1

COE Technology Strategic Plan Executive Summary

Strategic Plan Contributing Authors: Laila Richman (Chair), Jack Cole, Suzanne Obenshain,

Kim McCormick, Andy Allen, Debbie Fuller, Marcia Watson, Sarah Lohnes-Watulak , Wendy

Gibson, & Debbie Fuller

COE ITC Members (2015 – 2016): Laila Richman (Chair), Jack Cole, Andy Allen, Duane

Smith, Suzanne Obenshain (for Sarah Lohnes-Watulak), Kim McCormick (Secretary), Wendy

Gibson, Mike Scribner, Tricia Halstead, Brenda Conley, Jeff Kenton, & Debbie Fuller

Summary

The National Education Technology Plan (NETP, 2016) calls on teacher preparation to move

beyond isolated technology experiences and to prepare future teachers who are proficient at

using a range of cutting edge technology to improve teaching and learning for all students. In

response to this call as well as new teacher preparation standards, the College of Education

Information Technology Committee (ITC) was tasked with assessing the current state of

technology integration in the COE as well as future directions in terms of integration and

curriculum. The COE ITC has representation from each of the six programs in the College

(ECED, ELED, EDTL, ILPD, SMED, and SPED).

The committee found that there are pockets of excellence related to technology integration

within the COE, but a lack of consistency across all programs and coursework. These findings, in

conjunction with the new COE Strategic Plan Technology Goal as well as the current literature

on technology to promote teaching and learning, led to the following recommended actions:

1) Develop a multi-year professional development plan to support faculty in learning and

infusing new technologies in meaningful ways

a. Identify and support technology fellows to work directly with faculty

b. Allow time at COE Council Meetings for training

2) Develop more personalized options to provide teacher candidates with basic technology

proficiency skills

a. Investigate options for candidates to earn microcredentials in various areas of

technology skills

b. One-credit course options candidates can choose from based on areas of need

3) Infuse and model technology across coursework, particularly in content methods course

a. Identify and integrate content specific technologies

b. Increase use of games and simulations

4) Increase faculty and student access to current technologies, both on campus as well as at

off-site teaching locations

a. Reduce renewal cycle for faculty technology

b. Build makerspaces/digital sandboxes for faculty and candidates

5) Create a repository where faculty and teacher candidates can share examples of effective

technology integration

6) Infuse computer science and coding into coursework

2

COE Technology Strategic Plan

Mission

The mission for Professional Education at Towson University is to inspire, educate, and prepare

educators as facilitators of active learning for diverse and inclusive communities of learners in

environments that are technologically advanced. In this process, faculty assume the

responsibility for designing, developing, implementing, and assessing academic programs for:

● entering college freshmen ● community college transfer students ● post-baccalaureate students seeking certification (approved programs, MAT) ● master's degree students ● post-master's students seeking continuing professional development

● doctoral students acquiring expertise to shape the future of education.

Vision

The vision for Professional Education at Towson University is to build upon its rich heritage and

excellent reputation and to position itself to enhance its leadership role in academic program

planning and public policy formulation. Through its leadership, the Professional Education Unit

can ensure active learning occurs in diverse and inclusive educational environments where

contemporary information resources are available. Thus, the unit can, in collaboration with other

public/private agencies, assist in the readiness of all learners to succeed in a rapidly changing,

diverse, and highly technical world. In order to achieve this vision, the unit at Towson University

is committed to:

● ensuring the mastery of appropriate content and intellectual skills in the University’s

general studies/Core Curriculum in the liberal arts and sciences as well as in specific

academic disciplines and advanced fields of study ● reflecting upon and refining best practices -- professional and pedagogical knowledge

and skills -- to develop a repertoire of instructional and assessment strategies both within

and outside of traditional educational environments ● preparing educators for diverse and inclusive communities of learners, including

systematic exposure to heterogeneous populations ● utilizing appropriate technologies which reflect best practices in education and all

educational environments ● helping develop, internalize, and display professional conscience (commitment to

professional practice, caring for the success and well-being of all students, and

collaboration with colleagues and stakeholders) ● crafting new environments and strategies for fostering learning in work and life situations ● developing collaborative partnerships with the public and private sectors ● providing leadership in professional education through scholarly endeavors

3

College of Education Strategic Plan: Technology Goals

1. COE faculty will integrate and model the use of current technology to support teaching

and learning in all coursework.

2. The COE will increase opportunities for students to explore and apply new technologies

to support teaching and learning.

Objectives

a. Increase opportunities for scaffolded teaching and learning experiences through

the use of a range of technologies, such as virtual environments/simulations.

b. Redesign and develop flexible learning spaces that promote student use of

technology in teaching and learning.

c. Develop a repository for sharing examples of effective technology integration as

well as media created by faculty and students.

d. Adopt and implement a comprehensive Assessment Management System (AMS)

across all departments to support the collection, management, and use of

assessment data from coursework and field experiences.

e. Provide professional development for faculty on current and emerging

technologies.

National Standards

The College of Education is accredited by the Council for the Accreditation of Educator

Preparation (CAEP). As part of the national accreditation process, the College meets the

educator preparation standards established by CAEP. In addition to national accreditation, the

College meets the Maryland Institutional Performance Criteria, which includes a specific focus

on classroom technology. The College is also accountable for meeting the Model Core Teaching

Standards established by the Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC)

and individual departments adhere to their respective Specialty Program Association (SPA)

standards as well.

In addition to the technology competencies found in the standards above, the College is also

accountable for ensuring that graduates meet the technology standards outlined by the

International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) as well as the Maryland Teacher

Technology Standards (MTTS).

CAEP Standards that specifically address technology

● 1.5 Providers ensure that candidates model and apply technology standards as they

design, implement and assess learning experiences to engage students and improve

learning; and enrich professional practice.

● 2.1 Partners co-construct mutually beneficial P-12 school and community arrangements,

including technology-based collaborations, for clinical preparation and share

responsibility for continuous improvement of candidate preparation. Partnerships for

4

clinical preparation can follow a range of forms, participants, and functions. They

establish mutually agreeable expectations for candidate entry, preparation, and exit;

ensure that theory and practice are linked; maintain coherence across clinical and

academic components of preparation; and share accountability for candidate outcomes.

● 2.2 Partners co-select, prepare, evaluate, support, and retain high-quality clinical

educators, both provider- and school-based, who demonstrate a positive impact on

candidates’ development and P-12 student learning and development. In collaboration

with their partners, providers use multiple indicators and appropriate technology-based

applications to establish, maintain, and refine criteria for selection, professional

development, performance evaluation, continuous improvement, and retention of clinical

educators in all clinical placement settings.

● 2.3 The provider works with partners to design clinical experiences of sufficient depth,

breadth, diversity, coherence, and duration to ensure that candidates demonstrate their

developing effectiveness and positive impact on all students’ learning and development.

Clinical experiences, including technology-enhanced learning opportunities, are

structured to have multiple performance-based assessments at key points within the

program to demonstrate candidates’ development of the knowledge, skills, and

professional dispositions, as delineated in Standard 1, that are associated with a positive

impact on the learning and development of all P-12 students.

● 3.4 The provider creates criteria for program progression and monitors candidates’

advancement from admissions through completion. All candidates demonstrate the ability

to teach to college- and career-ready standards. Providers present multiple forms of

evidence to indicate candidates’ developing content knowledge, pedagogical content

knowledge, pedagogical skills, and the integration of technology in all of these

domains.

“Candidates need experiences during their preparation to become proficient in applications of

digital media and technological capabilities. They should have opportunities to develop the skills

and dispositions for accessing online research databases, digital media, and tools to identify

research-based practices that can improve their students' learning, engagement, and outcomes.

They should know why and how to help their students access and assess critically the quality and

relevance of digital academic content. Preparation experiences should allow candidates to

demonstrate their abilities to design and facilitate digital, or connected, learning, mentoring, and

collaboration. They should encourage use of social networks as resources for these purposes and

to help identify digital content and technology tools for P-12 students’ learning. Candidates

should help their students gain access to what technology has to offer” (CAEP Accreditation

Standards, 2013, p.22).

ISTE Standards for Teachers

1. Facilitate and inspire student learning and creativity

2. Design and develop digital age learning experiences and assessments

3. Model digital age work and learning

5

4. Promote and model digital citizenship and responsibility

5. Engage in professional growth and leadership

Proposed ISTE Standards (To be released Summer 2016)

“Effective teachers model and apply the ISTE Standards for Students as they design, implement,

and assess learning experiences to engage students and improve learning; enrich professional

practice; and provide positive models for students, colleagues, and the community.”

1. Empowered Learner

2. Knowledge Constructor

3. Innovative Designer/maker

4. Computational Thinker

5. Creative Communicator/Creative Learner/Creator and Communicator

6. Global Collaborator

7. Digital Citizen

MD Technology Standards (MTTS)

I. Information Access, Evaluation, Processing and Application

A. Access, evaluate, process and apply information efficiently and effectively.

II. Communication

A. Use technology effectively and appropriately to interact electronically.

B. Use technology to communicate information in a variety of formats.

III. Legal, Social and Ethical Issues

A. Demonstrate an understanding of the legal, social and ethical issues related to technology

use.

IV. Assessment for Administration and Instruction

A. Use technology to analyze problems and develop data-driven solutions for instructional

and school improvement.

V. Integrating Technology into the Curriculum and Instruction

A. Design, implement and assess learning experiences that incorporate use of technology in

a curriculum-related instructional activity to support understanding, inquiry, problem

solving, communication and/or collaboration.

6

VI. Assistive Technology

A. Understand human, equity and developmental issues surrounding the use of assistive

technology to enhance student learning performance and apply that understanding to

practice.

VII. Professional Growth

A. Develop professional practices that support continual learning and professional growth in

technology.

More information about the specific standards can be found using the links below:

● CAEP Standards: http://caepnet.org/standards/introduction

● SPA Standards: http://caepnet.org/accreditation/caep-accreditation/spa-standards-and-

report-forms ● InTASC:

http://www.ccsso.org/Documents/2013/2013_INTASC_Learning_Progressions_for_Teac

hers.pdf ● ISTE Standards: http://www.iste.org/standards/iste-standards ● MTTS:

http://www.msde.maryland.gov/MSDE/programs/technology/techstds/teacher_standards.htm

Models/Exemplars

Each year, the Committee on Innovation and Technology of AACTE, recognizes an innovative

use of educational technologies in a school, college, or department of education. The AACTE

Award for Innovative Use of Technology is given to highlight initiatives that infuse technology

throughout the curriculum “stretch beyond what might normally be done in its teacher education

programs; the programs must have changed in some way as a result of the technology use and

integration” (AACTE, 2016).

AACTE Award for Innovative Use of Technology (2016) - University of Nebraska–Lincoln

(UNL) for Tech EDGE, a collaborative partnership between UNL and eight PK-12 partner

school districts focused on the following goals:

1. To create a partnership between Nebraska school districts and Nebraska teacher

education programs to improve student learning by informing teacher preparation

students, university methods professors, and practicing teachers on effective use of new

literacies and 21st-century technologies in the classroom.

2. To establish a blueprint for effective integration of technology into teaching and learning

to empower students to meet educational standards and global challenges.

3. To infuse current best practices and research to existing teachers as well as teacher

preparation programs to improve student learning. (AACTE, 2016)

AACTE Award for Innovative Use of Technology (2014) – “CalState Teach Program

(http://www.calstateteach.net/) selected for its ability to bridge the theory and practice of teacher

7

education through the use of multiple technologies and to communicate the impact those

technologies have had based on qualitative or quantitative research. Specifically, the

CalStateTEACH program exhibits sustainable impact, system-wide change during a time of state

budget cuts, a strong research basis, a social justice agenda to make learning accessible to all,

robust integration of technology and low-cost sustainability.”

AACTE Award for Innovative Use of Technology Runner-up (2014) - Saint Leo University

● Increase faculty knowledge and expertise with technology ● Increased access to technology

o Digital backpacks to take out into schools http://edprepmatters.net/2014/11/innovative-use-of-technology-at-saint-leo-tech-

integration-digital-backpacks/

Towson University – COE’s Current Technology and Integration

The Towson University College of Education has embraced the judicious use of technology in

education for decades. In accordance with the best practices of our era, we do two things:

integrate technology AND teach technology. According to Dexter and Riedel (2003), preservice

teachers should be required to enroll in a technology course specific to their content area. We

have conducted a census of currently owned hardware and software in the College of Education.

Census of COE Departments’ Technology

Equipment ECED EDTL ELEM SMED SPED*

iPads +charging cart/ MacBook Pro

laptop/sync

30 30 iPad Air 2 30 25

iPad minis + 2 charging stations &

MacBook Pro/sync

45

Activ Votes/ Expressions set 1 1 each

Video Cameras/ Zoom 20 16 76 4 22

3D PrinterBot Printer 3

LiveScribe Smart Pens 6 3

Dash and Dot Robotics Pack 2

8

*Additional technology available in SPED Dept.

iPads -- (campus) with charging cart and 1 MacBook Pro/syncing (25)

iPad minis--HH112, AT/UDL Course. 2 charging stations (20)

iPad minis (main campus) (5)

iPad minis (TUNE) and 1 (MacBook Pro) for syncing (20)

Hybrid laptops (Lenovo) with charging cart (24)

ActivVotes- 1 set and ActivExpressions- 1 set

Zoom Cameras- main campus (5), TUNE (5), UGA (5) and Flip Cameras (7)

The Educational Technology Center, HH 210

● An open lab/study/practice area (25 PC’s, 2 scanners, tables and chairs for small group

meeting, seating for 50)

● Staff provides direct classroom technology assistance for faculty

● Maintains five classroom computer labs (25-30 seats each) and reserves all special

requests lab time around the classes scheduled by COE departments, -HH 112 SPED, -

HH 114 ECED, - HH 207, 209, 219 EDTL. - HH 206 ISTC graduate lab area (6

computers). Note: HH 209 will be redesigned Summer 2016 as a flexible learning space

equipped with laptops, 6 to 8 desktop computers and Promethean Board.

● Equipment available to reserve for class use:

○ Laptops (20) may be reserved by faculty for a class.

○ Portable LCD projectors for off campus use (6)

○ Headsets with microphones (60 sets)

○ Webcams (6) and Snowball mics for table conferences (4)

○ Wireless Microphones (6 sets)

Education Innovation Lab for Faculty Professional Development, HH 110

http://wp.towson.edu/coelab/

● Dell PC (10)

● IMac stations (4)

● Gaming stations (3)

● iPad/cart, MacBook Pro/syncing (30)

● Interactive Whiteboards (1) Promethean, (1) Smart

9

● Professional video camera

Classroom Technology

Interactive Whiteboards (IWB)

● Promethean Boards (15) and Smart Boards (13) in the 33 COE classrooms.

Apple TV

● Apple TV’s (5), rooms HH 110, 306, 313, PY 304, 312

Software:

● Microsoft Office, and access to Skype (Maryland Education Enterprise Consortium,

MEEC agreement) on all computers

Specialty software:

● ActivInspire for Promethean Boards, available in labs and on teacher stations in rooms

with a Promethean Board

● Notebook for Smart Boards, available in labs and on teacher stations in rooms with a

Smart Board

● Pixie, creativity software. ELED - available on each computer in HH 114 lab

● Woodcock Johnson Tests of Cognitive Ability + test sets. SPED

● Boardmaker v.6 SPED -available on each computer in HH 112 lab and three online

subscriptions

● Inspiration v.9 for concept mapping, available in all labs

● Kidpiration v.3 for concept mapping, available in HH 112 lab

● NVivo, qualitative data analysis, available in HH 206.

● Camtasia, video screen capturing , available in HH 219

● Audacity, free audio recorder and editor, available in all labs

● Adobe Suite (Towson University site license)

Technology in our PDS Counties

Our teacher candidates must become familiar with the tech resources in our PDS counties. This

is currently accomplished in our tech classes (ISTC 301, ECED 407). In addition, technology

should be an integral part of every COE course. While we must keep track of the counties’

evolving tech resources so our teacher candidates will be prepared, we must also lead the way in

identifying and preparing candidates to use cutting edge technologies to improve teaching and

10

learning. The counties have information on their websites (links are in the table below), but more

information is needed.

Locations of PDS Link to tech resources for county

Anne Arundel County http://www.aacps.org/aacps/boe/INSTR/CURR/COMED/K8ScopeSequence.htm

Baltimore City http://www.baltimorecityschools.org/Page/22076

Baltimore County https://www.bcps.org/offices/oit/

Calvert County http://www.calvertnet.k12.md.us/departments/diit/purpose.asp

Carroll County https://www.carrollk12.org/admin/techservices/Pages/AboutUs.aspx

Cecil County http://www.ccps.org/District/Department/30-Technology-Services

Charles County http://www.ccboe.com/departments/instruction/index.php

Harford County http://www.hcps.org/Departments/technology/default.aspx

Howard County http://www.hcpss.org/academics/instructional-technology/

Montgomery County http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/helpdesk/

Prince George's

County

none

St. Mary's County http://www.smcps.org/dss/its

Integration of Technology into Coursework

In addition to our stand-alone tech courses, COE faculty report that they integrate technology

into other coursework. COE faculty were asked to report their tech integration in a survey

administered in February 2016. They were asked how they used technology using the SAMR

model (Puentedura, 2016). They responded with examples of how they believed they were

integrating technology as seen below:

11

Do you use

SUBSTITUTION? (tech acts as a direct

tool substitute with

no functional

change)

Examples:

● turn in assignments electronically; Blackboard

● electronic versions of handouts; no longer printed copies

● PowerPoint presentation rather than handouts

● replaced formal textbooks with PDFs and online-readings

Do you use AUGMENTATION? (tech acts as a direct

tool substitute with

functional

improvement)

Examples:

● search databases for sources

● collaboration on group documents, e.g. Google docs

● online graphic organizers and apps

● IWB charts (ActivInspire for Promethean. Notebook for Smart Board)

● audio feedback to students instead of written

● Skype or Facetime chat with students on projects and progress

● Peer reviewed blogs for deeper learning

Do you use

MODIFICATION?

(tech allows

significant task

redesign)

Examples:

● quizzes in Blackboard allow immediate, targeted feedback

● alternate final exam projects

● students audio or video record their reflective assignments

● animated avatar for explaining concepts

● students create digital stories, add music & narration

● IWB, flipcharts for interactivity

● students can choose to read textbook or view a recorded presentation by

the author

● students use pecha kucha presentations (20 slides, 20 seconds each)

● QR codes to access student work- written, audio and video recordings

● UDL: students can choose to read a text or view a presentation

Do you use

REDEFINITION? Teacher

(tech allows for

creation of new

tasks, previously

inconceivable)

Examples:

● guided reading of sources is posted as a public blog for community

feedback

● virtual field trips and Google Earth

● online audio/video lecture/course blog (flipped instruction)

● video examples for methods of instruction and analyzing teaching for

edTPA Tasks

● apps, i.e. polling, quizzing, learning management

● digital portfolio as ongoing professional tool for active use

● students write scripts, plan and create audio and video

● guided reading of sources is posted as a public blog for community

feedback

● participation in One Hour of Code

● create 3D designs and share with Thingiverse community

12

● students use the 4C’s (creativity, critical thinking, communication, and

collaboration) for determining which technology to utilize for

collaboration and presentation

● Augmented Reality: We use Google Cardboard

● Augmented Reality: Animated Avatars with children’s recorded book

reviews

● Makerspace: we create 3D designs to augment children’s literature

While many faculty are integrating technology into their coursework as evidenced by the survey,

there is no assurance that each teacher candidate will experience the same level of exposure and

experience with these models. In addition, there is no clear consensus around the different levels

and quality of integration.

The Data on Current Teacher Technology Preparedness at Towson University

In the fall of 2015, the TEEB Assessment Subcommittee shared a report which highlights data

collected from an eight part data set distributed across the unit initial teacher preparation

programs. The subcommittee’s report exists to provide a permanent record of unit-wide use of

data to make unit improvements.

Section of the Report Data Collection Point

Report 1 Program Evaluation by Interns

Report 2 University Supervisors Ratings of Interns

Report 3 Mentor Teacher’s Rating of Interns

Report 4 Portfolio Review Scores

Report 5 Essential Dispositions

Report 6 First Year Alumni Survey

Report 7 Third Year Alumni Survey

Report 8 First Year Employer Survey

Three sections of the 2014-15 TEEB Assessment Subcommittee Report highlighted areas of

continued growth for Towson University teacher candidates and technology preparedness.

Report 6 (First Year Alumni survey): The lowest InTASC rating was in the area of technology.

First-year teachers report that their experiences within the teacher preparation programs are not

representative of their present inservice environments.

13

Suggestion: Continue to work with regional school systems to determine future technology

purchasing trends and technology-infused curriculum changes.

Report 7 (Third Year Alumni Survey): The lowest several ratings from our cohort of 3rd year

teachers include (from lowest rating to highest): Technology, Planning for Instruction,

Assessment, and Leadership/Collaboration.

Suggestion: Continue to address technology by working with regional LEA to attempt to provide

experiences with “county-specific” hardware and/or technology curriculum. Perhaps incorporate

these technology enhancements in methods courses.

Report 8 (First Year employer survey): Interestingly, whereas first and third year teachers self-

report a deficiency in technology preparation, principals rate our first year teachers very highly

in that area.

Overall Summary of Recommendations from the 2014-2015 TEEB Assessment Subcommittee

Report: Remain attentive to candidate and intern rating on use and comfort with instructional

technology.

Future Directions for the TU COE

As evidenced by the data collected and shared above, the COE is making great efforts to

effectively integrate technology into its teacher preparation programs, but there is significant

opportunity and a need to extend, expand, and transform these efforts into more meaningful and

impactful opportunities for faculty and students. It is important to ensure candidates have the

basic, prerequisite technology skills necessary to reach the ultimate goal of effective integration.

In addition, COE faculty must model the effective integration of technology in teaching and

learning across all courses as well. Using the technology goals identified in the COE Strategic

Plan as an overarching framework, the COE ITC suggests the following are critical for

supporting both faculty and teacher candidates in utilizing technology to improve teaching and

learning.

1. COE faculty will integrate and model the use of current technology to support teaching

and learning in all coursework.

2. The COE will increase opportunities for students to explore and apply new technologies

to support teaching and learning.

Objectives

a. Increase opportunities for scaffolded teaching and learning experiences through

the use of a range of technologies, such as virtual environments/simulations.

b. Redesign and develop flexible learning spaces that promote student use of

technology in teaching and learning.

c. Develop a repository for sharing examples of effective technology integration as

well as media created by faculty and students.

d. Adopt and implement a comprehensive Assessment Management System (AMS)

across all departments to support the collection, management, and use of

assessment data from coursework and field experiences.

14

e. Provide professional development for faculty on current and emerging

technologies.

The New Media Consortium’s 2016 Horizon Report (Higher Education Edition) identifies the

following areas for growth (NMC, 2016). The following section is quoted from the Horizon

Report’s Table of Contents:

Key Trends

Long-Term Impact Trends (5+ years)

● Advancing Cultures of

Innovation

● Re-thinking how Institutions

Work

Mid-Term (3-5 years)

● Redesigning Learning Spaces

● Shift to Deeper Learning

Approaches

Short-Term (1-2 years)

● Growing Focus on Measuring

Learning

● Increasing Use of Blended

Learning Designs

● Expanding vision to

comprehensive use of

technology and the

information environment

Significant Challenges

Solvable Challenges

● Blending Formal and

Informal Learning

● Improving Digital Literacy

Difficult Challenges

● Competing Models of

Education

● Personalized Learning

Wicked Challenges

● Balancing Our Connected

and Unconnected Lives

● Keeping Education

Relevant

Important Developments

Time-to-Adoption (One year

or less)

● Bring Your Own

Device

● Learning Analytics and

Adaptive Learning

Time-to-Adoption (2-3 years)

● Augmented and Virtual

Reality

● Makerspaces

Time-to-Adoption (4-5 years)

● Affective Computing

● Robotics

In addition, the National Education Technology Plan (2016) identifies the following areas of

technology as having great potential to extend teaching and learning and the future of learning

technologies (p. 16-17):

Increased use of games and simulations

Connecting physical and virtual interaction

Interactive three-dimensional imaging software

Using augmented reality as a way to investigate context and history

The report also identifies the need to not only close the “digital divide”, but to also close the

“digital use divide” by ensuring “all students understand how to use technology as a tool to

15

engage in creative, productive, life-long learning rather than simply consuming passive content”

(p. 18).

The Obama administration’s ConnectED initiative seeks to improve K-12 education for all in the

US so that educators have the technology tools and training to enrich student learning through

differentiated learning and rich, digital content. By improving teachers’ technology skills, this

will maximize student learning.

The ISTE Standards for Teachers (2016) also denotes three standards for teachers that highlight

the need for teachers to be competent and comfortable with technology: standard three – model

digital age work and learning, standard four - promote and model digital citizenship and

responsibility, and standard five - standard engage in professional growth and leadership.

In order to be ready to face the technology demands that teachers are going to be accountable for,

training and exposure is needed. However, many current teachers feel that the training they

received during their teacher prep programs did not equip them to deal with the technology and

21st century skills that are needed in the classroom.

Higher education teacher prep programs have recognized that training pre-service teachers is

extremely important. We need to ensure new teachers have the knowledge and skills to

successful integrate technology strategies like BYOD, flipped classrooms, online learning, maker

spaces, or digital badges (Johnson, Adams, Estrada, & Freeman, 2015).

The NETP (2016) calls on teacher preparation to move beyond teaching candidates about using

technology as an “add-on” to ensuring they can use technology in meaningful ways. The report

calls on new teachers to be prepared to “model how to select and use the most appropriate apps

and tools to support learning” (p. 32-33). With this in mind, more needs to be done to assist pre-

service teachers in learning how to integrate technology and 21st century skills into classroom

instruction. Current research concludes that “completion of one educational technology course

separate from other methods courses” is no longer an effective model for preparing teachers to

effectively use technology (NETP, 2016, p. 33). Every course in their preparation program must

model and prepare them to use technology to support teaching and learning. That said, it cannot

be assumed that teacher candidates come to their preparation programs with the same basic

technology skills. Creative approaches, such as micro credentialing, one-credit hour courses,

online learning modules, professional learning communities, and digital sandboxes, must be

considered and applied in order to ensure basic levels of proficiency while also promoting

growth in all teacher candidates. In addition, continual collaboration with local schools is

important to remain knowledgeable and monitor the effectiveness of existing technologies.

Digital Promise, a non-profit organization focused on supporting technology integration in

teaching, describes micro-credentials as “competency-based recognition for educator learning

that is supported by digital badges.” The following four key characteristics of the micro-

credential approach distinguish it from traditional professional development systems:

competency based, personalized, on-demand, and shareable. This approach would allow

candidates to obtain digital badges to recognize both formal and informal learning experiences.

Finally, work has been done to provide teacher prep programs with rubrics that can be used to

evaluate how technology is integrated into course content and work. Podcasts, video case

studies, online delivery systems, eCoaching, and online simulations are some examples of

16

technologies that can be infused into teacher preparation programs (Dieker, Kennedy, Smith,

Vasquez, Rock, & Thomas, 2014).

Coding is Literacy

Coding is the new literacy. Computer Science is rapidly being added to state curricula both as a

core subject and to satisfy graduation requirements. Our teacher candidates must be prepared to

teach computing skills, computer science and basic coding. We must equip our teacher

candidates and faculty to confidently teach coding beginning in early childhood. Our teacher

candidates and their future students will need these skills to participate fully in the world.

President Obama has called for an increase in the number of teachers who are able to teach

computing skills at all grades and subjects (White House, 2016).

Some suggested approaches are:

● develop a joint course with the Computer Science department (How to Teach CS)

● develop a three-course sequence with CS so teacher candidates can earn a certificate

○ ISTC 301 (add a CS component)

○ COSC 109 (add a teaching component

○ plus the new “How to Teach CS” course

● a new major in CS secondary education

● a new minor in CS education

It is essential to include some form of a stand-alone technology course/modules in our programs.

It is critical to incorporate tech into every course but some topics, such as coding, require more

focused instruction. Teacher candidate self-efficacy in coding will increase when we infuse

technology into every course in addition to explicit instruction of skills. This combination of

strategies shows the most promise for preservice teachers (Kay, 2006). Roth (2014) found that

preservice teachers should be exposed to technology in a variety of forms in order to be

successful. The NMC exhorts us to re-think how institutions work. We must find a way to add value to a BS

degree in education so our teacher candidates will be equipped to teach highly needed STEM

subjects. A certificate program would give our teacher candidates the option to add short three-

course certificates to their degree. Certificates could be offered in Computer Science for

teachers, urban education, Science for Early Childhood, Common Core Math, Robotics,

Makerspaces, and other highly needed subjects. Our current certificate in ESL could be our

model. This certificate model would be a way to address the NMC’s call to re-think how

institutions work and shift to deeper learning approaches.

Flexible Spaces

The NETP (2016) speaks to the importance of well-designed physical spaces to support

technology enabled learning. The report identifies three important considerations related to

physical space (p 20 – 21):

Are the design and layout of the physical space dynamic and flexible enough to facilitate

the technology-enabled learning models and practices selected? Can a space in which an

educator delivers whole-class instruction also be shifted to facilitate individual online

practice and research?

17

Do the physical spaces align in their ability to facilitate individual and collaborative work

with multiple devices for research and presentation building, is the space as useful as

when individual learners need time and space to connect with information and experts

online for personalized learning?

Can the physical spaces and tools be shaped to provide multiple contexts and learning

experiences such as Wi-Fi access for outdoor classrooms? Are library spaces able to

become laboratories? Can a space used as a history lecture hall for one class become a

maker space for engineering the next period?

Flexible learning spaces are created to increase the engagement of students in their learning

experience by allowing a teacher to offer them a variety of modes of acquiring material and

constructing meaning from it. This enhanced autonomy on the part of the student to assimilate

material in a manner that suits their individual learning style promotes engagement.

From a teacher's perspective, flexible learning environments describe circumstances that can be

developed with the resources at hand and with additional resources that can be added or crafted

from what is available. The limits of different configurations of a flexible learning space are

primarily the creativity of teachers and the quality and diversity of the tools available to them.

COE intends to transform its learning spaces to meet its ongoing mission to facilitate active

learning in technologically enhanced environments, facilitate the ability of our students to meet

and apply national standards for technology, bring the spaces into greater harmony with the

kinds of spaces prevalent in the field where our graduates will practice, and allow faculty to

model the approaches and practices that will realize the potential of these spaces and learning

strategies.

COE will leverage the skill and creativity of its faculty in developing our learning spaces and

strategic use of them in an environment where the diversity of devices and software to enhance

learning, communication and collaboration available in the market is nearly constantly

expanding.

COE intends to put a greater toolset in the hands of teachers and learners bringing both into the

process to choose tools for learning. COE will solicit the input of faculty and students about

technologies they would find useful in their environment to enhance the learning experience.

Flexible learning spaces in a technologically advanced environment will include a greater

number and diversity of devices which will, if the enterprise is to be successful, require

increasing levels of support both outside and inside the learning space. COE will commit itself to

maintaining a support structure appropriate to its ambitions.

Bridging the COE-County Gaps

The TEEB committee suggested an improvement in our COE-county connection because our

teacher candidates report feeling unprepared for the specific technology in the counties. It would

18

be useful to have more complete information about each county’s current technology. A survey

would help us gather and maintain a census of county technology. Engaging faculty members in

learning about in-use and to-be-installed technology and strategies in the LEAs would help to

inform this survey with more granular detail.

Support Staff and Empowered faculty

Hardware and software are only as good as the faculty who use them and the staff who support

them (Duran, Fossum & Luera, 2006). It would be folly to assemble a building full of gadgets

and ignore the professional development, constant maintenance, and on-site help that technology

demands. As we move toward more mobile devices, our need for support staff will increase, so

we should expand our support staff here in Hawkins Hall to encourage more technology

integration throughout COE courses and support our technology courses. On-going support for

faculty has been found to be key in incorporating technology in courses (Popham & Rocque,

2004)

Faculty Professional Development

Research indicates that professional development for faculty must be re-conceptualized

(Amburgey, 2003; Maduakolam & Bell, 2003; Webster-Wright, 2009). In regards to technology,

professional development is often considered mere “work training.” Research suggests that

effective professional development includes ongoing learning and continuous follow-up.

Students benefit from this model, as do faculty members. The following recommendations are

proposed in regards to the College of Education’s faculty needs around technology:

1. Re-conceptualizing Professional Development

Research shows that standalone technology trainings are ineffective – for both students

and faculty (Maduakolam & Bell, 2003). Most effective professional developments

include: post-training follow-up, time for learning reflection, and application assistance

(Webster-Wright, 2009). The NETP (2016) states that professional development should

be ongoing, job-embedded, and “available just in time” (p. 34). Additionally, research

shows that there must be a concrete bridge between research and practice. Meaning, it is

important for faculty members to see the utility in the technology training (in order for

the professional development to be effective). Knowing exactly how the training will

benefit the faculty member’s individual classrooms is critically important. In regards to

College of Education students, this same rule also applies. Students must see the utility of

new technologies in their classrooms.

Additionally, after professional development sessions, it is important for faculty members

to have time to “apply” and experiment with their newfound technology skills

(Amburgey, 2003). Reasonable and realistic timelines need to be implemented when

introducing new technology. Practice must be incorporated (Maduakolam & Bell, 2003).

As a note, Amburgey’s (2003) research solicits the possibility for joint faculty/student

technology professional developments. This would involve representatives from local

19

school districts providing collaborative training sessions on new, upcoming district-level

technologies (so that professors and students are trained at the same time).

2. Connection to K-12 Technology

There must be some continuity between Towson’s technology and the available

technology in PreK-12 schools. Amburgey (2003) suggests that in regards to College of

Education needs, faculty professional developments must connect with what PreK-12

pre-service teachers will eventually encounter in their school placements. Additionally,

Amburgey’s research also suggests that state education initiatives must be aggressively

embedded at the university level. As state mandates continuously roll out, technology

instruction at the university must accommodate these changes. This helps to prepare pre-

service teachers with their upcoming school placements.

It is important to note, Amburgey’s study also confirmed that many College of Education

students are aware of the need for technology in the classroom, but feel unprepared using

technology effectively.

3. On-Going Informal Meetings

“Institutions that reported the highest levels of student technology skills and experience

were not those with heavy computer course requirements, but those that made use of

technology on a routine basis throughout the teacher training program” (Maduakolam &

Bell, 2003, p. 340). This was an important finding that really captures some of the

discussions in our COED Technology Committee meetings. It was said (informally) in a

meeting, “we don’t need a bunch of new stuff, we need technology faculty who can help

us understand how to use everything.” Research on effective professional developments

suggest that technology departments should informally meet with faculty at the beginning

of each semester and set personal goals with each faculty member (Amburgey, 2003).

Another possible approach is the designation of “Technology Fellows” or faculty who

have expertise in technology integration who could support colleagues in planning and

integrating effective instructional technology.

Also, Amburgey (2003) suggests turning syllabi into the College of Education’s

technology department (on a semester or yearly basis), to see if there are any new

technology tips or strategies to implement in each faculty member’s classrooms. Once

again, this is very time consuming. It is important to note, faculty members in

Amburgey’s study received course releases for helping other faculty members infuse

technology into their teaching. In the study, there were five (5) “core technology faculty”

that received course releases in the College of Education. (If technology is a university

goal for upcoming years, this might be something to think about long-term).

4. Interdisciplinary Collaborations

In Amburgey’s (2003) research, some faculty also found it useful to collaborate with

members from other departments and colleges on campus. For mathematics and science

20

especially, there was utility in seeing what the chemistry department (for example) was

doing to make learning interactive, versus the physics department. This could potentially

help pre-service teachers understand the various technology resources available, not only

related to pedagogy (as provided in the College of Education), but for content-specific

information as well (as provided in other academic colleges/departments).

Summary

Towson’s College of Education has a long standing history of providing cutting edge, high-

quality teacher preparation. In line with this reputation and the COE’s Strategic Plan, it is critical

that effective technology integration be modeled across coursework and programs. Technology

must be seen as an integral teaching and learning tool, not just an “add-on.” Current technology

has the potential to transform learning, but only if it is integrated effectively into practice.

Faculty and candidates must be given the tools, training, and support to ensure this becomes a

reality.

21

References

Amburgey, V. (2006). One model of professional development for higher education faculty.

Computers in the Schools, 23(3-4), 105-113.

ConnectEd Initiative (n.d.) Retrieved February 8, 2016 from

https://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/education/k12/connected

Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation. (2013). CAEP Accreditation Standards.

Retrieved from http://caepnet.org/standards/introduction.

Dieker, L. A., Kennedy, M. J., Smith, S., Vasquez III, E., Rock, M., & Thomas, C. N. (2014).

Use of technology in the preparation of pre-service teachers (Document No. IC-11).

Retrieved from University of Florida, Collaboration for Effective Educator,

Development, Accountability, and Reform Center website:

http://ceedar.education.ufl.edu/tools/innovation-configurations/

Dexter, S., & Riedel, E. (2003). Why improving preservice teacher educational technology

preparations must go beyond the college's walls. Journal of Teacher Education, 54 (4),

344-345.

Duran, M., Fossum, P., & Luera, G. (2006). Technology and pedagogical renewal:

Conceptualizing technology integration into teacher preparation. Computers In The

Schools, 23(3-4), 31-54. doi:10.1300/J025v23n03_03

International Society for Technology in Education. (2016). Standards for teachers. Retrieved

from http://www.iste.org/standards/iste-standards/standards-for-teachers

Johnson, L., Adams Becker, S., Estrada, V., and Freeman, A. (2015). NMC Horizon Report:

2015 K 12 Edition. Austin,Texas: The New Media Consortium.

Kay, R. (2006). Evaluating strategies used to incorporate technology into preservice education.

Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38(4), 383-408. doi:

10.1080/15391523.2006.10782466

Maduakolam, I., & Bell, E. (2003). A product-based faculty professional development model for infusing technology into teacher education. Contemporary Issues in Technology and

Teacher Education, 3(3), 340-352.

New Media Consortium (2016). 2016 Horizon Report: Higher Education Edition. Retrieved from

http://www.nmc.org/ publication/ nmc- horizon-report-2016 -higher-education-edition/

Popham, J. A., & Rocque, R. (2004). Faculty-as-Students. Computers in the Schools, 21(1-2),

115-126.

Puentedura, R. (2016). Applying the SAMR Model. Retrieved from

https://www.commonsensemedia. org/videos/ ruben- puentedura- on-applying-the- samr-

model.

22

Roth, K. (2014). Technology for tomorrow's teachers. JOPERD: Journal of Physical Education,

Recreation & Dance, 85(4), 3-5. doi: 10.1080/07303084.2014.884420.

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology (2016).National Education

Technology Plan:Future Ready Learning: Reimagining the Role of Technology in

Education. Retrieved from http://tech.ed.gov/netp

Webster-Wright, A. (2009). Reframing professional development through understanding

authentic professional development. Review of Educational Research, 79(2), 702-739.

White House. (2016). Computer Science for all. Retrieved from

https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2016/01/30/computer-science-all