Expanding Role Tech Efl Teacher Programmes

Christopher L. Luke and Jody S. Britten 253

CALICO Journal, 24 (2), p-p 253-267. © 2007 CALICO Journal

The Expanding Role of Technology in Foreign Language Teacher

Education Programs

CHRISTOPHER L. LUKEBall State University

JODY S. BRITTENButler University

ABSTRACTThe advent of the technological era continues to impact foreign language educa-tion in numerous ways. Current and future foreign language educators must learn to effectively and meaningfully merge technology with instructional practices and activities. This responsibility necessitates a thorough and realistic under-standing of the various functions, uses, strengths, and limitations of technology in education settings. A logical starting place for teachers to gain knowledge and expertise with technology is teacher education programs at the college level. The purposes of this article are (a) to highlight and explain some of the expanding roles and affordances of technology in a collegiate foreign language education program and (b) to encourage continued research and development of instruc-tional technology in teacher education programs. Rather than focusing on one particular class, this article illustrates how technology can be an integral and cohesive programmatic component interwoven throughout teacher candidates’ entire academic careers.

KEYWORDSTeacher Education, Technology Integration in Preservice Programs, Digital Portfolios, Professional Growth Plans

INTRODUCTIONThe advent of the technological era has indelibly changed the face of education. When appropriately applied in classrooms, technology affects how instruction is delivered, how students access and process information, and how learning is as-sessed (Otero et al., 2005). Less than a decade ago, Bush (1997) reviewed the then current use of technology in foreign language education and stated convincingly, “Ready or not, it appears that technology will play an ever-increasing role in each

254 CALICO Journal, Vol. 24, No. 2

of our institutions. It therefore behooves foreign language education professionals to better understand technology and its potential for foreign language learning” (p. xiv). Bush went on to suggest that the effects of technology would likely be far reaching, noting that, “there will be no aspect of foreign language learning that will not be influenced by the technological revolution” (p. xiv). More re-cently, Rilling, Dahlman, Dodson, Boyles, and Pazvant (2005) have stressed that, as society transitions to a digital information age, increased computer training and integration is needed in preservice teacher education programs to adequately and appropriately prepare the teachers of tomorrow to use technology in their own classrooms. This mounting concern with technology awareness and preparation stems in part from numerous reports that many in-service teachers are unable or underprepared to successfully integrate computer technology into existing cur-ricula and instructional methods (Rilling et al., 2005; Schrum, 1999; Sprague, Kopfman, & Dorsey, 1998). For current and future foreign language educators to effectively and meaning-fully merge technology with instructional practices and activities they must first become adept at using multiple technologies, while simultaneously developing a realistic understanding of the various functions, uses, strengths, and limitations of technology in education settings. A logical starting place for this instruction and training is education programs at the college level. Accordingly, the purposes of this article are (a) to highlight and explain some of the expanding roles and af-fordances of technology in a collegiate foreign language education program and (b) to encourage continued research and development of instructional technology in teacher education programs. Rather than focusing on one particular class, the article illustrates how technology can be an integral and cohesive programmatic component interwoven throughout teacher candidates’ entire academic careers. The program described below derives from a mid-major university in the Midwest that has embedded the following technological components: a required laptop initiative for all teaching majors, multiple methods courses that deal specifically with the integration of technology in foreign language classrooms, a longitudinal digital portfolio that spans freshman to senior year, and a web-based professional growth plan.

THE LAPTOP INITIATIVEThe role of computer technology in teacher education has yet to be well defined with a proven method for successful integration. However, institutions that pre-pare future teachers are continually developing ways in which computer tech-nology is embedded into the process of becoming a teacher. These methods for embedding computer technology are often times connected to the National Educa-tional Technology Standards for Teachers (NETS-T; NETS Project, 2003). These standards can be classified into six categories including (a) technology operations and concepts, (b) planning and designing learning environments and experiences, (c) teaching, learning, and the curriculum, (d) assessment and evaluation, (e) pro-ductivity and professional tools, and (f) social, ethical and human issues (Roblyer,


2003). While some programs focus on the integration of technology-enhanced activities (i.e., productivity and professional tools such as PowerPoint or Quick-Time), others focus on the integration of hardware (i.e., planning and designing learning environments and experiences such as the inclusion of laptop computers, portable hard drives, cameras, or other peripherals). Neither approach to integrat-ing technology has been proven to be continually successful in preparing teachers to use technology (Otero et al., 2005). Over the past 10 years our university has focused efforts in teacher education reform on ways to integrate technology to enhance teacher readiness and meet the expectations of NETS-T. At present, all teacher education majors are required to enter into the program with a specified laptop that includes high-end multimedia applications. The laptop requirement stems from the ability of the faculty to pur-posefully integrate technology into their coursework and facilitate the develop-ment of dispositions that encourage technology integration in preservice teacher candidates. At the very heart of the laptop requirement is the use of the laptop in becoming a teacher and the intention to create more technologically sophisticated classroom teachers. At present, the laptop requirement has impacted over 1,700 preservice teach-ers. While the requirement initially met with some resistance, recent student in-terviews demonstrate that having access to technology has positively impacted teacher candidates’ whole university experience, especially those experiences that are tied to their development as future educators.

Being computer illiterate was never too much of a problem because it was a choice I had made. I never wanted to use a computer when I felt that things could be done the old-fashioned way. Now, I realize how imperative it is for students to be able to use technology. As a teacher, I will need the skills to be able to keep up a website for my students (Heather, Interview).

NCLB [No Child Left Behind] has dramatically changed the atmosphere, and the focus on technology is greater than ever. I think it is great to have been exposed to so much helpful information so early in the process (Alan, Interview).

The laptop worried me at first but now that I have seen how it can be used to make learning interactive and keep the one-on-one student-teacher relation-ship at the same time I am so glad that I decided to be a teacher education major here. I am learning things that others might only dream of at this point (Katelyn, Interview).

From these and many other student responses, it is evident that the presence and integration of the laptop is changing the way students think about technology, teaching, and teacher preparation.

TECHNOLOGY IN TEACHER EDUCATION COURSESThe professional education sequence for foreign language majors at our univer-sity requires 39 credit hours (27 credits in education courses and 12 credits of stu-


dent teaching). Of the 27 credit hours, nine credits are mandated foreign language methods courses. In the first course, teacher candidates receive an introduction to foreign language education at the secondary level. Students are expected to bring their laptops to each class session in order to complete daily assignments, carry out research and investigations on the Internet, and share information with others in the class. In the introductory course students learn about the NETS-T tech-nology standards, the Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consor-tium (INTASC) Principles (1992), the ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines (American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages, 1986, 1999), and state standards for foreign language teachers and learners. Students also receive instruction in basic webpage design, and they begin to develop their own digital teaching port-folios. The second required methods course focuses on instructional strategies, teach-ing approaches, and materials development. In this course students explore some of the possible ways that technology can be integrated into foreign language classes, how technology can facilitate the contextualization of language (Shrum & Glisan, 2005), and how technology can be used to meet state and national standards for foreign language learning. During this course students substantively revise and update their digital portfolios, demonstrating their growth and develop-ment over time in terms of content knowledge and pedagogy. The final foreign language methods course covers the topics of assessment and technology in foreign language education. Technology skills that are developed in this class include designing web pages, managing digital audio and video, cre-ating graphics, scanning, using digital cameras and digital camcorders, working with software programs such as PowerPoint and Word, constructing web-based lessons, and producing brief digital movies. As students develop their technology skills, class discussions focus on integrating technology into foreign language curricula in methodologically sound ways that will benefit preK-12 language learners. In these and other education courses instructors consistently model tech-nology use and challenge teacher candidates to find appropriate ways to use tech-nology in their own future classes.

TECHNOLOGY SUPPORT FOR TEACHING MAJORS AT THE UNIVERSITYAs pointed out by Hall and Elliot (2003) any postsecondary institution that choos-es to embed technology into the student learning experience must have the infra-structure to support that technology. At this university the infrastructure has been critical to the success of technology integration. Included in the infrastructure are (a) a laptop support center where students can bring their laptops for onsite ser-vice or repairs, (b) a laptop users group that meets once per month to learn more about new programs and how to apply those programs to learning and teaching, (c) a digital portfolio lab that is staffed by graduate and undergraduate teacher education students who hold workshops and provide one-on-one support to stu-dents, (d) a faculty technology lab where faculty can enroll in workshops or one-


on-one training sessions to learn how to use, apply, and integrate technology into their current academic role, and (e) a web-based assessment system to support the use of digital performance based artifacts. The infrastructure, while costly, has demonstrated the commitment of the uni-versity to prepare technologically literate professionals. With over 4,000 teacher education majors on campus in a given year it is imperative that the entire univer-sity culture be conducive to meeting technology needs. One aspect of technology readiness has come in the form of a completely wireless campus where students can literally be online anywhere-anytime and several digital video-editing labs and resources to increase access to equipment and use of multidimensional digital products to accomplish performance tasks. College deans and university level administrators who continually demonstrate an administrative commitment to technology use have largely supported this infrastructure.

DIGITAL PORTFOLIOSIncreasingly, both in-service and preservice teachers are required to demonstrate their pedagogical and methodological competence through standards-based as-sessments (NCATE, 2002). In many states, the expectations for novice teachers are based on the INTASC Principles (1992) that specify the knowledge, perfor-mances, and dispositions that beginning teachers should exhibit. As previously mentioned, teachers are also expected to be familiar with and be able to effec-tively incorporate educational technology into their classrooms (NETS-T). Digi-tal portfolios provide a means for teacher candidates to simultaneously document and display their growth and development in terms of content knowledge, in-structional techniques, and instructional technology (Luke, 2005). Digital port-folios provide a framework for organizing artifacts and other samples of student work and allow candidates to reflect on teaching and learning processes. Through their digital portfolios, future teachers are able to strengthen connections between theory and practice, demonstrate growth, and assume responsibility for learn-ing through critical self-reflection (Barton, 1993; Mullen, Britten, & McFadden, 2005). As demonstrated in the student reflections below, teacher candidates are able to critically reflect on their abilities to meet the expectations of the INTASC standards.

INTASC Standard 1: The teacher understands the central concepts, tools of inquiry, and structures of the discipline(s) he or she teaches and can create learning experiences that make these aspects of subject matter meaningful for students.

Principle one to me is just common sense. I feel that a great teacher should know what he/she is teaching. It is imperative that a teacher knows how stu-dents learn, the content area they teach, and how their students learn. Prin-ciple 1 to me is stating that we should make sure that educators know how to do their job. Would you let a mechanic who does not know a tail pipe from a transmission work on your car? The standard ensures that I am a true professional and not an underpaid baby sitter. The standard ensures that my


students will receive the best possible education. I think that if a teacher can-not master this principle than they should not be teaching. My concentration area is Spanish. I know that I must continually learn more about the language, culture, and people of the Hispanic World. I will do this by to continue to take Spanish courses and to take advantage to practice my Spanish. I also will travel to the Hispanic world to gain a better understanding of what it is really like. During my third year I hope to study abroad in a Spanish speaking coun-try. I also think that it would be beneficial for me to spend part of my student teaching in a Spanish-speaking nation (Alan, Digital Portfolio).

INTASC Standard 9: The teacher is a reflective practitioner who continu-ally evaluates the effects of his/her choices and actions on others (students, parents, and other professionals in the learning community) and who actively seeks out opportunities to grow professionally.

As a teacher, I will always be reevaluating my teaching style and myself. Even if students are learning, there is always something to improve on. I do not want to be the teacher who assigns the same projects every year; the one who has the same posters on the wall even though they were made by new students. I want things to stay fresh and new … . I want to be creative as a teacher and make up new assignments every year, improving old ones, or completely coming up with something new if students did not respond well. I think it is important to listen to student feedback. They are the ones that are suppose to be learning, and they are the only ones that truly know if they learned or not. Either way, if the student learned the material or not, they usu-ally know why and will speak up if given the opportunity. I want them to help me become a better teacher. I also hope to improve as a teacher by observing more experienced teachers. For the most part, they will know what works well with students and what does not … . Being willing to accept help can make my future job much easier and much more successful. (Katelyn, Digital Portfolio)

With talk of technology (and portfolios) permeating all educational levels, an added benefit of digital portfolios (as opposed to traditional paper portfolios) is that they enable teacher candidates to learn how to use technology and also how to teach with technology (Mullen et al., 2005). Hawisher and Selfe (1997) stress that digital portfolios, “provide a new kind of space for intellectual work and op-portunities to connect and represent that intellectual work in new ways” (p. 306). The digital portfolios developed by preservice foreign language teachers enable them to display language, teaching, and technology skills in a dynamic, portable, multimedia environment that is accessible online from across the world. Foreign language teaching majors at our university have been constructing digital portfolios for almost 3 years now. Although students have more or less autonomous control over their portfolios, there are a number of mandatory com-mon components that must be included. Candidates are required to include their résumé, a personal teaching philosophy, a resource page that contains links to


other beneficial foreign language websites, sample lesson plans, academic content standards, and reflections, artifacts, and rationales for each of the INTASC Prin-ciples (see Figures 1, 2, 3, and 4).

Figure 1Sample Portfolio Main Page

Figure 2Sample Portfolio Teaching Philosophy


Figure 3Sample Portfolio INTASC Page

Figure 4Sample Portfolio INTASC Reflection

The multimedia capabilities of computers and the Internet enable foreign lan-guage teacher candidates to incorporate presentations on language and culture, digital video of their teaching experiences, and digital audio that contains samples of their speech in their target language (Luke, 2005). Since the university is a wireless campus, students are able to quickly and easily update their portfolios in and out of class. As one student reported,


I can work on my portfolio anytime, anywhere. To me, it is important that I try to make my portfolio part of my day. I look at it, make changes, learn how to do something new, and I do all of this without even really sitting down to work on it. I would have never suspected it, but now my portfolio is just part of my day (Jared, Interview).

With the shift to a digital portfolio requirement, research is now underway to investigate the impact of the digital portfolio initiative on students and faculty members, and preliminary results from foreign language teaching majors indicate positive evaluations of it. Over the course of the 2003-2004 academic year, 21 students with declared foreign language teaching majors (primarily freshman and sophomores) began developing their digital portfolios. Near the end of each se-mester students completed an anonymous survey dealing with their perceptions of and reactions to the digital portfolio project (N = 17). The survey was divided into the following five areas: (a) technology, (b) teacher education, (c) professional development, (d) career opportunities, and (e) personal reactions and benefits (for additional results see Luke, 2005). The items were rated on the following Likert scale: (5) = strongly agree, (4) = agree, (3) = neither agree nor disagree, (2) = disagree, and (1) = strongly disagree. The item that resulted in the highest mean (M = 4.59), was the first item in the technology section where 12 respondents strongly agreed that developing digital portfolios helped to increase their general technology skills. Students also indicated that working on the digital portfolios had helped them become more comfortable with computer technology in general (M = 4.12). Interestingly, while respondents claimed that they would feel comfortable designing a web page for their future students (M = 4.12), the intention to actually create a website was noticeably lower (M = 3.59). On the next section of the survey, participants were asked to rate the over-all importance of the portfolio initiative in the teacher education program and to evaluate the knowledge, skills, and abilities that could possibly be demonstrated through portfolios. Ten of the 17 respondents agreed that developing a digital portfolio is an important part of a teacher education program (1 strongly agreed, 4 were neutral, and 2 disagreed). In terms of what students felt they could dem-onstrate through their portfolios, knowledge of teaching principles and standards (the INTASC Principles) had the highest mean (M = 4.24), followed by skills and abilities as a teacher (M = 3.94), and then by knowledge of the content area (M = 3.71). There are a number of plausible reasons why the mean for knowledge of the content area is lower. First, at this stage of candidates’ academic careers content area faculty have less involvement with the digital portfolio project than do education faculty. Second, very few content area faculty actually assess the digital portfolios. Third, the majority of the students who completed the survey are freshman and sophomores who may be focusing on introductory education courses and core curriculum rather than content area classes. Whatever the rea-son, the apparent disengagement between the content area faculty, the students, and the education faculty is an area that merits attention. As an overall evaluation


of the digital portfolio requirement, 16 of 17 candidates either agreed or strongly agreed that working on the digital portfolios had helped them in their preparation to become a foreign language teacher (M = 4.12).

PROFESSIONAL GROWTH PLANProfessional development in the field of education is defined as those “activi-ties that enhance professional career growth” (Educational Resources Information Center, 2003). For in-service foreign language teachers, professional development activities might include the traditional in-service day, course work, curriculum development, study groups and other types of coaching, mentoring, or extended learning. However, the educational community is continually forced to widen their perceptions of what qualifies as professional development. Michael Fullan (1994), a national leader in the area of meaningful change in schools, considers professional development to be both formal and informal ex-periences that span from the preservice experiences of teachers up through the retirement phase of their careers. In tandem with a developing understanding of what works and what does not work with professional development for teachers, there is rapidly increasing access to and interaction with technology. As new ideas for organizing and delivering professional development to teachers expand, two primary themes underlying changes in the way we think about professional devel-opment have emerged: (a) a focus on the application of professional development to improve student leaning and (b) the tailoring of professional development to meet individual or localized needs (Darling-Hammond & McLaughlin, 1995). The use of digital professional development environments allows both of these changes to occur expediently and effectively. In the context of teacher education, issues facing new teachers include knowing about, experiencing, and being able to navigate systems of professional develop-ment to improve student learning and teacher performance (National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future, 1996). If no change takes place in teacher education, we will continue to prepare teachers who are unversed in the reasons for or the means of gaining professional development. In order to establish a start-ing point for preservice teachers and provide access to information critical to the success of teachers in the classroom, our institution has established a web-based Professional Growth Plan (PGP) in teacher education. PGPs surfaced in preK-12 education in the last decade as a means for classroom teachers to develop and plan individual goals through professional development opportunities available through the school system. These plans have taken on var-ious forms, however the general plan includes strengths, weaknesses, interests, goals, and student needs. In preK-12 education, PGPs for classroom teachers are generally revisited once per year and are used to identify areas of need for the district. Traditionally, the majority of PGP components have involved local, face-to-face interactions that were dictated by pragmatic concerns and limited financial resources. Technological advances, though, now allow for multiple and varied growth opportunities through options such as distance education, audio and video conferencing, asynchronous and synchronous communications, debates, and dis-


cussions, and the delivery of content, materials, and activities through web-based systems. Teachers concerned with professional growth can access online seminars, attend digital conferences, participate in threaded discussions with colleagues and experts, stream audio and video regarding current research findings, and complete self-contained growth modules available via the Internet. In most instances, these activities can be accomplished on a computer at the school or at home. Without question, teachers must continue learning from lessons presented with-in the classroom and from outside agents who have access to timely and essential knowledge tied to student achievement, school reform, policy implementation, and other factors influencing the world of education (Britten & Weaver, 2004). The PGP system at our institution has been designed to provide preservice teach-ers with experiences in both online and in-person professional development and planning for professional growth based on their individual needs. It is the goal of the faculty in teacher education to improve student knowledge of professional development and simultaneously target areas of need. To begin our efforts in providing professional growth opportunities to stu-dents we have targeted specific knowledge sets in foreign language education that translate into the betterment of all classroom teachers and preK-12 learning environments. These critical areas include the use of reading strategies to assist in meaningful instruction, attention to the unique needs of students with disabilities, and the interrelatedness of language, culture, and stereotypes (see Figure 5 for a sample module). These critical areas have been chosen, among other reasons, due to the current research in the area of teacher effectiveness and the importance of understanding others in terms of language and cultural heritage. Once learn-ers successfully complete modules, the PGP system seamlessly communicates with the Degree Analysis Progress Report (DAPR) and official transcripts through digital systems integration to update the necessary records.

Figure 5Professional Growth Plan Module


Because research in these two critical areas suggests that the teachers’ knowl-edge and continued learning support essential changes in the classroom, it is an-ticipated that by providing preservice teachers structured access to this informa-tion we can support change, better prepare our students to be successful in their classroom teaching, and ultimately assist in providing a better education for preK-12 students. The PGP system at our institution is founded on the belief that there is a role for technology in training teachers in both preservice and in-service venues. The PGP system is designed to create additional learning opportunities so that if candidates are interested in further learning they can gain credit for those efforts and have access to digital materials designed with the expertise of the faculty. While we continue to learn more about how preservice teachers interact with digital profes-sional development, it is our hope that our system can persistently strive to better meet the needs of the continually changing foreign language classroom.

DIRECTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENTIn spite of the progress that has been made, it is safe to say that what we know about successfully and meaningfully integrating technology into teacher educa-tion programs and also into preK-12 settings pales in comparison to what we do not know. Hammadou Sullivan (2004) emphasizes that there are still important avenues of research involving digital teaching portfolios. The same holds true for other technology components and initiatives. A few of the many potential re-search questions are: do laptop requirements actually produce teachers who are more technology savvy? how can technology skills at the university be transferred into field experiences, student teaching, and eventually in-service teaching? what types of artifacts do students include in their portfolios? what types of artifacts best illustrate growth and development? are digital professional growth systems feasible and effective in fostering growth and development? do teacher candidates actually use technology when they have their own classes? do they continue to de-velop technology skills? and in what other ways can technology be incorporated into preservice teacher programs to benefit the teacher candidates as well as their future students?

CONCLUSIONThe challenge of effectively integrating technology into preK-12 foreign lan-guage classrooms begins with successfully integrating technology into teacher education programs. Instruction regarding the types of technology available, pos-sible implementations, and appropriate uses must be infused throughout entire academic programs. Teacher candidates must be taught to use technology, but they must also experience successful and meaningful technology integration in their own lives and in their own classes at the university. If future teachers are expected to integrate technology into their classes in appropriate and effective ways, they should expect the same from university professors and teacher educa-tion programs. In this article we have attempted to outline one program where technology is being integrated with instruction in a holistic way.


REFERENCES

American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. (1986). ACTFL proficiency guidelines. Hastings-on-Hudson, NY: Author.

American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. (1999). ACTFL proficiency guidelines. Yonkers, NY: Author.

Barton, J. (1993). Portfolios in teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 2 (1), 41-50.

Britten, J. & Weaver, R. (2004). Digital systems to support the use of professional growth plans in teacher preparation. Journal of Instructional Delivery Systems, 18 (1), 6-9.

Bush, M. D. (1997). Introduction: Technology-enhanced language learning. In M. D. Bush & R. M. Terry (Eds.), Technology-enhanced language learning (pp. xi-xviii). Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook Company.

Darling-Hammond, L., & McLaughlin, M. W. (1995). Policies that support professional development in an era of reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 76 (8), 597-604.

Educational Resources Information Center. (2003). The educational resource center the-saurus. Retrieved November 10, 2007, from http://www.eric.ed.gov

Fullan, M. (1994). Change forces. New York: Falmer Press.Fullan, M. (2003). The moral imperative of school leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Cor-

win Press. Glickman, C. (1993). Renewing America’s schools: A guide for school-based action. San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Hall, M. & Elliott, K. (2003). Diffusion of technology into the teaching process: Strategies

to encourage faculty to embrace the laptop environment. Journal of Education for Business, 77 (5), 301-307.

Hammadou, J. A. (1996). A blueprint for teacher portfolios: Concerns that need to be ad-dressed when embarking on teacher assessment via portfolios. In J. Harper, M. Lively, & M. Williams (Eds.), The coming of age of the profession: Issues and emerging ideas for the teaching of foreign languages (pp. 291-305). Boston: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.

Hammadou Sullivan, J. A. (2004). Identifying the best foreign language teachers: Teacher standards and professional portfolios. Modern Language Journal, 88 (3), 390-402.

Hawisher, G. & Selfe, C. (Eds.) (1997). Literacy, technology, and society: Confronting the issues. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (INTASC). (1992). Model standards for beginning teacher licensing, assessment and development: A re-source for state dialogue. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Of-ficers.

Luke, C. L. (2005). Preparing future foreign language teachers through digital portfolio initiatives. In P. Boyles & P. Sandrock (Eds.), The year of languages: Challeng-es, changes, and choices (pp. 41-46). Eau Claire, WI: Crown Prints.


Mullen, L., Britten, J. S., & McFadden, J. (2005). Digital portfolios in teacher education. Indianapolis, IN: Jist Works.

National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future (1996). What matters most: Teaching for America’s future. Woodbridge, VA: Author.

National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE). (2002). Professional standards for the accreditation of schools, colleges, and departments of educa-tion. Washington, DC: Author.

NETS Project (2003). National educational technology standards for teachers—Resources for assessment. Washington, DC: International Society for Technology in Educa-tion.

Otero, V., Peressini, D., Anderson-Meymaris, K., Ford, P., Garvin, T., Harlow, D., Rediel, M, Waite, B., & Mears, C. (2005). Integrating technology into teacher education: A critical framework for implementing reform. Journal of Teacher Education, 56 (1), 8-23.

Roblyer, M. (2003). Getting our NETS worth: The role of ISTE’s National Educational Technology Standards. Learning and Leading with Technology, 30 (8), 6-13.

Rilling, S., Dahlman, A., Dodson, S., Boyles, C., & Pazvant, O. (2005). Connecting CALL theory and practice in preservice teacher education and beyond: Processes and products. CALICO Journal, 22 (2), 213-235.

Schrum, L. (1999). Technology professional development for teachers. Educational Tech-nology Research and Development, 47 (4), 83-90.

Shrum, J. L., & Glisan, E. W. (2005). Teacher’s handbook: Contextualized language in-struction (3rd ed.). Boston: Thomson Heinle.

Sprague, D., Kopfman, K., & Dorsey, S. (1998). Faculty development in the integration of technology in teacher education courses. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 14 (2), 24-28.

Wright, W. A., Knight, P. T., & Pomerleau, N. (1999). Portfolio people: Teaching and learn-ing dossiers and the future of higher education. Innovative Higher Education, 24 (2), 89-102.

AUTHORS’ BIODATAChristopher Luke is an Assistant Professor of Foreign Language Education at Ball State University. He holds a Ph.D. in Foreign Language Education from the Uni-versity of Texas at Austin and a Master of Second Language Teaching from Utah State University. Chris has worked as a classroom teacher, student teacher super-visor, and professor. He currently teaches courses in foreign language pedagogy and methodology, assessment and technology, and Spanish. His research interests include technology and foreign language education and the training of preservice language teachers.

Jody Britten completed her undergraduate studies at the University of Nebraska at Lincoln and her M.Ed. and Ph.D. work at the University of Kansas at Law-rence. She is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Educational Studies at Butler University. She has worked as a classroom teacher, curriculum designer, instructional consultant, trainer, and professor. Jody currently teaches courses in


pedagogy and learning theory with a focus on technology integration at Butler University. Her research interests include technology and collaboration in teacher education and P-12 classrooms.

AUTHORS’ ADDRESSESChristopher L. Luke, Ph.D.Assistant Professor of Foreign Language EducationDepartment of Modern Languages and ClassicsBall State University2000 University AvenueMuncie, IN 47306Phone: 765 285 2445Email: [email protected]

Dr. Jody S. BrittenCollege of EducationButler University4600 Sunset AvenueIndianapolis, IN 46208-3485Phone: 317 940 6462Email: [email protected]

��

��

��


CALICO ‘07May 22-26, 2007

Texas State UniversitySan Marcos, Texas

Tuesday-Wednesday May 22-23 Preconference workshops

Thursday-Saturday May 24-26 Plenary sessions, Presentations, Ex-hibits, Luncheon, Courseware Show-case, SIG Meetings, Banquet

Register online at

calico.org/conferenceEarly (before March 23) with luncheon & banquet no luncheon or banquetMember $220 $195Nonmember $250 $225Conference plus membership $285 $260

Regular (after March 23)Member $245 $220Nonmember $275 $250Conference plus membership $310 $285

On siteMember $270 $245Nonmember $300 $275Conference plus membership $335 $310

A number of hotels/motels are available in the San Marcos area, and less expensive on-campus housing will be available for the conference through the conference registration form. We recommend using Expedia and other online services to find good room rates for San Marcos area hotels/motels. For more informationon both hotels/motels and on-campus housing, see the conference web site at calico.org/conference.

CALICO Phone: 512 245 1417 Fax: 512 245 9089 Email: [email protected] Web: calico.org

CALICO CALICO

Documents

Expanding Role Tech Efl Teacher Programmes