Technology Infusion Approach ISTE2013 - WordPress.com€¦ · technology course in the candidates’ first semester to infusion of technology into two technology intensive courses,

INFUSING EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY 1

Infusing Educational Technology in Teaching Methods Courses: Successes and Dilemmas

Keith Wetzel, Teresa Foulger, Ray R. Buss, and LeeAnn Lindsey

Arizona State University

Paper presented June 25, 2013 at the Annual Meeting of the International Society for

Technology in Education, San Antonio, TX.


Abstract

The authors describe the perspectives of teacher education candidates who participated in the

first in a series of technology infused general methods courses in the initial certification,

iTeachAZ, program. Results revealed successes and dilemmas of transitioning from a required

stand-alone educational technology course to an infusion of technology into pre-service methods

courses. Recommendations for this program and programs at other universities in similar

contexts are proposed.


Infusing Educational Technology in Teaching Methods Courses: Successes and Dilemmas

Most of education should be testing a hypothesis; we don’t know

how to do it. We should be studying our program with disciplined

inquiry leading to mindful reform and change.” (Shulman, 2013)

We chose this epigraph because it reflects our efforts to use a disciplined inquiry method

to assess the effectiveness of a reform we instituted in our teacher preparation program. In this

paper, we report on the second phase of a five-phase project, a longitudinal study designed to

describe and measure the effectiveness of a traditional, stand-alone approach for teaching

technology to teacher education candidates (hereafter candidates) as compared to a new,

integrative approach in which learning to use technology is infused into methods courses within

the teacher preparation programs. To provide background, we briefly summarize our findings

from the initial phase where we described the context for the transition from a standalone

required course to an infusion of technology into methods courses approach, and established a

set of benchmarks based on the evaluation of a successful standalone required course for initial

teacher certification (Foulger, Buss, Wetzel, & Lindsey 2012). We indicated four important

outcomes from the standalone course that should be expected from the new courses. First,

candidates appreciated being exposed to various technology tools, observing their instructors

model technology tools, and having time to “play with technology.” Second, candidates who

used technology with PreK-12 students were very motivated to learn more about teaching with

technology, because they witnessed the influence of technology on students’ learning. Third,

candidates appreciated the process-oriented approach of the course, which encouraged them to


review and incorporate new technology tools. Fourth, candidates felt prepared to teach with

technology because the curriculum addressed content, pedagogical approaches, and

technological fit. These findings will serve as benchmarks for the subsequent phases of the study.

Specifically, in this paper on phase 2, we share initial results about our attempts to infuse the

National Educational Technology Standards for Teachers (NETS-T) objectives and activities

from a former stand-alone course into two content-oriented methods course. To achieve this

the Professional Development Technology Coordinator worked with general methods instructors

to re-design parts of two courses to infuse technology and conduct professional development to

enable instructors to teach the technology-infused courses. This paper describes the

implementation from the perspective of teacher education candidates who were enrolled in these

courses.

Perspective/Theoretical Framework

Several theoretical perspectives informed the conduct of the study. These theoretical

frameworks included the TPACK model and just-in-time professional development.

TPACK as a Developmental Perspective

As educational technology leaders, we view the transition from an isolated educational

technology course in the candidates’ first semester to infusion of technology into two technology

intensive courses, through an educational framework known as TPACK, Technological

Pedagogical Content Knowledge (Koehler & Mishra, 2008, in press; Mishra & Koehler, 2006).

The TPACK framework was originally designed to illuminate the complexities that PK-12

teachers encounter when they attempt to integrate technology. It stems from the idea that good

teaching involves the complementary aspects of content and pedagogical knowledge as defined


by Shulman (1986), but with the addition of technology knowledge in a way that requires

understanding and negotiation of all three knowledge bases concurrently.

According to Mishra and Koehler (2006), technology knowledge, content knowledge,

and pedagogical knowledge (TPACK) are of equal importance as teachers learn to leverage the

power of technology, and must be equally represented in professional development endeavors

(see Figure 1). Importantly, the framework addresses the need for content knowledge (CK),

pedagogical knowledge (PK), technology knowledge (TK), pedagogical content knowledge

(PCK), technological content knowledge (TCK), technological pedagogical knowledge (TPK),

and technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) to be considered simultaneously to

effectively integrate technology (see Figure 1). When technology integration is viewed through

the TPACK framework, it is ineffective to instruct teachers on how to use technology without

addressing pedagogy and content as well (Mishra & Koehler, 2006). As a result of the interactive

nature of the three knowledge bases, we began to question the effectiveness of the stand-alone

course for technology integration that had been the tradition in our college, as the stand-alone

course does not provide the much-needed authentic content and pedagogy that methods courses

intend to provide.

Figure 1. Graphic Representation of Technical Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK)


The TPACK framework is widely accepted by teacher educators internationally, who

recognize that explicitly addressing the development of teacher candidates’ TPACK knowledge

is a more appropriate pathway to technology integration than addressing fluency with

technological tools. At the conclusion of this paper we reflect on the complexities of attempting

to implement the TPACK model in a pre-service teacher preparation program.

Professional Development Specific to Teacher Educators

Just-in-time training supports teachers through individualized contact that is situated in

context (Speck & Knipe, 2005). In this context the Professional Development Technology

Coordinator and the teachers communicate openly about the type of support that is most

beneficial at a given time, leading to training that is directly related to the current classroom

situation. In this study, many forms of just-in-time training included email exchange, phone

contact, face-to-face planning, in-class presence, and co-teaching. Further, Speck & Knipe

explained that the complexity of the task and prior preparation of instructors helped us determine

the amount and type of professional development needed. Thus, instructors with differing

backgrounds may require more or less professional development and types of instruction.

The Innovation

We examined technology infusion into two methods courses to address the research

question: How well and in what ways were students prepared to teach K-12 students to use and

integrate technology to meet content standards and pedagogical standards? Our approach to

infusing technology had two components. The first component, which was based on the TPACK

framework, addressed technology integration into teaching and learning experiences. To achieve


this, we identified teacher education methods courses in which to infuse technology-rich

assignments and objectives.

The first new technology infused courses was EED 433, Language Arts Methods,

Management and Assessment, a three-credit course that is required of all candidates in the

elementary and special education programs. During the fall 2012 semester, when the data

collection for this study took place, eleven sections of the course were offered, nine of which

were taught by full-time faculty members and two by faculty associates (part-time faculty). The

second new technology infused course was: SED 464, Middle School Curriculum and

Organization, a three-credit course that is required of all teacher candidates in the secondary

education program. In the fall 2012 semester, six sections of the course were offered, two of

which were taught by full-time faculty members, three by faculty associates, and one by a

graduate teaching assistant.

Method

An action research model (Kuhne & Quigley, 1997) was employed. Working as

practitioners in our college we identified an area of concern, implemented an innovation to

address the concern, infused technology into methods courses, and conducted formative analysis

to refine the innovation as it was being implemented. We also capitalized on a modified

descriptive case study approach (Yin, 2009) to address the research questions. The case study

method was selected because it is an inquiry approach that explores a program, or one or more

individuals, bound by time and activity (Stake, 1995). This approach was ideal for discovering

the various factors influencing the implementation of the innovation.


Participants and Focus Group Conversations

The qualitative data sources were focus groups of 4-8 candidates from five of seventeen

sections of the infused methods courses. The sections selected represented a convenience sample

based on instructor’s willingness to participate. Instructors were asked to select students

representing a broad spectrum of student abilities to complete the technology infused

assignments. Each student focus group was facilitated by educational technology experts in the

college who were not the students’ instructors. Examples of questions students were asked

included:

● How well prepared do you feel to teach elementary/secondary students to use technology

to work toward content standards?

● What specifically have you learned to do with technology?

Data Analysis

All focus groups were audio taped and transcribed, entered into HyperRESEARCH

Qualitative Analysis Tool, coded, and then analyzed using predetermined and emerging codes

(Creswell, 2009). Predetermined codes arose naturally from the literature review and our

understanding of the TPACK framework and the NETS – T and S. Emerging codes were based

on grounded theory. Using the constant comparative method (Strauss & Corbin, 1998) the

authors began by reading and rereading transcriptions of the interviews. Guided by the research

questions, two of authors coded the student focus group data. They met multiple times to

compare, refine and combine sub-codes into larger categories. Each coded the same transcript

individually and then they met to discuss codes and their application of the codes. After


reaching substantial agreement on the coding of transcripts, they individually coded the

remaining transcripts.

Findings

To help answer the research question: How well and in what ways were students prepared

to teach K-12 students to use and integrate technology to meet content standards or pedagogical

standards, we asked students a series of supporting focus group questions:

• How well do you feel prepared to teach elementary/secondary students to use technology

to work toward content standards?

• What specifically have you learned to do with technology?

• How do you see yourself integrating technology in your future classrooms?

• What factors account for your level of preparation in being able to integrate technology

into your instruction?

• What would prepare you better to integrate technology into your instruction?

• What were your experiences of technology use in field experiences?

• What were your perceptions of digital literacy?

Finally, we reviewed comments that point to possible limitations of the technology infused

program as we have implemented it. Student comments are presented below to help answer each

sub-question.

Some Students Felt Prepared to Infuse Technology into Their Teaching

With respect to the first focus group question, “How well do you feel prepared to teach

elementary/secondary students to use technology to work toward content standards?” we

received variable responses. Students expressed a range of positions regarding their preparation


to integrate technology in their future classrooms. First, there were those who felt less to

somewhat prepared such as one candidate who averred, “… in our class, I noticed…a lot of us

don't know how to exactly use technology extremely well either.”

Candidates also set a higher bar for being prepared. For example, one student

commented,

I would have thought that I was a little under the average for being technologically savvy,

just because I feel like someone said earlier, pretty good with things that have to do with

Microsoft or Word or those kinds of documents. When it comes to sound and video, I

really don't know what I'm doing.

Moreover, candidates differentiated between personal use of technology and teaching it

to K-12 students as demonstrated by one candidate who said, “I feel sort of prepared to use it. I

feel more comfortable using it myself than I would be trying to explain it to a child.” Candidates

typically expressed the sense that they knew how to use common technologies like Microsoft

Office applications, but were not convinced they could create multimedia applications or teach

students to use the technology for addressing content standards. On the other hand,

approximately an equal number of respondents expressed confidence that they were somewhat to

quite prepared. An example illustrates this view when one candidate offered, “I feel confident,

but I want more practice in using technology found at schools, like the SMART Boards.”

Often candidates expressed confidence that they were capable of figuring out how to use a

technology in their classrooms once they knew what they wanted to accomplish. For example,

one candidate asserted,


The way I see it, is I'm pretty tech-savvy in general, and I don't really worry about

learning how to use technology once I know it's there. I can just dink with it, and I will

figure out eventually how it works.

Candidates in this latter category had learned how to learn or apply earlier knowledge to help

them figure out new technologies as they appear.

Summary. About half of the candidates indicated they had some skills using technology,

but they may not have felt comfortable with teaching K-12 students to use it. Others indicated

they felt comfortable using technology themselves, could learn new technologies on their own

and could teach children to use it too. However, a closer analysis of all responses showed

candidates answered this question with respect to technology skills, and to a lesser extent

pedagogical or content use of technologies. In the following section, we report what we learned

from exploring what students learned in their classes and from other experiences.

Students We Exposed to and Learned Various Skills and Technologies in Technology

Infused Courses

To address the preparation research question we also asked students, “What specifically

have you learned to do with technology?” The following codes were identified: technology tools,

digital literacy, and digital story creation. Responses suggest a continuum of learning depending

on the students and the technology tool. Candidates said that they most learned technology tools

(e.g., Microsoft Office, iMovie, iPhoto) communication tools (e.g., email and pen pal programs)

and content area web sites. A student in a language arts methods course provides an overview

when she offered this comment, “We've used like iMovie and iPhoto and the SMART Board,

educational sites to play games. In our writing course, we're making a digital story using iMovie.

That was a cool technology-[in]fused assignment.”


Others discussed online tools. For instance, one candidate stated, “I feel like all those things

we're doing right now, Google Docs for studying, and also the Wiki pages.” Content specific

websites were also viewed as being important as noted when one candidate mentioned, “We

were introduced to a lot of different web sites...” Technology applications that included content

or pedagogy were evident too. One candidate offered,

The pen pals …I thought that was really cool. I feel like I could probably do that with an

elementary school class. Yeah, for the digital storytelling. If you were to be able to bring

in computers, or use computers and have the chance to manipulate the different programs,

or … even if you were to do some kind of thing where two students pair up and one

student tries to learn this program and another student tries to learn another program and

then they teach it to each other … would be great.

Finally, some students were convinced that the programs they learned earlier would be

those they would use and not the programs were they exposed to in the technology infused

course. One candidate asserted, “It'd probably be just, be limited to PowerPoints and Word

documents and things that I feel like I've had a lot of practice with and not so much that I've had

practice with through this class.” In some cases student felt that they were exposed to, but had

not really mastered the technology as noted by one candidate who testified, ”We had a couple

lesson plans with Movie Maker, but that was kind of just trial and error.”

Summary. Students discussed a variety of technologies they to which they were exposed

and that they used. Nevertheless, they often reminded us that although they were exposed to a

certain use, such as web sites for pen pals, and that they could probably implement these

technologies for their classes, others remained a bit uncertain about their ability to implement the


technologies in their future classrooms. These issues will be further addressed in subsequent

sections on “student recommendations” and “instructor’s approaches.”

Students Suggested They Would Integrate Technology in the Future

Students were asked: “How do you see yourself integrating technology in your future

classrooms?” Below we provide illustrative examples in the areas science, mathematics, and

language arts/social studies; similar examples were provided in other content areas.

The responses below from future high school, middle school, and elementary teachers

were typical of responses of small groups of students. For example, future high school teachers

discussed the use of probe ware to collect and graph science data as illustrated when one

candidate declared,

There’s a lot of different things you can do with science …in lab… we used temperature

probes that are connected to something that will record the temperature for you every five

seconds for 10 minutes. That is a lot easier than recording the temperature by hand every

five seconds. …and then you can graph it. That way, students can see the effect that

adding this chemical has on the temperature. Something like that, that technology has

made classrooms so that you can learn so much more, because you can see it first-hand….

A future middle school teacher discussed using a mind-mapping tool to teach science processes

when she stated,

I want to teach middle school science…I would actually use photosynthesis, and have

them create a computer diagram of how it goes through the process…I think that is a big

motivator … in order to make the model, and they'll be forced to analyze the information

that they have, to understand it and make it.

A future elementary teacher indicated she would use simulations in science when she offered,


If you wanted to teach about the weather cycles…find a simulator that they could see

how the water evaporates, then it goes into the clouds, and then it rains, and then it

condensation and things like that. I think it would be really cool because it's an active

visual. It's not just pictures. You see it in action. I think that would be really cool to

have as part of one of those lessons.

Most students provided similar rich overviews of future uses of technology in

mathematics, social studies and language arts. Technologies specifically included were Smart

Boards, personal response devices, video editing, pen pal programs, and QR codes for accessing

information resources. Future uses usually included addressing specific content areas or

pedagogical knowledge as well as technology integration. In summary, as a whole, students in

focus groups were able to articulate future intentions to use technology in content areas.

Instructors Provided Strategies that Prepared Candidates

In response to the question “What factors account for your level of preparation in being

able to integrate technology into your instruction?” students reported four types of instructor-

provided strategies that helped to prepare them to integrate technology in their future classroom.

The four strategies were: exposing candidates to a variety of tools; embedding technology by

asking students to create something with technology, technology requirements in assignments

and online modules; employing project based learning; and encouraging students to share with

each.

Exposure to technology tools. Between one-third and one-half of the students expressed

they were prepared by seeing technologies. In one exemplar, a candidate maintained,


“I feel like being exposed to those different types of technology was useful because I mean if we

want to implement something like that into our classroom, then at least we know that it's out

there.” Although most students were positive about faculty members providing them with

exposure to technology, many also commented on the lack of preparation to apply tools to their

future classrooms.

Embed Technology in Assignments. Some students said that when instructor’s

assignments required technology use they learned to use it. For example, one candidate averred,

“I believe that the assignments that we have been given… have helped to prepare me to the level

I am now as far as transferring that into my teaching later.”

Project Based Learning and Sharing with Others (combined). One instructor

organized his classes around project-based learning projects on which students worked in class.

Students thought this was effective because technology use was required within the project

activity. One candidate suggested this was the case when he affirmed,

…he does a good job of like letting us explore what technology we can use, because he

might be like, ‘Okay, use any aspect of technology you want to explain your lesson or

whatever.’ That gives us the opportunity to kind of go out and see what is out there, and

then share with each other. I learned more from my peers, than I did necessarily from

him. It’s because of the way he designed—the way he taught the class.

However, another student commented on the limited number of technologies explored in the

projects when she maintained, “In this class we've done projects and she says, ‘Go pick a

technology. Here's a bunch of them, go explore.’ That's been the only thing other than

PowerPoint that I've seen integrated in this [course].”


Candidates Offered Advice for Instructors and Program Leaders

We also asked them “What would prepare you better to integrate technology into your

instruction?” Candidates provided advice for improving the effectiveness of technology infusion

in three areas: (a) expand range of tools especially age-appropriate ones, (b) provide more

instructor modeling of technology infusion, and (c) offer more instructional applications of tools

and more pedagogical approaches for using tools.

Expand the range of tools and provide more hands-on opportunities. The view of

this candidate resonated with approximately one-half of students. She indicated, “… yeah, more

of a variety of different kinds of technology - some things I did see.” Another offered, “[we

could be] doing a little bit more hands-on…There could’ve been more variety, because most of

them did consist of a presentation that was focused on using the projector and the computer.”

Creating the activity together is another strategy candidates recommended as exemplified when

one candidate declared,

I mean, if we were teaching a lesson on, let's just say how to make a Wiki, instead of

having something premade to show as an example, a simple activity of making a Wiki in

class would easily facilitate the goal, and translate better with the class who is watching.

More modeling. In addition to the recommendation of more hands-on time, more than

one-half of the students were equally expressive in their discussion of the importance of

instructor modeling. In addition to theory and telling students what to do, they also suggested

modeling it as illustrated when one candidate asserted,

I think to really wrap up all this; we're learning a lot of theory in our block, but we really

aren't applying anything that we've learned. We have teachers that are telling us, "Oh,


you should have your students make a YouTube video." Why can't we do something like

that in our class, so we have practical application of what it is we're trying to learn? We

are essentially learning theory.

Other candidates explained that instructors have views about the frequent use of Power Point, but

students fail to see the views modeled in class. This was exemplified when one candidate

offered,

I’m going to agree with that because she's been discouraging use of PowerPoint… every

single day, so have our other instructors. ‘Don't use PowerPoint for every single thing

you do,’ but all we ever see is PowerPoint in any of our classes.

More pedagogical and content area instruction infusing technology. About three-

quarters of students recommended more instruction on and experiences with technology with

respect to content and pedagogical uses. They contrasted being shown a technology with actually

seeing it implemented in a content area with a pedagogical plan. For example, one candidate

maintained, “We are shown, ‘Here is this and this,’ but we don't know necessarily how to put it

in our content, in our lessons.” Another affirmed, “I feel that [the instructor] definitely shared

with us several resources. While … he didn’t necessarily teach us how to implement them in our

content areas… he did provide to us several types…” With respect to content area integration, a

third averred, “We didn’t really go over ways to implement that in this class, specifically for a

certain content area.”

Clearly, the NETS-S can help students write objectives of a lesson plan. Candidates

explained that they needed more focused attention on the standards and how to use them as noted

when one candidate testified,


but I would like to learn how to use [the NETS-S] in the classroom, so like the pedagogy

of using these technologies. We kind of glanced at it a couple times, but we haven't

really gone into it really deep, which I feel like that would be more useful to me than

learning—necessarily learning how to use them.

Students would also like to have had experiences that prepared them to teach by integrating

technology into their future classrooms. This thought was exemplified when one candidate

maintained,

I feel like when I go my first year of teaching, I want to be able to have run through these

things with a master teacher with me. I think it would be better to learn them now when

we're in the early stages of our teaching program, like just how to integrate them versus

just kind of waiting until the end when we're in the six-month period where we're student

teaching full time.

The advice for instructors that they feature more hands on, modeling, and pedagogical content

knowledge were commonly expressed across focus groups.

Candidates Suggested There Were Limitations to the Technology Infusion Model

A small number of students noted the following limitations of the technology infusion

model: (a) time constraints within a methods course, (b) instructor levels of working knowledge,

and (c) the need for a standalone course.

A smaller group of students thought their instructors were not prepared to integrate

technology into the technology infused methods course. This concern was illustrated when one

candidate commented,

I think it was, like what we were saying how she wasn't fully prepared. She was kind of

thrown in to integrate all the technology. I think that's why we were just introduced to


certain things instead of going into each thing, or at least some of them. I don't think she

was fully comfortable with teaching it.

A few thought there was too much content in the course and including technology integration

material exacerbated the matter. This concern was demonstrated when one candidate expressed,

… I really don't think this … has anything to do with [the instructor] [it’s about] time …

the reasons why she wasn't able to do so much was because of time, that's probably why

we did [look at them] briefly, just were shown the things as resources to have and then

look into yourself.

Another asserted a similar perspective, when she affirmed, “It seemed like it was trying to fit two

classes into one.” For some of these reasons students recommended a separate class. A small

group of students knew that we had previously offered a standalone technology course for prior

cohorts and thought that a separate course would have better met their needs as demonstrated

when one candidate averred,

I think there should be a full class just to go over certain technologies. This class right

now is great, however I think there should be some form of—even like a workshop that

you could go to and just like, ‘This is—today we're going to cover this topic or this

program.’

Moreover, a few students thought that a separate class might allow them to better learn specific

technologies.

Discussion

The discussion is organized around five themes that were represented in the findings.


Theme 1: Candidates were able to articulate visions of technology infusion in their

future classrooms that often included pedagogical or content knowledge. These preliminary

data appeared to support the notion that candidates were interested in and knowledgeable about

uses of technology in the classroom. Often these were based on their experiences in classes

ranging from high school experiences to college general studies courses in addition to their

teacher education courses. Their views must be considered within the context of their perception

of their preparation to integrate technology to address content objectives and what they learned

in their technology infused methods course.

Theme 2. Candidates’ views of their preparation to teach infusing technology

ranged from little to quite well prepared. Those who felt more prepared expressed the view

that they were prepared to learn new technologies on their own. Those who felt less prepared

often discussed being exposed to technologies rather than being directly taught how to use them.

Theme 3. Candidates appreciated opportunities for actively engaging in technology

infusion in their courses. They discussed strategies that worked for them such as project-based

learning, incorporating technology use requirements in assignments, creating digital stories, and

using technology resources in research and report writing. Nevertheless, they also recommended

more modeling of technology infusion in content areas during class, hands-on uses of technology,

and greater attention to the pedagogical uses of technology as well as content applications.

Theme 4. Candidates talked a good game, but were less able to address issues

around the practical classroom uses of technology for pupils to meet content objectives.

Students eloquent described what they planned to do in their future classes, but appeared less

able to spell out the lesson plans, methods of teaching technology skills, aligning specific

objectives based on the ISTE NETS-S with content objectives, and planning for classroom


implementation. They felt that there was too much instruction at the exposure level, and

insufficient instructor modeling during class and attention to content and pedagogical

applications of technology. [Need a cite from the lit to support this view.]

Themes 3 and 4 are aligned with the thinking of those educational technology experts

who prescribe to the TPACK model (Koehler & Mishra, 2008, in press; Mishra & Koehler,

2006), a model that has continually been developed, but one in which the underlying position has

not changed (see for example http://www.tpack.org/). One of the assumptions of the TPACK

model is that teachers learning to become expert at infusing technology need to be aware of what

they do and do not know. What we learned from our students is aligned with others who are

beginning to see that obtaining TPACK is a developmental process, which involves more than

learning technological tools or having experiences (Kauskopf, Williams, and Foulger, 2012);

instead, themes 3 and 4 combined lead us to believe that learning to teach with technology

happens over time, through many experiences, and through experiences that build and grow

more sophisticated as students progress through their program. In other words, these themes

support a curriculum that is program wide over a curriculum that is isolated to a stand-alone

course.

Theme 5. Candidates noted growing pains in our approach to the implementation

of an innovation. In addition to calling for a deeper level of active engagement in instructor-led

activities during class and more attention to how to deliver subject area objectives with

pedagogical strategies, candidates noted that some instructors were not well prepared to model

the technology infusion that they described in their visions of what they would like to do in their

future classrooms. They noted the course syllabus was packed with many important objectives


and assignments, and that technology appeared to be an add-on, i.e., one more thing in an over-

crowded syllabus.

A word of caution is in order. Because this is a large program and our selection of

students and faculty was based on a sample of convenience subject to voluntary participation and

successful scheduling of informant focus groups, our reporting may not represent all of the

instructors teaching 17 sections of courses and the students in those courses.

Recommendations and Next Steps

We offer two caveats and then make our recommendations. First, although we have little

patience for waiting for the ocean liner (our teacher education program) to turn, we realize the

implementation of change takes time. The easy part is often designing the innovation and initial

implementation (Fullan, 2007). The difficult part is staying the course, improving faculty

preparation one person and one step at time, refining syllabi and assignments, finding more

resources, and developing faculty and administrative leaders. Second, we have been describing

student views of our efforts to change the method we use for technology infusion in methods

courses. Fullan points out that the views of administrators and instructors are important, but if

we ignore the voices of students all is lost. With these caveats, we make the following

recommendations for program improvement based on the voices of the students.

1. Involve more of our instructors in professional development in which we stress active

engagement, modeling, and attention to fleshing out teaching and learning within a

TPACK framework.

2. Revise course syllabi to emphasize the integration of technology in objectives and

assignments so that technology is viewed less as an add-on and more as an integral part

of the course. The example of the future science teacher who would like to use probe


ware in experiments or the future geometry teacher who wants to use the Geometric

Supposer to demonstrate the relationship of sides, length and angles for the Pythagorean

theorem comes to mind.

3. Enlist the “early adoption” methods instructors who have made the transition to

technology infusion as illustrative examples and allies in new PD ventures. Continue to

create a community of practice among the instructors of the same course to support each

other in technology infusion.

4. Where the tech infused methods course are situated in site based professional

development schools (PDS), pair P-12 teachers with ASU instructors to provide allies in

planning for classroom implementation and provide P-12 classrooms where future

teachers can experience technology integrated lessons with pupils and their teachers.

5. Provide stipends for course coordinators to take the lead in technology infusion in their

courses.

6. Work with department administrators to revise the letter of hire to reflect their vision for

technology infusion so that all teacher education students gain the experiences of the tech

infused syllabus. Hire only those who agree to fulfill the contract.

Where do we go from here? This is the second phase of a five phase longitudinal study of the

Mary Lou Fulton Teachers College’s (MLFTC) migration from a standalone required

educational technology course to a technology infusion in methods courses approach. In fall,

2012, we implemented technology infusion in the first two methods courses, the subject of this

paper. In our next paper, we will address the implementation of this approach for the second

time (Spring Semester, 2013) featuring the changes that faculty and students make as faculty


teach the courses for a second time and students participate in courses that are revised and

improved and in which instructors have developed more TPACK-based competencies.


References

Creswell, J. (2009). Research design. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Foulger, T. S., Buss, R. R., Wetzel, K., & Lindsey, L. (2012). Preservice teacher

education: Benchmarking a stand-‐alone ed tech course in preparation for change.

Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 29(2), 48-‐58.

Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Fullan, M. (2007). The new meaning of educational change. New York: Teachers College

Press.

Fullan, M. (2008). The six secrets of change: What the best leaders do to help their

organizations survive and thrive. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Greene, J. C. (2007). Mixed methods in social inquiry. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. B. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage.

Krauskopf, K., Williams, M.K. & Foulger, T. (2013). Probing TPCK Usability – a Pilot Study on

(not) Understanding TPCK by a Venn-Diagram. In R. McBride & M. Searson (Eds.),

Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International

Conference 2013 (pp. 2198-2204). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.

Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (in press). Introducing technological pedagogical knowledge. In

AACTE (Eds.), The handbook of technological pedagogical content knowledge for

educators. To be published by AACTE and Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2008). Introducing TPCK. AACTE Committee on Innovation and

Technology (Eds.), The handbook of technological pedagogical content knowledge

(TPCK) for educators (pp. 3-29). New York, NY: American Association of College of

Teachers Education and Routledge.


Kuhne, G., & Quigley, A. (1997). Understanding and using action research in

practice settings. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 73,

23–40.

Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A

framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108, 1017-1054.

International society for Technology in Education. (2011). ISTE NETS: The standards for

learning, leading, and teaching in the digital age. Retrieved from

http://www.iste.olrg/standards.aspx

Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational

Researcher, 15(2), 4-14.

Shulman, L. 2013. Video: Dr. Lee Shulman's Conversations with the Junior Faculty Regarding

the Scholarship of Teaching, Arizona State University. Available at:

https://pll.asu.edu/p/content/page/Dr_Lee_Shulmans_Conversations_Junior_Faculty_Reg

arding Scholarship_Teaching.

Speck, M. & Knipe, C. (2005). Why Can't We Get It Right?: Designing high-quality professional

development for standards-based schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Watson, G. H. (2009). Strategic benchmarking. New York, NY: Wiley.

Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage.

Documents

Technology Infusion Approach ISTE2013 - WordPress.com€¦ · technology course in the candidates’ first semester to infusion of technology into two technology intensive courses,