Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
This article was downloaded by: [Dokuz Eylul University ]On: 06 November 2014, At: 15:08Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK
Computers in the Schools:Interdisciplinary Journal ofPractice, Theory, and AppliedResearchPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wcis20
Infusing Technology into theElementary ClassroomCassaundra Elamin a , Nancy Fordham a , D. RosalindHammond b , Blanche O'bannon c , Rachel Vannetta d
& Karen Gruber ea Educational Teaching & Learning, Bowling GreenState University , Bowling Green, OH, 43403, USAb College of Education and Human Development,Bowling Green State University , Bowling Green, OH,43403, USAc Instructional Technology, Curriculum & Evaluation ,University of Tennessee , Knoxville, TN, 37996-3400,USAd Educational Foundations & Inquiry , Bowling GreenState University , Bowling Green, OH, 43403, USAe R. C. Waters Elementary School , Oak Harbor, OH,43449, USAPublished online: 08 Sep 2008.
To cite this article: Cassaundra Elamin , Nancy Fordham , D. Rosalind Hammond ,Blanche O'bannon , Rachel Vannetta & Karen Gruber (2002) Infusing Technologyinto the Elementary Classroom, Computers in the Schools: InterdisciplinaryJournal of Practice, Theory, and Applied Research, 19:1-2, 149-162, DOI: 10.1300/J025v19n01_11
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J025v19n01_11
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of theContent should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of theContent.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Dok
uz E
ylul
Uni
vers
ity ]
at 1
5:08
06
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Cassaundra El-AminNancy FordhamD. Rosalind HammondBlanche O’BannonRachel VannettaKaren Gruber
Infusing Technologyinto the Elementary Classroom:A School/University Partnership Model
ABSTRACT. A project to infuse technology into elementary school anduniversity classrooms was implemented in two Professional DevelopmentSchools (PDS). The ultimate goal of Project PICT (Pre-service Infusion ofComputer Technology) was to impact the learning and achievement ofelementary students by equipping pre-service teachers with the neces-sary skills to fully utilize modern technology in their future classrooms.As such, teams of elementary and pre-service teachers, teacher educa-tors, and university faculty from the College of Arts and Sciences re-
CASSAUNDRA EL-AMIN is Assistant Professor, Educational Teaching & Learning,Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, OH 43403 (E-mail: [email protected]).NANCY FORDHAM is Assistant Professor, Educational Teaching & Learning, BowlingGreen State University, Bowling Green, OH 43403 (E-mail: [email protected]).D. ROSALIND HAMMOND is Associate Dean for Academic Affairs, College of Educa-tion and Human Development, Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, OH43403 (E-mail: [email protected]).BLANCHE O’BANNON is Associate Professor, Instructional Technology, Curriculum & Evalu-ation, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996-3400 (E-mail: [email protected]).RACHEL VANNETTA is Assistant Professor, Educational Foundations & Inquiry, BowlingGreen State University, Bowling Green, OH 43403 (E-mail: [email protected]).KAREN GRUBER is Principal, R. C. Waters Elementary School, Oak Harbor, OH 43449(E-mail: [email protected]).
Computers in the Schools, Vol. 19(1/2) 2002http://www.haworthpressinc.com/store/product.asp?sku=J025
2002 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved. 149
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Dok
uz E
ylul
Uni
vers
ity ]
at 1
5:08
06
Nov
embe
r 20
14
ceived technology training and planned for infusion during the initialphase of the project. After four months of training, teams implementedinfusion plans in their classrooms and produced artifacts which can beseen at the project’s Web site: <http://www.bgsu.edu/colleges/edhd/LPS/EDFI/PICT/>. The article discusses the project and its effects on onePDS. It describes specific activities implemented and initial impacts upon ele-mentary and university classrooms. It also addresses strengths and drawbacksof technology infusion through this model. [Article copies available for a feefrom The Haworth Document Delivery Service: 1-800-HAWORTH. E-mail ad-dress: <[email protected]> Website: <http://www.HaworthPress.com>© 2002 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.]
KEYWORDS. Technology, professional development school, professionaldevelopment, technology infusion, teacher education, school/university part-nership, teaming, classroom impact
“The dust covers never come off the computers.”
“The classroom has two computers, but they’re never turned on.”
“There is one computer in the room, but I’ve never seen anybodyusing it; it’s partially hidden behind a door.”
“My computer is a glorified bookend.”
Teacher educators frequently hear comments like these when pre-ser-vice teachers discuss technology use in the elementary classrooms wherethey are observing or interning. What accounts for the chronically idlecomputers in these settings? One explanation is that teachers’ minimalskills inhibit them from harnessing technology’s potential to enhance in-struction and learning (Carroll, 1997; Caverly, Peterson, and Mandeville,1997). While training is clearly needed and, in some cases, is taking placethrough in-service, expanding the scope of technology instruction forteachers at all levels is essential. If practicing teachers are to be proficienttechnology users, they need adequate preparation during their pre-serviceteacher education programs, and they require university faculty who regu-larly model practical and meaningful use of technology. In the informationage, new teachers should enter their professional careers as competenttechnology users. Unfortunately, that is not always the case, and the impactfilters down to school students who are deprived of classroom opportuni-ties to “get ready for a different world” (ISTE, 2000, p. 3).
150 Computers in the Schools
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Dok
uz E
ylul
Uni
vers
ity ]
at 1
5:08
06
Nov
embe
r 20
14
THE SCHOOL-UNIVERSITY PARTNERSHIP
A national effort has been underway to prepare teachers and students forthe demands of “the different world” of the twenty-first century. Thisglobal, highly technological era requires citizens who “read, write, andcompute proficiently; find and use resources; frame and solve problemswith other people; and continually learn new technologies and occupa-tions” (Summary Report, 1996, p. 7). One solution that has been recom-mended to meet these demands and improve the quality of teaching andlearning in the nation’s public schools is achieved through collaborationsbetween public schools and institutions of higher education (Goodlad,1990; Holmes Group, 1986; Carnegie Forum, 1986). As a part of its com-mitment to collaboration, a midwestern university with a rich history ofteacher education forged dynamic partnerships with two elementary schools.These evolving relationships emerged into two Professional DevelopmentSchools (PDS), which are innovative institutions where teachers, adminis-trators, pre-service teachers, and teacher educators have dedicated them-selves to a common mission: improving the quality of instruction at bothinstitutions. To accomplish this mission, these PDS sites have focused onthe teacher as learner. According to Allison, Cristol, El-Amin, Garling,Hammond, and Pissanos (1998), this focus enables the PDS participants tomore effectively address the needs of elementary students. As such, thesePDS have created structures of shared governance, collaborative profes-sional development, and merging of resources, based on established rela-tionships of trust and mutual respect, to enhance student learning throughteacher learning.
It is into this PDS environment, with its rich history of collaborative ac-tivities including action research projects, team teaching, mentoring, andnumerous professional development opportunities, that the following tech-nology project began. Elementary school and university faculty receptive-ness to ongoing professional development made the environment ideal fornew ventures. This article provides an overview of the technology projectthat was implemented at the two PDS sites as well as the project’s impacton one PDS where the authors were involved.
PROJECT PICT (PRE-SERVICE INFUSIONOF COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY):
A MODEL TO INFUSE TECHNOLOGY INTO A PDS
Project PICT, funded by a grant from the U.S. Department of Education,involved 10 teachers from the two PDS sites, 10 pre-service teachers, and 8
El-Amin et al. 151
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Dok
uz E
ylul
Uni
vers
ity ]
at 1
5:08
06
Nov
embe
r 20
14
university faculty. It used a team approach to promote the infusion of tech-nology in the teacher education and K-6 curricula. The ultimate goal ofProject PICT was to enable future teachers to fully utilize modern technol-ogy to improve learning and achievement in their prospective classrooms.To assist in the fulfillment of this goal, the project was implemented in twophases: technology training and technology infusion. Both were achievedthrough collaborative teams of teacher education faculty, arts and sciencesfaculty, K-6 teachers, and pre-service teachers. The phases were designedto facilitate the infusion of national technology standards for teachers(ISTE Recommended Foundations in Technology for All Teachers) andK-12 students (NETS - National Education Technology Standards) into theteacher education and K-12 curriculum. Implementation of the phases wasfacilitated by the moral and financial support of the school districts and theuniversity who matched funds provided by the grant. The school districtspurchased software and provided substitutes during the training phase tocomplement the additional computer installed in each participant’s class-room. The university purchased laptop computers for teacher educators in-volved in the project, and installed technology classrooms for technologyintegration during the infusion phase and beyond.
The Technology Training Phase was designed in keeping with researchfindings on effective technology training. Bruner (1992) and Thompson,Hannsen, and Reinhart (1996) suggested that effective technology trainingshould be in-depth and conducted over a period of time with ongoing sup-port. Consequently, participants were involved for four months (Fall Se-mester 2000) in a variety of whole group sessions (kickoff, training,support, and project sharing) as well as team meetings. The first session, atwo-day kickoff, established a constructivist vision of technology as areaclassroom teachers presented to the collaborative teams diverse strategiesfor using technology as a tool to enrich curriculum. These technology-us-ing educators initiated interest and excitement in project participants asthey shared successful lesson ideas for varied content areas and grade lev-els, and an assortment of student products. In addition, the national tech-nology standards were introduced and examined for eventual adoptionwithin specific content methods courses. The kickoff was followed by a se-ries of in-depth, hands-on training sessions where participants learned toemploy the Internet and multimedia as tools to enhance learning. Concur-rently, support sessions were provided throughout the training period andserved to reinforce skill building and provide encouragement and guidanceto project participants.
Teams established at the onset of the project met during the training pe-riod to establish collaborative plans that would guide infusion. Teams in-
152 Computers in the Schools
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Dok
uz E
ylul
Uni
vers
ity ]
at 1
5:08
06
Nov
embe
r 20
14
cluded several teacher/intern pairs from similar grade levels, two teachereducators with expertise in those grade levels, and a university facultymember from the College of Arts and Sciences. The teacher/pre-serviceteacher pairs remained intact during the pre-service teachers’ six weeksmethods field experience and sixteen-week student teaching experience.These pairs were required to develop, execute, and share a collaborativeplan for integrating technology. The mentor/intern pairs met on their owntime, devised plans, and implemented them in their classrooms. Teachereducators planned to implement their plans in their classrooms for the nextsemester. Participants shared ideas, struggles, and support during teammeetings, which occurred about once every six to eight weeks. Resultswere shared with the entire group at a final sharing session. Team plansconsisted of team goals (e.g., facilitate student use of multimedia technol-ogy to aid in communication and presentation of learned concepts), a de-scription of how each individual team member would integrate technologythroughout the semester to meet these goals, and how the subsequent les-sons would be used to complement teacher education courses. Teams wereheld accountable for their plans, but they had complete autonomy in howthey chose to implement them. These plans were implemented through theTechnology Infusion Phase.
The Technology Infusion Phase was designed to facilitate the infusionof the technology- rich lessons resulting from the Training Phase into theteacher education and K-6 classes. The Infusion Phase required partici-pants to implement at least two technology-rich lessons/units in the respec-tive curriculum throughout the spring 2000 semester. This resulted in awealth of resources (lesson plans, student products, and “in class” videos)that are available at the Project PICT Web site at <http://www.bgsu.edu/colleges/edhd/LPS/EDFI/PICT/>. The Web site serves as a “living record”of Project PICT. In addition to the library of resources collected from theproject, links to the PDS partner schools, the project abstract, the projectcalendar of events, team plans, and Web links for elementary students arealso found at the site.
IMPACT IN TEACHER EDUCATION CLASSROOMS
Students entered methods courses at the University with diverse tech-nology expertise. While all students used the computer for e-mail, basicword processing, and Web browsing, only a few were competent usingmore sophisticated programs. None had extensive experience with multi-media. Like the pre-service teachers they mentored, teacher educators pos-
El-Amin et al. 153
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Dok
uz E
ylul
Uni
vers
ity ]
at 1
5:08
06
Nov
embe
r 20
14
sessed varying degrees of technology literacy. While a few faculty membersintegrated technology into university classes via assignments, most usedthe computer for personal productivity such as e-mail, word processing,and/or record keeping. Both groups entered Project PICT training some-what apprehensive about their ability to master technology’s intricacies,yet they were eager to learn. Once training was underway, methods profes-sors, regardless of their levels of expertise, felt a particular responsibility tointegrate technology into their courses. They presumed that modeling tech-nology use would encourage pre-service teachers to infuse it in the lessonsand instructional units they were to design during their internships in ele-mentary classrooms.
The digital camera was a tool teacher education faculty used often. Theyphotographed students individually and as they engaged in group projects,practice lessons, and presentations. Archived on a computer, these photoswere later recalled for evaluation using computer-generated rubrics. Thisprocedure enabled faculty to conveniently assess projects such as learningcenters that had to be dismantled at the end of campus class sessions. At thestart of their field experience, the pre-service teachers inserted the digitizedphotos and other scanned pictures into a well-received school newsletterintroducing themselves to parents. Pre-service teachers readily saw the po-tential learning benefits (e.g., skill development in planning, organizing,reading, and writing) of having elementary children design their own pub-lication projects. At the close of their internships, interns included copies ofthese photos in their teaching portfolios–some of which they presentedelectronically.
Technology also helped pre-service teachers gain an overview of thecultural and economic composition of the school community in which theywere placed for their internships. As a model, one teacher educator firstprofiled her own community, using a digital camera to photograph schools,churches, libraries, homes, businesses, recreation areas, potential fieldtripsites, and other areas of interest. These photos were inserted into a virtualtour using PowerPoint. The methods students were able to virtually visitthe community, as well as glean information on demographics, communitygovernment, proficiency test results, and other relevant data that had beendownloaded from the Web. When the pre-service teachers later completedtheir own electronic community profiles, the results were impressive. Thepre-service teachers had used similar techniques and demonstrated an ex-tensive knowledge of the community surrounding the school. In addition,several planned to incorporate this same type of assignment in future unitson “Communities.”
154 Computers in the Schools
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Dok
uz E
ylul
Uni
vers
ity ]
at 1
5:08
06
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Some teacher educators required methods students to design graphic or-ganizers as planning tools for their integrated instructional units, and speci-fied that students use Inspiration, a computer graphics program. With thisprogram, students brainstormed ideas for lessons, categorized them bycontent area, and then visually depicted their thoughts via the colorful Webtemplates and graphics that Inspiration offers. When the completed units weresubmitted, many of them included sophisticated charts, graphs, flowcharts,and timelines, all of which served as overviews for the more in-depth plan-ning that followed with cooperating teachers. Thus, teacher educators aswell as cooperating teachers and pre-service teachers consistently exploredways to transform traditional lessons into powerful learning opportunitiesthrough the use of technology.
INITIAL IMPACT IN ELEMENTARY CLASSROOMS
Mentor teachers, several of whom considered themselves to be novicecomputer users, were enthusiastic about participating in Project PICT, al-though a few expressed some initial doubt about their aptitude for technol-ogy. However, the prospect of collaborating on a daily basis with theirpre-service interns, and monthly with the larger teams, bolstered their con-fidence. Once training began, teacher-intern pairs were creative in applyingtheir rapidly expanding knowledge to the classroom, displaying impressiveversatility in creating technology-rich lessons.
In classrooms, teacher/pre-service pairs used technology to reinforceimportant content-area concepts across disciplines. For example, the kin-dergarten pair supported students’ emerging math concepts by posing dailyquestions such as, “Who has visited the dentist?” Graph Club software wasused to depict the results via bar graphs and pie charts. KidPix Studio De-luxe, a painting program, was the favorite multimedia software in whichProject PICT participants received training. Students combined its “Rub-ber Stamps,” “Wacky Brushes,” and more with the SlideShow feature tocreate animated text accompanied by sound and graphics. The first-gradepair used this software to support phonics knowledge by having studentscreate illustrations for alphabet books. In conjunction with a unit on dentalhealth, they also taught each child how to create and narrate a page in aclass book entitled Where’s My Tooth? This project reinforced children’soral and written language skills.
Another innovative project developed by the first-grade teacher/internpair involved the creation of class “Yellow Pages.” Teachers used a digitalcamera to photograph each child, and then inserted the photos into a
El-Amin et al. 155
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Dok
uz E
ylul
Uni
vers
ity ]
at 1
5:08
06
Nov
embe
r 20
14
word-processing document. Students added text describing their unique ar-eas of expertise. When completed, the book offered children a resource forconsulting peers when they needed help with a particular task. The class-room teacher later commented that she was amazed at the learning that re-sulted from using the word-processing software. Students were able tograsp concepts about print-spacing, capitalization, and punctuation–whichsome had difficulty conceptualizing prior to the project. Best of all, stu-dents were transferring these new understandings to their handwritten classassignments with increased confidence and accuracy.
Second graders created Friendship Books, again using KidPix. Theteacher/pre-service teacher pair designed a template outlining project crite-ria that included oral interviews, written text, and names of interviewees inother classes. This facilitated orderly, coordinated interviews with a mini-mum of logistical problems. Ultimately, the information was collated intospiral-bound books that included digital photos of both interviewers and in-terviewees.
In the upper elementary, fifth graders used a similar process to composeclass books. Topics at this level included poetry and heroes. Excited stu-dents also corresponded with Internet pen pals from Japan in conjunctionwith their study of Sadako and the Thousand Paper Cranes (Coerr, 1977).The letter writing that ensued reinforced a host of valuable skills.
When studying an ocean unit, another fifth-grade pair guided students indesigning colorful “trading cards” identifying various types of whales. Thepre-service teacher also conducted a virtual tour of ocean floor features. Inaddition, she collaborated with another intern to assemble a related KidPixslide show for parents to view during conferences. The team supplementedthese projects with a WebQuest on whales, which they “whacked”–a tech-nique that limits the sites that students may access, thus preventing themfrom straying into nonproductive or undesirable Internet locations.
One teacher/intern pair used technology to present a computer-gener-ated list of morning activities on the TV that students consulted each day asthey entered the room. More traditional uses of technology included usingKidPix Deluxe (1998), PowerPoint (1998), and HyperStudio (1997) forstudent research presentations as well as for review games.
STRENGTHS AND DRAWBACKSOF INFUSING TECHNOLOGY INTO THE PDS
USING THE PROJECT PICT MODEL
The strengths and drawbacks of the Project PICT model for infusingtechnology into the PDS were identified from responses to surveys and in-
156 Computers in the Schools
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Dok
uz E
ylul
Uni
vers
ity ]
at 1
5:08
06
Nov
embe
r 20
14
terviews by teachers, teacher educators, pre-service teachers, and adminis-trators. The surveys were color-coded to identify various groups andadministered at the end of the school year. They addressed questions re-lated to areas of growth, amount and types of technology use in the class-room, factors that facilitated or inhibited technology use, impact on studentlearning, and impact of the PDS. Interviews were conducted with membersfrom each group of participants that further explored the questions ad-dressed in the survey, particularly the role of the PDS.
Respondents identified project strengths, which were categorized intotwo areas: the design of the Project PICT model and the PDS environment.Strengths that were identified in the model were the informational sessions,the support sessions, the flexibility of the schedule, the length of the pro-ject, and the financial support. Participants noted that informational andmentoring sessions were valuable in providing quality instruction and ef-fective support. They found the flexibility of the schedule an asset becauseit was adjusted to meet their needs. Participants also commented on thelength of the project. Since sessions were planned throughout the year,teacher/intern pairs had time to apply what they learned in their class-rooms, and teacher educators had time to plan for the next semester. An ad-ditional strength of the model that was noted by teachers, pre-serviceteachers, and teacher educators was the financial support. Teachers bene-fited from the purchase of additional software and the substitutes hired fortraining days. They also found the in-building technology support providedby the school district helpful, as well as the desktop computers purchasedby Project PICT for every teacher/intern pair. Teacher educators also bene-fited from the financial support provided by the university in purchasinglaptop computers as well as the technology classrooms they installed andassigned to them for further technology integration in future courses.
A final strength identified by participants in the Project PICT model wasteaming. Teacher/pre-service teacher pairs, usually intact only for one se-mester, remained intact for the intern’s entire professional year (methodsand student teaching). Traditionally, interns are encouraged to gain experi-ence in primary and intermediate grade levels so that they will be betterprepared for their 1-8 certification. Therefore, they are not typically permit-ted to remain with the same teacher or at the same grade level for the fullyear. Teachers and pre-service teachers identified this extended teamingarrangement as a strength of the model. In addition, these pre-serviceteachers extended their student teaching experience for 16 weeks instead ofthe 10 weeks required by the university. Teachers consistently commentedthat having a knowledgeable intern helped them to learn the hardware, thesoftware, and ways to integrate both. Having this support in the classroom
El-Amin et al. 157
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Dok
uz E
ylul
Uni
vers
ity ]
at 1
5:08
06
Nov
embe
r 20
14
made learning about technology fun. In addition, having the same internfor the entire professional year helped teachers and interns to utilize timemore effectively. Teachers commented that they did not have to spend ad-ditional time during the second semester re-orienting interns, and internsdid not have to spend time learning new class procedures, fulfilling newexpectations, becoming acquainted with their teacher, and getting to knowtheir students and their abilities. Interns commented that the extended16-week student teaching experience helped them feel more confident intheir teaching abilities. In addition, teaming allowed various constituents,pre-service teachers, teachers, and teacher educators, to understand thescope of issues and concerns related to infusing technology, as well as pro-vided opportunities for support and exchange of ideas. A related strengththat participants mentioned was the expectation of team and individual ac-countability coupled with autonomy in how plans were implemented. Par-ticipants thought this encouraged both accountability and creativity.
The second category of strengths related to the development of ProjectPICT within a school/university partnership. Implementing the project in aPDS facilitated the negotiation of other strengths such as the flexibility ofschedules, the length of the project, the financial support, and the teaming.These negotiations were enhanced by an established relationship of trust andmutual respect. In addition, the new ideas, expectations, and experiences ofProject PICT were also facilitated and supported by this foundation. Class-room teachers, teacher educators, pre-service teachers, and administratorsrepeatedly mentioned the importance of this relationship. The principal indi-cated that “having an established relationship with the university and theteacher education faculty was crucial. This allowed staff to concentrate theirefforts on technology integration rather than learning expectations, personal-ities, etc.” This was also true for teacher educators and pre-service teachers.The environment of emotional safety that promotes risk taking and growthwas already established. One teacher educator commented,
Adding Project PICT to the PDS foundation is like adding a sec-ond floor to a school structure that already exists to support it. It isa natural extension that complements the dynamic nature of a PDSand creates expanded learning opportunities for teachers, adminis-trators, teacher educators, pre-service teachers, and elementarystudents. It facilitates growth among all partners. As the individualpartners grow, the PDS grows; it keeps changing and evolving tohigher levels. In other words, a strength of this model is that it fa-cilitates learning, risk taking, and growth among all partners and,in so doing, promotes momentum and change in the PDS.
158 Computers in the Schools
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Dok
uz E
ylul
Uni
vers
ity ]
at 1
5:08
06
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Participants suggested that the school/university relationship facilitatedthe growth that occurred through the training and infusion phases. Thisgrowth occurred among participants in terms of increased skill levels withtechnology and their ability and willingness to enhance classroom instruc-tion. By the end of the project, growth was evident among all participants.Teachers reported increased skill levels in an average of 10 of the follow-ing areas: computer, digital camera, scanner, LCD panel/projector and/orpresentation television, word processing, database, spreadsheet, draw-ing/graphics programs, Web site development, electronic references, dis-cussion groups/listserves, instructional software, presentation software(PowerPoint), multimedia (KidPix, HyperStudio), e-mail, Internet, and in-structional methods for integrating technology. Teacher educators reportedincreased skills in an average of five areas, and pre-service teachers, an av-erage of eight areas. Interestingly, Project PICT addressed only seven usesof technology: computer, word processing, instructional software, presen-tation software (PowerPoint), multimedia (KidPix, HyperStudio), Internet,and instructional methods for integrating technology. This suggests thatparticipants’ increasing skill levels gave them the confidence to exploretechnology beyond the areas addressed by Project PICT. This enabledteachers, pre-service teachers, and teacher educators to use technology toimpact their classrooms in instructionally sound ways.
Pre-service teachers found that integrating technology helped them notonly to improve their teaching methods in incorporating technology, butalso to enhance instruction so that all students could succeed. They felt thatit helped to individualize instruction by enabling them to address differentlearning styles and multiple intelligences. One pre-service teacher summa-rized the benefits:
In my opinion, Project PICT is a wonderful program. It has allowedme to expand my computer skills to a level I never thought I couldreach. I feel very comfortable trying new things and I realize that un-less I try I will never know. I never used a presentation TV, laser disc,scanner, digital camera, projection system, etc., until now; however, Iam comfortable using it all. Great things came about for me by partic-ipating in Project PICT. I learned how important technology is in ed-ucation and that it is important for students to be involved. I believe ithas enhanced my teaching a great deal. When I leave and graduate Iwill be a step ahead of many graduates. I have increased my knowl-edge of software and tools available to me to enrich my lessons.
El-Amin et al. 159
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Dok
uz E
ylul
Uni
vers
ity ]
at 1
5:08
06
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Teachers found that integrating technology helped them teach at the stu-dents’ levels and according to their interests. They discovered that elemen-tary students were highly motivated by the use of technology because theywere accustomed to using computers and to communicating through visualliteracy. Teachers noted that students were more ready to learn through thismedium; therefore, they became more knowledgeable about the content aswell as the technology. As a result, they discovered that even kindergart-ners were not intimidated by technology. They commented that studentsenjoyed presenting information using these new technological media andthat they created products with very professional appearances. They ob-served that integrating technology aided in building community in theirclassrooms, since a lot of spontaneous peer training occurred as studentshelped one another learn.
The principal of the elementary school noticed similar responses amongthe teachers. She indicated that technology integration increased staff col-laboration and enthusiasm. It improved the climate of the school by creat-ing synergy as the staff supported one another, shared ideas, and helpedone another solve problems. As a result, teachers at the PDS who were notinvolved in Project PICT also reported an increased awareness of instruc-tional possibilities using technology because Project PICT teachers andpre-service teachers both formally and informally shared information withthem. Teachers in Project PICT and those not involved in the project notedthat using technology produced a high quality of vicarious experiencesthrough spontaneous interactions as well as increased communicationamong the staff.
Teacher educators had similar experiences at the university. They foundthat integrating technology enhanced learning about technology, increaseduniversity students’ ability to use and integrate technology, and enabledbetter modeling of expectations. They, too, noted increased collaborationand communication among teacher educators within departments andacross departmental lines. Fortunately, open communication already ex-isted between the university and other partners in the PDS.
Strengths of the Project PICT model were aligned with the design of theproject and implementation in a PDS; however, drawbacks were alignedwith the difficulties of integrating technology into the curriculum. Despitethe stability of school/university relationships, the difficulty of the task wasinitially met with feelings of inadequacy and occasional frustration amongnovice technology users. This was overcome as the project continued, as
160 Computers in the Schools
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Dok
uz E
ylul
Uni
vers
ity ]
at 1
5:08
06
Nov
embe
r 20
14
individuals became more knowledgeable, and as teams became more sup-portive and more focused on team plans.
The major drawback reported by everyone was time. Infusing technol-ogy into the schools was time consuming. One teacher commented, “ Greatamounts of time must be spent learning how to use software and hardware.Upgrading, getting peripherals to work, managing limited technology withlarge numbers of students are extremely time consuming.” Teachers agreedthat more time was needed to learn and teach the software and hardware; todetermine matches/mismatches between software and hardware; to ensurethat the technology worked or to overcome obstacles; to organize and man-age limited equipment with large groups of students; and to plan the mosteffective use of software with content and curriculum needs. They alsosuggested that more technical support was needed for troubleshooting, andmore computers and other resources were needed as well since many re-sources were incompatible. Their organization, flexibility, and dedicationhelped address these drawbacks. Teacher educators needed more on-goingsupport in their classrooms when using technology.
CONCLUSIONS
The Project PICT model of infusing technology into a PDS was success-ful in impacting elementary and teacher education classrooms. Ideas can begleaned for use in other classrooms. Moreover, the model demonstratesthat pre-service teachers can be catalysts for infusing technology with ben-efits to teachers, teacher educators, pre-service teachers, and elementarystudents. The model recognizes the strength of school/university partner-ships and the necessity of teaming. This model of training and infusion canbe applied in other sites, if schools and universities collaborate. For institu-tions where the in-depth school/university partnership found in profes-sional development schools is not possible, collaboration can take placethrough student teaching and methods placements.
Preparing teachers to use technology is not optional if they are to helpstudents succeed in a technological world. Pre-service teachers must returnfrom observing or interning in elementary classrooms with comments like,“My cooperating teacher fully integrates technology into the curriculum,”“There are no idle computers in my classroom,” and “My teacher has reallykept abreast of the changing times. S/he has exceptional expertise in infus-ing technology!”
El-Amin et al. 161
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Dok
uz E
ylul
Uni
vers
ity ]
at 1
5:08
06
Nov
embe
r 20
14
REFERENCES
Allison, P., Cristol, D., El-Amin, C., Garling, J., Hammond, R., & Pissanos, B. (1998).Constructing a community of learners, leaders and decision makers. Educational Hori-zons, 76(2), 92-97.
Bruner, C. (1992). Integrating technology into the curriculum: Teaching the teachers.(Technical Report No. 25). New York: Bank Street College of Education, Center forTechnology in Education.
Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy. (1986). A nation prepared: Teachers forthe 21st century: The report of the task force on teaching as a profession. Washington,DC: Author.
Carroll, W. M. (1997). Technology and teachers’ curricular orientations. Educational Ho-rizons, pp. 66-72.
Caverly, D. C., Peterson, C. L., & Mandeville, T. F. (1997). A generational model for pro-fessional development. Educational Leadership, 55(2), 56-59.
Coerr, E. (1977). Sadako and the thousand paper cranes. New York: Dell Publishing.Goodlad, J. (1990). Teachers for our nation’s schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Holmes Group. (1986). Tomorrow’s teachers: A report of the Holmes Group. East Lan-
sing, MI: Author.HyperStudio. (1997). [Computer software]. Torrance, CA: Wagner.International Society for Technology in Education. (2000). National educational technol-
ogy standards for students: Connecting curriculum and technology. Eugene, OR: Au-thor.
KidPix Studio Deluxe. (1998). [Computer Software]. Novato, CA: Broderbund Software.Microsoft Office-PowerPoint. (1998). [Computer Software]. Redmond, WA: Microsoft
Corporation.National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future. (1996). What matters most:
Teaching for America’s future (Summary Report). New York: Author.Thompson, A., Hansen, D., & Reinhart, P. (1996). One-on-one technology mentoring for
teaching education faculty: Case study reports. In B. Robin, J. D. Price, J. Willis, & D.Willis (Eds.), Technology and teacher education annual (pp. 495-498). Charlottesville,VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.
162 Computers in the Schools
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Dok
uz E
ylul
Uni
vers
ity ]
at 1
5:08
06
Nov
embe
r 20
14
