcoming impediments. Journal of Computing in Teacher Educa- tion ••(3), 15-20.

Stuhlmann, J., & Taylor, H.G. (1998). Analyzing the impact of telecommunications on learning outcomes in elementary classrooms. Journal of Computing in Childhood Education, 9(1), 79-92.

Wetzel, K. (1996). Innovations in integrating technol- ogy into student teaching experiences. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 29(2), 196--214.

Wetzel, K., & McLean, S.V. (1997). Early childhood teacher preparation: A tale of authors and multime- dia, a model of technology integration described. Journal of Computing in Childhood Education, 8(1), 39- 58.

Willis, J., Austin, L., & Willis, D. (1994). Information technology in teacher education: Surveys of the current status (A report prepared for the Office of Technol- ogy Assessment). Houston, TX: University of Hous- ton, College of Education.

Willis, J.W., & Mehlinger, H.D. (1996). Information technology and teacher education. In J. Sikula (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Teacher Education (2nd ed., pp. 978-1029). New York: Macmillan Library Refer- ence.

Witmer, D.F. (1998). Introduction to computer-medi- ated communication: A master syllabus for teaching communication technology. Communication Educa- tion, 47(2), 162-173.

Wolcott, H.F. (1977). Teachers vs. technocrats. Eugene, Oregon: Center for Educational Policy and Manage- ment.

Wyld, S., & Eklund, J. (1997). A case study of commu- nication technology within the elementary school. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, •3(2), 144-164.

Zammit, B.A. (1992). Factors facilitating or hindering the use of computers in schools. Educational Research, 34(1), 57-66.