Preparing Preservice Teachers for 21st century ... - LearnTechLib

Jl. of Technology and Teacher Education (2009) 17 (3) 393-418

Preparing Preservice Teachers for 21st Century Classrooms: Transforming Attitudes and Behaviors About Innovative Technology Mia Kim Williams, Teresa S. Foulger, and Keith Wetzel Arizona State University,USA [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Keeping-up with progressing technology tools has been a troublesome issue for educational technology instructors for over ten years as they endeavor to prepare beginning teachers to integrate technology in their future classrooms. This article promotes instructors’ ideas about behaviors of 21st century teachers, and explores efforts to support their preservice teachers to join this rank. In this qualitative study, three instructors report the results of implementing a new project, the Innovations Mini-Teach, into their course. Overall findings indicated that preservice teachers in this study (a) used a variety of strategies to learn new innovations well enough to teach or model their use to classmates, (b) expressed both a lack of confidence and lack of awareness of confidence-building experiences but indicated their confidence was strengthened by deeper understanding of the usefulness of tools and their abilities to collaborate with peers, and (c) felt they could use technology in their future classrooms, especially those who taught the innovation to others. Based on these findings implications for future research are also addressed.

Nearly ten years ago, David Moursund (1997) wrote a lead editorial published in Leading and Learning with Technology. The problem expressed is one most educators feel. “I am concerned about the time needed to learn

394

Williams, Foulger, and Wetzel

about and to keep up with the rapidly changing technologies” (Moursund, 1997, p. 4). Since then, this problem has persisted, but today we have a new wave of devices that help us access, organize, manipulate, and present or share information. Echoing his words from a decade ago, Moursund (2007) expressed the ever-present need for education to progress with the technology: We are now living at a time when technological change is occurring at a very high rate and seems to be increasing. Thus, our educational system is faced by the problem of how to educate and prepare students for living in a rapidly changing world. ( p. 42) With this remarkable pace of change, educators are pressured to meet the needs of the students we serve. On the surface, this pace of change is evident by the growing number of students using laptops, Information Communication Technologies (ICTs), and other embedded technologies. Even the development of new words and concepts (such as blog, iPod, Google, and wiki) reflects these technological changes. “Yet, paradoxically, the research universities, which created and developed much of the new communications technology, have—unlike business and industry—been slow to apply it to their mainstream activities” (Rhodes, 2001, p. 207). But even “slow” makes progress; and today as the integration of ICTs evolves in higher education, some university courses are shifting from passive lectures to multidimensional information exchanges that incorporate expanded curriculum, personalization and flexibility, and more effective teaching strategies and student interactions that make the most of the technology’s capabilities (Rhodes; Wetzel, Wilhelm, & Williams, 2004). In some teacher preparation programs, technical skill building, instructional strategies, and foundational theory come together in an introductory educational technology course to produce tech-savvy preservice teachers who support learning with technology tools as an effort in modernizing program experiences (Strudler & Grove, 2002; Kelley, Wetzel, Padgett, Williams, & Odom, 2003; Wetzel, Wilhelm &Williams, 2004; Moursund, 2005). But, with the rapid expansion and change of innovative technologies, the learned approaches of preservice teachers expire before they receive their degrees (Zhao as cited in November, 2007). Concepts of 21st Century Teaching and Learning In 1990, noted changes in United States workplace environments related to technology advances and the shifts in needed skillsets for employees

Preparing Preservice Teachers for 21st Century Classrooms

395

began to cause concern about our education system and its ability to prepare students for employment. Over the past 15 years, several reports (Secretary’s Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills, 1991, US Congress, 2002) have helped to shape these ideas. Most recently, The New Commission on the Skills of the American Workforce presented Tough Choices or Tough Times: The Report of the new Commission on the Skills of the American Workforce, the most recent investigation on the status of the relationship between economic and educational endeavors in the United States (National Center on Education and the Economy, 2007). This report echoes the demands of the SCANS report a decade and a half earlier, but points out that a globalized economy is well under way, and claims that the United States is no longer able to tout itself as having the best educated workforce in the world. The New Commission suggests leaders move beyond building capacity in U.S. systems and begin to focus on keeping up with other competing countries. Competing with the United States, highly skilled workers in countries like China and India are willing to work at significantly lower wages. With innovations in transportation and communications technology that make business operations across continents appear seamless, new levels of competition are imposing on economic frontiers. For the first time ever, U.S. workers are in direct competition with workers across the world. This evolving crisis was presented in the report with a message for Americans to “concentrate on competing in the worldwide market for high value-added products and services” (National Center on Education and the Economy, p. 3) by preparing all individuals with competency in foundational understandings of reading, writing, speaking, mathematics, science, literature, history, and the arts. Most important, the report recommends workers in this global era need sophisticated skills never required before of the masses: innovate with technology, renew innovations through creative processes, and work collaboratively to sustain these efforts. Widespread changes in education and training systems are necessary, according to this report, to minimally maintain the current standard of living in the United States (National Center on Education and the Economy). Even with these and other movements to transform educational functions in this country, stagnant classrooms built for a prior era are very difficult to change (Fullan & Stiegelbauer, 1991; Sarason, 1996; Windschitl, 2002). Although a new professional profile has been clearly established by a decade of visionary response to globalization, the necessary practical implications that support these very clear requests remain unclear. Educational changes of this sort are complicated when viewed within the layers of systems that may or may not support the visionary profile. Given the global competition that will require across-the-board change in education systems, and the troublesome history that change in education is difficult at best (Hall & Hord,

396


2006), it is critically important that those most directly responsible, teachers and teacher educators, “engage in debate, decision making, new knowledge creation and action for change” (Ashton & Newman, 2006, p. 825). Twenty-first century teachers, the teachers who have wholeheartedly tackled these charges, understand how standards, assessments, curriculum, and instruction and learning elements can be used to thoroughly address core content while simultaneously requiring their students to use the learning and thinking skills that will carry them through school, work, and life (Partnership for 21st Century Skills, 2007). In essence, these 21st century teachers work toward long-range goals related to helping students build capacity for their adult life in this ever-changing world. When students develop skills related to critical thinking and problem solving, communications, creativity and innovation, collaboration, contextual learning, and information and media literacy skills, they emulate global workplace processes that will be desired by their future employers (Casner-Lotto & Barrington, 2006). Before now, the idea of the 21st century classroom has not yet been solidly defined, nor have the teacher practices associated with the movement been reified. An Innovative Solution Over the last five years, teacher educators have been increasingly challenged to prepare preservice teachers to become 21st century teachers who are in turn capable of meeting the learning needs of their future students, especially given the dynamic nature of educational technology discussed. In an attempt to address this concern, three instructors of educational technology in a teacher education college at a large urban university in the Southwest United States created the Innovations Mini-Teach project. This project was designed to address the surge of new technology tools made possible by Web 2.0 features and the increase in access to technology in PK-12 classrooms in the area. The educational technology instructors were perplexed with the time limitations of a single course and determined it would no longer be possible to do justice to the myriad of technology tools, which were becoming more readily available to PK-12 students. Because of this change, instructors shifted the focus from teaching about new technologies toward preparing their preservice teachers to be teachers capable of learning new technologies on their own and implementing them in meaningful ways when the specific teaching and learning needs arose in their future classrooms. The goal of the Innovation Mini-Teach project was developed to acquaint preservice teachers with new and evolving technologies in an atmosphere where they could help each other learn their assigned technology, better understand how technology could be integrated, and contribute to their col-


397

lection of teaching ideas and materials by way of the accumulated wiki. Instructors emphasized the project’s ability to help preservice teachers’ experience “innovating” by guiding them through a process that encouraged risk taking and collaboration, which are learning behaviors that the instructors realized would positively impact preservice teachers’ future teaching. Each semester the project begins as preservice teachers complete an inventory form indicating their existing knowledge with, and preference for, a myriad of technologies. Using this information, instructors assign small groups an innovative technology, and ask them to learn how it functions and research its potential uses in PK-12 classrooms. During an assigned class time, the small groups are asked to expose their peers to the innovation through a very brief (20 minute) hands-on mini-teach in the classroom computer lab. The mini-teach is not designed to be training for peers to become independent users, but instead meant to expose all preservice teachers to technology integration possibilities. Information about the tool and examples or ideas for integrating the tool into PK-12 curriculum are archived in a class wiki. As a scaffold to assist preservice teachers, the instructor of each course presents the first innovation to provide a model. The second presentation is by a preservice teacher group on wikis, and is meant to help their classmates gain the required wiki editing skills to add a section to the class wiki. View examples at http://innovations08.pbwiki.com/FrontPage Instructors emphasize to preservice teachers the project’s ability to promote experiences in “innovating,” a behavior that would impact their future teaching. Also, this is an opportunity for preservice teachers to experience teaching to a whole class. Typically, they only observe and occasionally work with small groups during their early field placement experiences. Assignment description and materials area available at http://www.public.asu. edu/~tfoulger/Home.html Methods Instructors investigated the process, perceptions, and outcomes of preservice teachers as they experienced the Innovations Mini-Teach project. By examining the voices of preservice teachers after their experience with the Innovations Mini-Teach project, this study sought to understand how preservice teachers progressed toward becoming 21st century teachers. The following three questions guided the study: 1. How do preservice teachers learn a new technology? 2. After the Innovations Mini-Teach project experience, how do preservice teachers perceive their technology capabilities for taking on new

398


innovations? 3. How do preservice teachers perceive the impact of the Innovations Mini-Teach project on their future classrooms? Data Sources and Analysis Focus groups conducted at the end of the semester served as the primary source of data for instructors to gain depth of understanding about the experience from the student perspective. Additionally, focus group data were triangulated (Lincoln & Guba, 1985) with the end-of-semester questionnaire, traditionally offered to the Educational Technology students to gather their insight for course improvement, and the content from the project’s final product, the class wikis. The complete set of focus group questions, endof-course questionnaire, and wiki examples can be viewed at http://www. public.asu.edu/~tfoulger/Home.html Focus Groups Focus groups (Krueger, 1998) were used to gather a deep understanding of the range of preservice teacher perceptions at the end of the project. It was hoped that the depth provided by preservice teacher conversations would support the fine-tuning of instruction and provide qualitative substance related to the preservice teachers’ experiences. We conducted four focus group sessions based on methods described by Krueger. Digital audio files of focus group discussions each lasting approximately 60 minutes were recorded and converted to text. Each focus group had 4-8 participants (total focus group N = 24) and was led by a faculty member familiar with the assignment, but not necessarily the preservice teachers’ instructor of record. Two focus groups were comprised of primarily elementary education, one of secondary education, and one of early childhood majors. This subset of preservice teachers represented the larger demographic of the teacher certification programs at our university and consisted largely of first-generation college students (approximately 50%) who tend to be older than typical undergraduate populations; 37% of our students are over age 25, a variety of ethnic backgrounds (27% nonwhite) were represented and gender ratios were common for colleges of education at 80% female, 20% male. Selecting participants. To assure focus group subjects represented differing viewpoints, preservice teachers in six of the sections of the required educational technology course (n=126) taught by three separate instructors were questioned as to whether they thought the assignment should continue to be a part of the course. This screening questionnaire also ascertained preservice teachers’ availability to attend focus group sessions scheduled to take place


399

outside of class time. In response the questionnaire prompt “the Innovations Mini-Teach assignment should remain in the syllabus for next year," 30% of the preservice teachers strongly agreed, 45% agreed, 15% disagreed and 5% strongly disagreed. Seventy-five percent (75%) of the participants agreed to be in the selection pool and were available for at least one of the scheduled focus group sessions. To assure unbiased, random selection of focus group participants, the screening questionnaires of preservice teachers whose schedules allowed them to attend a focus group were given to a faculty member not associated with the study. This outside faculty member was directed to use a purposeful sampling technique known as maximum variation sampling (Patton, 2002) to create participant groups. This sampling technique provided researchers with a wide range of variation in preservice teachers’ perceptions of the project within each focus group. The resulting four focus groups were comprised of preservice teachers equally representing each of the six courses with a maximum range of perceptions about the project. Due to the fact that very few preservice teachers strongly disagreed or disagreed with the usefulness of the assignment, the percentage of preservice teachers who were adverse about the project were small; but this ratio represented the reality within the larger preservice teacher population taking the course. Focus group questions. As recommended by Krueger (1998), the group leaders posed an initial question to allow each participant to become acquainted with the topic, recollect their thoughts, and listen to their colleagues. Participants were asked to introduce themselves to the others and to explain their Innovations Mini-Teach experience. This was followed by a set of questions that each preservice teacher addressed (Table 1). Follow-up questions occurred naturally to clarify answers and build on the responses. Table 1 Example Focus Group Questions A.

What is your impression of the Innovations Mini-Teach activity?

B.

What are the important elements?

C.

How did you learn to use the innovation?

D.

Is this type of project worthwhile during the first semester in your teacher preparation program?

E.

Did you face any obstacles in preparing your project and presentation?

Analysis After the focus group audio files were transcribed, instructor researchers analyzed preservice teacher responses using qualitative analysis software, HyperRESEARCH Qualitative Analysis Tool v. 2.8 (Researchware,


400

2007). This process began by reading and rereading transcriptions of the focus groups. Guided by the research questions the three faculty researchers achieved high levels of reliability of the coding scheme by working side-byside to collaboratively code one of the transcribed focus group discussions. Codes were continually revised through triangulation of other data sources and then categorized to help researchers identify emergent themes. During that process a common set of categories and associated codes was established. Next, each researcher individually coded the remaining three transcribed focus group sessions. To maximize inter-rater reliability, meetings were held in which researchers came to agreement on how each individual unit of thought would be coded. As the analysis progressed, researchers continued to revise the coding system as needed to reflect the various sources of evidence related to preservice teachers’ experiences. The final analyses yielded 29 codes organized into six categories: (a) collaboration, (b) long term effects, (c) support, (d) preservice teacher perceptions of the assignment, (e) preservice teacher learning strategies, and (f) preservice teacher learning.

Questionnaire An end-of-semester questionnaire distributed to all preservice teachers in each section of the Technology Integration course provided feedback regarding individual experiences during the course, and specifically inquired about the Innovations Mini-Teach project. Of the 126 participants 100 submitted complete survey responses, yielding a 79.4 % response rate. This was administered electronically using a web-based questionnaire (SurveyMonkey. com, 2007). Thirty-five Likert scale questions were used to collect general feedback regarding course assignments and activities. Six open-ended questions were used to target the Innovations Mini-Teach project, including: (a) What did you like most/least about the Innovations Mini-Teach project?; (b) Do you plan to use any of the technologies presented during the Innovations Mini-Teach project?; and (c) How do you plan to use them in your classroom? Course Wikis The course wikis were examined to determine the information and resources provided by the innovation groups as well as any areas emphasized or lacking. Required elements included a description of the innovation, resources to learn to use the innovation, teacher uses/resources, and PK-12 classroom uses and resources.


401

The Voices of Preservice Teachers The investigation commenced because of the desire of educational technology instructors to help preservice teachers become independent, techusing learners, and to help them obtain the other skills instructors feel are necessary for preservice teachers to become future 21st century teachers capable of leading transformation in education. The results section is organized following the three research questions: 1. How did preservice teacher participants learn new innovations? 2. How do preservice teachers perceive their technology capabilities for taking on new innovations? 3. How do preservice teacher participants intend to use innovations in future classrooms? The complex and overlapping themes represented in the data will be reported using verbatim quotes to describe the essence of the preservice teachers’ experiences as related to each of the three research questions. A focused discussion follows the results within each research question section. How did Preservice Teacher Participants Learn New Innovations?

Findings The views of a variety of preservice teachers representing different levels of agreement about the meaningfulness of the innovation project were solicited. The focus group leader asked the preservice teachers to “describe the major steps you used to complete your innovation mini teach”. Analysis of the data indicated that the strategies the preservice teachers used to learn about and complete the innovation project generally included: (a) collaborate with a partner, (b) locate an expert, (c) play with the program or tool, (d) use of the Internet, and (e) ask the instructor. Collaboration with a partner. Since preservice teachers usually worked in pairs (on a few occasions small groups), collaborating with their partners was the first place they started. Approximately 20% of the preservice teacher responses were in this category. In many cases, the collaboration was successful. For example, one preservice teacher explained the process and then her view of collaborating with a partner: They had us fill out a survey type thing about what topics we know a lot about and which you don’t and then they paired

402

Williams, Foulger, and Wetzel you up with someone that maybe knew a little more about it— or if you knew more then you’d be paired up with someone who knew a little less. I thought it was a neat idea because I learned a lot of it, like a lot of ours was handhelds—PDAs— and I learned a lot of it from the girl I was working with, so I thought that was a neat way to do it.

Preservice teachers also divided the task in ways that matched their technology and background. One participant’s class met in a Windows lab and she owned a Macintosh computer. She explained: One of my problems was that I have a Mac, and so I wasn’t able to do it at home—so the girl that I worked with, she did all the actual technology work and I just did the research and so she was the one who actually learned how to use it. Where one partner was less technology savvy than the other, often the less experienced one felt much better about working with a more knowledgeable partner. On the other hand a few preservice teachers reported that their partner was less devoted to collaboration or that their collaboration did not work. For example, one preservice teacher had a partner who dropped out, but didn’t let the remaining partner know. Another reported that her partner’s attitude wasn’t helpful: “‘Well I already know it, so you go and figure it out,’ that was kind of hard.” Also some preservice teachers expressed the view that they would have liked to choose their own partners: I think it would have gone better for me if I would have been able to pick my own partner, rather than getting it assigned because when you pick somebody it’s easier...you’re more willing to work with that person, you’re more willing to listen and talk because somehow you share common ground to pick each other rather than getting assigned to somebody—I think that was the hard part. Generally, preservice teachers found that in some cases collaborating with a partner was successful and in other cases it was not. In cases where it was less successful, preservice teachers suggested that they be allowed to choose their own partners. Locate an expert. About 25% of the preservice teachers attempted to find an expert to help explain the innovation and teach them to use it. In some cases, instructors referred preservice teachers to experts on campus or to resources that would help them. However, in other cases a preservice teacher’s


403

first strategy would not work and they sought out experts who were teachers in their PK-12 internships: I know the first thing I did was Google ‘cuz I had no idea what it was to “Blog” and I had no idea what a “Blog” was and once I did that, then I started asking around to different teachers and stuff just to see what it was and how they used it. In several cases the so-called “expert” was not helpful. Another preservice teacher reported: “[My instructor] said, ‘Ok email someone on the campus,’ and we did that, but we didn’t really get any good help or information.” And in another case a preservice teacher reported that she went to the campus-wide student-computing center for help: The only thing is in [student computing center]—we can’t get help there—we go there and they didn’t know what it was about. They can’t help if they don’t know. One preservice teacher sought a hands-on experience with the innovation as a way to become more comfortable with her innovation before presenting on it. I asked the lady at the resource center if they ever offer like a little class and she said “no”….I would actually like to go and watch somebody give a class, watch like “how would you use this in class? How would they put this into a lesson for a young one” you know? I would love to go watch that and just ask questions and questions and stuff. Not just say, it’ll do this, it’ll do that, you can draw with this, you can draw that. I wanna see what are they gonna’ use it for. Finally preservice teachers voiced their experience that they could go to each other for expert help too. One participant shared, “Like, after the Wiki, I was able to talk to the people who made the Wiki and figure out what they did…, so that helped a lot as well.” Use of the Internet. Approximately 15% of the preservice teachers discussed using the Internet to locate information about their innovation. Some found URLs in their readings or another source. Others started with a keyword search using Google: I know the first thing I did was Google ‘cuz I had no idea what it was to “Blog” and I had no idea of what a “Blog” was.


404

I did the same thing as all of you: I ‘Googled’ it first. I had special bookmarks that I never heard of before, so the first thing I did was ‘Google’ it. However, once again internet searches weren’t always successful strategies as reported by this preservice teacher, “The first step that we took: we got our [assigned innovation] and we had listservs. We looked online and we couldn’t really find anything.” Play with the program or tool. Many preservice teachers did not start with an internet search. Approximately 20% of the preservice teachers learned about their innovation through hands-on exploration of the tool. One participant explained: Ours was hand-helds and the PDAs and so we were able to go downstairs in the Educational Library, and we signed out a whole box of the hand-held PDAs and so everyone got one and then we’d walk through little steps of what you can do, like inputting data into them and we used—we had graphing calculators too, so we brought like little websites, we just pulled them up but we didn’t really use ‘Google’ or anything, ours was just kind of like, “ok well I know how to use a calculator” and she knew how to use a PDA, so we just kinda like collaborated on it and just used each other, so it was pretty easy—I was surprised. Other participants express similar approaches: One of our group members had a GPS system—so they actually had one and we just messed around with it. I was using the Turning Point clickers, so I had to download the software onto my computer and then I just played with it for a while until I felt comfortable with knowing how to work it and all the ins and outs of it. I had Podcasting—I created a Podcast and that was sort of trial and error because I’m sure I could have went through a tutorial… Participants who employed this approach reported this strategy was successful and preferable:


405

Well, we kind of talked about...well, we’d read an article about how our generation kind of plays with technology and that’s how they learn about it. So, I think we maybe learn a little more that way. I [another participant] think just having something that we fooled around with, hands-on, like the hand-helds and stuff made it a lot easier. Ask the instructor. About 10% of the participants reported that they asked the instructor for assistance. In some instances they asked for help in getting started and in other instances they became stuck and asked for resources. Those whose presentations were first asked for more help from their instructor: Plus I think our instructor gave good directions, pointing us in the right way. Especially the people that had to do theirs early on; I think ours was the third one given and he gave us some articles to get us started and point us in the right direction, so it didn’t seem so overwhelming…. We looked online and we couldn’t really find anything so we approached our instructor … so we knew where to focus our research. Discussion Generally, participants reported using a variety of strategies to gain the experiences needed to teach their peers about their innovation. In a few cases when one strategy failed to produce the desired results, participants engaged in another approach. In some cases the type of the innovation influenced the preservice teachers’ strategies. For example, participants preferred to play with tools such as handhelds and Google Earth in order to learn how to use them; however, they researched tools such as the Turning Point clickers through online searches before playing with the technology tool itself. Interpersonal factors also influenced preservice teachers’ abilities to work together successfully. Some participants were successful in their use of internet searches to locate information, while others didn’t know enough to make use of the information they found on the web. A few depended on the instructor to locate initial resources and get started and few were able to depend on a peer for assistance.

406


It appeared that this preservice experience promoted collaborating with others, self-selection of strategies to master the innovation, and sharing the innovations with others supports the recommendations by the New Commission on the Skills of the American Workforce. This report suggested that global age workers need sophisticated skills requiring the ability to innovate with technology through creative processes, and work collaboratively to sustain these efforts (National Center on Education and the Economy, 2007). The skills preservice teachers learned in the Innovation Mini-Teach project were evident by their selection of strategies to learn the innovation and their mastery of the innovation to the point where they could successfully share it with others. How do Preservice Teachers Perceive Their Technology Capabilities for Taking on New Innovations? Findings In analyzing the data, the theme of building confidence emerged from the focus group discussions. Preservice teachers indicated both lack of confidence and awareness of confidence-building experiences. The following section describes and discusses the findings of the participants’ perspectives. Knowledge is power. Preservice teachers commonly identified two types of knowledge developed during the Innovations Mini-Teach process: “expert” knowledge and “needed” knowledge. Both were connected to preservice teachers’ attitudes of confidence with technology. Expert knowledge included declarations of expertise and comfort with a tool or process. Needed knowledge encompassed awareness of what is yet to be learned. One participant explained: I became an expert in one innovation and I have a broad knowledge of a lot of them. I know a little bit about every other one, and then being able to access them and learn more about them on my own, so I think that’s very beneficial. Another participant shares the varied degrees of knowledge about different technologies and integration ideas gained from the assignment: I felt the project we did together went very well and I learned a huge amount about something that I basically knew nothing about. I’ve never owned an iPod, now [my partner] did have an iPod and was a little more experienced—well understood the technology—but after researching it and figuring out how


407

it works, I could definitely see how I could use it in the future and all that was very helpful. And I think our—what we covered, we covered it thoroughly—I think we covered every aspect of it, and I think I would have liked to have seen that same thoroughness in some of the other presentations. I did not feel that after I’d seen some of the other presentations that I came away knowing how to use it or how it would be applicable— so I definitely see the value of the projects and definitely see how I would need to know these things as I go into my own classroom, but I don’t believe that I entirely came away with a full, comprehensive understanding from some of the projects... from some of the presentations. Instructors were successful with creating an environment where preservice teachers relied on each other, sought-out experts, and used online resources as scaffolds to support their learning. The complexities of this experience were explained by one preservice teacher who described how the process supported learning one technology in depth, did not allow for total independence with all the technology tools, yet allowed for evaluation of future uses: I think what is great about this class is that, no we’re not getting retention necessarily and we’re not necessarily mastering the skills, except for maybe with our own project to a degree, but it sparked interest in a few of them for some people and whatever you can pick out. They say “oh, I really liked the SmartBoard; I really hope I get that in the classroom,” or you know at least I know what Wikipedia is all about in a general sense and if I wanted to use it, I would kind of have the background knowledge where I could kind of be like “well I know what’s out there and I can go find someone who’s really good at it and pay attention to that.” The participants expressed more confidence in their skills and knowledge about the innovation they mastered in order to teach it, and less confidence in their working knowledge of innovations based on the short presentation of other groups. They also recognized that they lacked knowledge to implement all the ideas gained from the assignment and would need ways to learn the information after the class was over. Many participants identified the class wiki as a resource for future learning; but uncertainty still existed for implementing technology in the future.

408

Williams, Foulger, and Wetzel I think that you have to use [the technology] to actually master it and I think that we can use each other when we wanna learn something now, but when we begin teaching like you said before, those teachers are relying on us and who are we going to use if we wanna use something?

This participant explained her perspective on needing to bring knowledge to the field and her perceived struggles to implement her existing ideas and to develop future skills with technology. The theme of confidence is further supported by preservice teacher responses in an end-of-course survey. Confidence in personal use exists in 90.5% of participants who agreed or strongly agreed that they are prepared to integrate technology into their future teacher preparation coursework and field experiences. In response to the Likert item, “I fee prepared to integrate technology into my future classroom,” 92% of preservice teachers strongly agreed or agreed with the statement whereas 8% disagreed or strongly disagreed showing that a significant number of preservice teachers were confident in their ability to transfer their current knowledge and skills to the teaching field. Beyond comfortable. Also as evidence of confidence building and, more generally, the need to stay current on technologies and their uses in classrooms so they can remain comfortable with technology tools, participants demonstrated attitudes in favor of risk taking and reaching beyond their comfort zone with the innovative technology tools. One commented on keeping up with her students: And I think it helps you keep up with the kids, I mean I have a 13 year-old child who knew more about that stuff than I did and I’d never heard of it and she was like, “haven’t you ever done that mom?!” and so for me, it was like I could see now how as a teacher I’d be up to speed with my students, who probably have some ideas of this technology. Just knowing that technology could enhance teaching and learning experiences provided some participants with increased confidence in their future teaching abilities with innovative technology. One participant shared, “I think it’s been worth the time and effort. I’ve learned a lot. I feel like [another preservice teacher] said, I’m more confident in what I know.” Collaboration with peers during the process supported risk-taking behavior because the preservice teachers were more confident using technology in the scaffolded environment. As representation, one participant shares her perspective:


409

I am not savvy when it comes to technology, so sadly when it comes to my two partners I probably hindered them, but I tried to help as much as I could. Working together greatly benefited me. Preservice teachers also expressed confidence in and awareness of the meaningful possibilities of innovative technology use in their future classrooms. Some were explicit in the risks they would take and the technologies that they would demand be available for use in their future classrooms. One participant summed it up: So after we did that whole presentation—like after the “smartboard” presentation was done, the classroom I’m in has one, so I’m in there and I’m messing around with everything, and I’m like “this is so cool!” and the kids music and they’re like [sound effect noises] and they were doing everything. Yeah, I’m determined that my classroom will have one of those. You know like, “What, I can’t have a smartboard? I’m sorry, I can’t work for your school.” Participants also talked about a transformation in their comfort with technology and confidence in their abilities to use technology effectively. When asked if the project was worth the time and effort, one preservice teacher recognized that the process made her step out of her comfort zone and try things she would not have otherwise experienced: I felt like I’d stepped beyond my comfort zone because I would have never tried that on my own—I felt like by doing that I’d opened up a lot more things for me. I feel like in just the whole technology class, I’ve really stepped beyond my comfort zone and learning new technologies and using them instead of just going “ok, I know what Podcasting is.” I felt like I felt more confident in myself, like “I know technology, I’m not that technologically illiterate as I thought I was.” Discussion The project’s approach allowed the instructors to establish a unique learning environment that provided a safe playground for preservice teachers to teach and learn. By design, the assignment situated learners in a challenging position where they acted as professionals striving to develop skills and knowledge as they became responsible for continuing the process of learning (as opposed to a traditional school learning process that culminates

410


with a grade or completed project). Scaffolds were consistently provided for preservice teachers through the assignment materials and process, as well as through collaboration with peers. The situation caused uncertainty and constructive anxiety for preservice teachers as they engaged in the assignment. Erikson (1968) theorized that turning points occur during developmental “crises” characterized by increased vulnerability. A crisis “is not a threat or a catastrophe, but a turning point, a crucial period of increased vulnerability and heightened potential, and therefore, the ontogenetic source of generational strength and maladjustment” (Erickson, p. 96). These turning points present opportunities for the development of psychosocial strength. Appropriate challenges often result in greater maturity, richer personality, and stronger ego. The experience of the Innovation MiniTeach project yielded these results as preservice teachers enacted professional teaching behavior desired in 21st century classrooms such as problem solving, interpersonal communications, and technological skills. Engaging in crises with others also promotes social competence, responsiveness, and communication (Erickson, 1968). Both face-to-face and digital communication throughout the preservice teachers’ Innovation Mini-Teach experiences supported collaboration among peers working in groups and across groups as preservice teachers shared information and experiences with each other. Scaffolds helped support preservice teachers during these developmental crises and promoted desirable outcomes by reducing fear of failure. Wellstructured cooperative activities build supportive communities of learning as well as promote positive self-efficacy (Erickson). It was evident that for many preservice teachers “turning points” in their abilities to function more confidently and independently with technology were instigated through this project. For example, during a focus group discussion one preservice teacher shared a crisis when her partner dropped the class and she was given the choice of whether to join another group that had already progressed in the project or to continue with her assignment on her own. She was unsure of her abilities but through taking the risk to work by herself, a transformation in personal confidence was evident to the instructor as well as to her:

And having a partner drop out—that was not good. That started it—at first, it was a problem for me…so after I got over the “oh my gosh, I don’t have a partner,” it was “oh cool. I can do this on my own time, my own leisure, I can get it done the way I want it.”


411

In this instance, the preservice teacher relied on her own resources as well as the scaffolds provided by the instructor and her classmate support to achieve a “turning point.” The turning-point experiences helped the preservice teachers realize their abilities to successfully use technology in innovative ways. As confident tech-savvy learners and teachers, the participants are prepared to meet the 21st century demands in globalized social and work environments and innovate with technology through creative processes as described by the National Center on Education and the Economy (2007). How Do Preservice Teacher Participants Intend to Use Innovations in Future Classrooms? Findings Evidence of this assignment’s effect on preservice teachers’ future classrooms was noted within three overall themes that emerged: (a) foundational knowledge in support of future situations, (b) a stronger vision for technology integration, and (c) transformations in fundamental beliefs about their future teaching. Foundational knowledge in support of future situations. All preservice teachers recognized that some technology innovations were easily applied to their future classrooms (e.g., SmartBoards, video), but other technology tools presented were viewed as only remotely applicable if at all (e.g., listservs, Google Earth). One preservice teacher’s preconceived ideas about the relevance of some technology tools to her future teaching changed dramatically through this project: GPS! I’m like “how is that gonna’ be beneficial in the classroom?” And as you saw people present and pull things out of it that said, “You can use it for this and you can use it for that,” and you’d be like, “oh, that would be really cool” and like Turning Point—I had never heard of Turning Point before and I was so incredibly excited about that because it’s like a game show in your classroom, it’s awesome. I’m totally gonna’ use that. Preservice teachers reported that when the time comes for them to use any of the innovative tools showcased, the overview of tools provided through group presentations was sufficient to support future decisions. Additionally, the in-depth focus of the single technology tool preservice

412


teachers were assigned to present provided them with the ability to become independent users of that tool as well as understand its potential use in their future classroom. One preservice teacher assigned to podcasting struggled initially with access to the tool, but through the Innovation Mini-Teach project became an expert in this innovation. Mine was “podcasting” and I knew nothing about “podcasting” when I first started, and I did know like radio stations...radio programs that made their own “podcasts,” I’d never actually listened to one, but because I did the research and didn’t actually do the creation of one, it gave me the opportunity to look around on the web and find some “podcasts” made by people, like other teachers and classrooms, and things like that. There were some really cute ones, so that was kind of—you know, that’s definitely a tool I pull into teaching. Although some participants struggled with not becoming experts with all the innovations presented, the majority of them recognized the value of having experts within the class community. One preservice teacher commented that the learning design was an efficient way to learn a lot of material: I saw it as a way—kind of like a jigsaw activity: everybody kind of takes their own thing and becomes an expert in that area and just shares that with the entire group. A way to just learn different technologies ‘cuz without it, I would’a never known how to do “Podcasts.” They also relied on each other when trying to implement less-familiar technologies for class projects. One preservice teacher trying to publish to the wiki expressed her initial frustration and strategy to seek out the expert to support her use: I never learned exactly what it was you were doing. Because if I ever needed help I could go with you because I know you did that sort of thing. So, yeah it kind of makes this interesting because like you said, we are all little experts so when we need help, we’re like “hey, who did this?” or “hey, can you help us?” so it makes it...We got close fast. We’re all “I need help!” Another participant responded, “Come over to my house, it’s ok.” Based on preservice teacher voices represented during the focus groups, the culminating class wiki effectively archived all the resources they would need to adopt any of the innovations in their future classrooms (overview


413

of each technology tool, information and tutorials, and PK-12 classrooms teaching ideas). Prior to this dialogue, long-term access to the wiki was not thought of by most of the preservice teachers; but during the focus group conversations they realized the resource could be useful to them in the future—to meet coursework requirements or to help them integrate technology in their future classrooms. All focus group participants conveyed they would definitely make future use of the wiki. Even by the end of the semester one preservice teacher had already furthered her understanding of technology use through the class wiki, and now sees the wiki as a place for ongoing sharing among peers with the focus of supporting future classroom use of technology: I’ve actually already been back in there and looking through stuff; using stuff for (another assignment), I went back to the SmartBoard and pulled up some of the lessons that they used to have the kids you know play around with, so I’ve already done that. So yeah, I think I will be continually accessing and definitely if I find something that’s worthwhile, I’ll put it up there ‘cuz any help I can get is great so I figure, you know everybody else will feel the same way. Stronger vision for technology integration. For the majority of participants, the project created a new awareness of the array of technology choices and their ability or lack of ability to support future classroom needs. As one preservice teacher explained: Yeah, I see where it all fits into my future classroom: I know what I will use, what maybe I won’t use as much, but I know the knowledge is there if I do need it (in the class wiki). I think it’s great. Not only was there an overall heightened awareness of technology choices, but preservice teachers openly evaluated the applicability of individual innovations as well. This preservice teacher knew about global positioning systems (GPS) prior to the class, but had never thought about the application of this particular innovation to teaching and learning: Yeah, I thought I was up to-date on technology until I came into this technology. There’s a lot of it, a lot, that I had no idea that it even existed. I had no idea that you could use a GPS system in the classroom.

414


Another preservice teacher felt she was tech savvy before the class, yet this project opened her eyes to the real extent of her technology skills: Like [another participant], I was quite shocked. Because I feel like I just graduated from high school not that long ago and I was in the classroom and to hear that all this stuff’s out there I had never heard of and I asked my like my younger sister who’s in high school and she’s like “oh yeah, we use it all the time” and I’m like “oh my gosh, I feel old already—I haven’t experienced all this stuff!” So I thought it was really great because I got to be exposed to this stuff that I probably wouldn’t have known about. All the stuff that I would love to use in the classroom, ‘cuz a lot of it’s really great. Many of the preservice teachers understood the benefits this assignment provided beyond the basic use of technology tools and knowledge of classroom application. The expectation for learner independence was not looked at by preservice teachers as a way for instructors to lessen their workload, but was instead viewed as strategic behavior on their instructor’s part to support becoming teachers capable of using technology. Transformations in fundamental beliefs about future teaching. The majority of participants expressed interest in creating classrooms that were uniquely different from traditional learning environments. Some preservice teachers recognized the profound differences in how they viewed their future teaching environments due to the addition of some technology innovations. One preservice teacher expressed the need for teachers to address differing needs of today’s students: …kids are using this stuff and they know more about it than sometimes we do and we need to step it up and make it more interesting for them because in a world of videogames where they’re so over-stimulated, it’s just hard to keep up with them and keep them interested, and so using different things will I think really benefit. Another preservice teacher recognized the way she felt about student control in her future classroom. She shared, “It makes it more student than teacher oriented when you use technology.” One participant began the semester opposed to technology use in the classroom in general, but had a transformation in his perspective of technology integration through the Innovation Mini-Teach project experiences. He stated:


415

At first, I was really resistant [to technology] and I didn’t like it, but you know I did come around a good amount just because you go into a classroom and you see that you need these things and they are necessary...some of the technology can enhance what I can do in my classroom….but some of it, I’m like no way is that ever going to be in my classroom. Others shared the potential for the future: Yeah, I think it will help me become a better teacher just having, just knowing, all the technology that’s out there and what I can explore when I am a teacher. And it never stops—there’s more coming too. To triangulate the responses from focus group participants about the long-term impact of the project on their future classroom practices, the anonymous end-of-course survey administered to all preservice teachers contained two questions that were relevant. To the statement, “The Innovations Mini-Teach project was a worthwhile learning activity,” 89% indicated they strongly agreed or agreed. More significant to future use of the showcased innovations, 91% of the preservice teachers indicated they “plan to use any of the technologies presented during the Innovations Mini-Teach project for personal or professional purposes. Discussion The analysis of triangulated preservice teacher-generated data clearly indicated that preservice teachers were impacted by the Innovations MiniTeach project in desirable ways. The model of this project allowed preservice teachers to learn new technologies to the independent state, gain exposure to a variety of potentially useful innovative tools, and most definitely transform in their ideas about how technology might support their work as future classroom teachers. Most importantly, it was evident that preservice teachers had stronger confidence in their abilities to use technology, and that their shifts in attitude and behavior about the importance of technology in education could have the potential to continue past graduation and into their professional teaching. As a preservice teacher, these participants engaged in learning about new technologies in nontraditional methods that were student-centered and student-directed. This model represents and emulates what the authors believe professional development might look like for 21st century teachers, but at the preservice level, where depth of knowledge is gained by individual

416


members of a community, and where breadth of knowledge is archived for that community as empowered by technology communications (the wiki). Conclusions and Implications This study was initiated by educational technology instructors who wanted their course curriculum to stay current while faced with a myriad of emerging technology tools. Likewise, they wanted to explore ways to promote their ideas about behaviors of 21st century teachers, and support their preservice teachers to join this rank. Three instructors attempted to answer these questions by introducing a new assignment, the Innovations MiniTeach, into their course. Evidence supports the effectiveness of the nontraditional design of the assignment, as it involved nondirected but scaffolded experiences, to lead to group teaching events that were effective in helping preservice teachers participate in the kind of professional development that could carry them forward beyond the end of the course and into their future careers as teachers. Overall findings indicated that preservice teachers: (a) used a variety of strategies to learn new innovations well enough to teach or model their use to classmates, (b) expressed a range of opinions about their abilities to take on new innovations, but indicated that confidence was strengthened by deeper understanding of the usefulness of tools and their abilities to collaborate with peers, and (c) preservice teachers, especially those who taught the innovation, felt they could use it in their future classrooms. The wikis were perceived as a useful resource that would provide a bridge beyond their course experiences, as a future resource to be called upon by preservice teachers when the time arises to use one of the innovative tools. For preservice teachers, the assignment established a supportive environment where they could take risks with technology, learning, and teaching; for some, the assignment ignited a trajectory that preservice teachers felt will lead to innovative, technology-rich strategies that the instructors envision as 21st century teaching and learning. Limitations of Study and Future Research This study was conducted in multiple sections of one course at one university, and therefore, care needs to be exercised in generalizing the findings to other courses. Generalizability can be strengthened, however, if individuals can identify with elements of this study’s particular setting that are similar to their own, or interpret this study in terms of the theoretical framework. However, the positive outcomes reported from this study warrant further investigation by instructors and researchers; systematically exploring


417

the relationship between 21st century ideals and transformative teaching and learning strategies in public education are needed. The researchers have made plans for further investigation and refinement of the Innovations MiniTeach project, including investigation of: (a) what long-term attitudes and behaviors related to 21st century classrooms will these preservice teachers implement once they become practicing teachers? (b) what are other ways to promote preservice teachers to learn, use, and share with others in terms of innovative technologies and uses of tools that will have long term effects? and, (c) can instructors initiate a sustainable transformation in preservice teacher attitudes and beliefs that will serve as a means for establishing a trajectory that will guide their future professional development as 21st century teachers? For example, let us assume that a preservice teacher participating in the Innovations Mini-Teach project becomes a sixth grade teacher. Will this teacher find or create a learning community to support the investigation of new technologies in the classroom? As of today, definitive classroom practices preparing preservice teachers for the 21st century are not well established. Innovative teaching and learning approaches that help education move in this direction need to be further explored and documented. However, it is commonly understood that technology offers a roadway to changes in pedagogy that fit the desired end result, and that teachers who actively keep up with technology developments do so by continually innovating their instructional strategies with existing and new technology. When tech-savvy teachers create teaching and learning approaches that will support their PK-12 students through adulthood in this rapidly evolving era of global communications and media sharing, 21st century classrooms will emerge. References Ashton, J. & Newman, L. (2006) An unfinished symphony: 21st century teacher education using knowledge creating heutagogies. British Journal of Educational Technology, 37(6), 825-840. Casner-Lotto, J., & Barrington, L. (2006). Are they really ready for work? Report commissioned by The Conference Board, Corporate Voices for Working Families, the Partnership for 21st Century Skills, and the Society for Human Resource Management. Retrieved December 20, 2007, from http://www.21stcenturyskills.org/documents/ FINAL_REPORT_PDF9-29-06.pdf Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. NewYork: Norton. Fullan, M., & Stiegelbauer, S.M. (1991). The new meaning of educational change. New York: Teachers College Press. Hall, G. E., & Hord, S. M. (2006). Implementing change: Patterns, principles, and potholes. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.


Kelley, M., Wetzel, K., Padgett, H, Williams, M. K., & Odom, M. (2003). Early childhood teacher preparation and technology integration: The Arizona State University West experience. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education. [Online serial], 3(1). Available: http://www.citejournal.org/vol3/iss1/general/article5.cfm Krueger, R. A. (1998). Analyzing and reporting focus group results. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Moursund, D. G. (1997). The future of information technology in education. Retrieved October 22, 2007, from http://www.uoregon.edu/~moursund/dave/LLT-Eds/LLT-V251997-98.html Moursund, D. G. (2005). Planning, forecasting, and inventing your computers-in-education future. Second Edition. Retrieved October 22, 2007, from http://uoregon. edu/~moursund/Books/InventingFutures/index.htm Moursund, D. G. (2007). A faculty member’s guide to computers in higher education. Retrieved October 22, 2007, from http://uroegon.edu/~moursund/Books/Faculty/Faculty.html National Center on Education and the Economy. (2007). Tough choices or tough times. The Report of the new Commission on the Skills of the American Workforce. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Public Law 107–110. 107th U. S. Congress (2002). November, A. (2007). Allen November interviews Dr. Yong Zaho, Parts 1-3. Retrieved February 15, 2008, from http://nlcommunities.com/communities/alannovember/default.aspx Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2007). Statement of principles: Twenty-first century skills and the reauthorization of NCLB/ESEA. Retrieved December 20, 2007, from http://www.21stcenturyskills.org/documents/nclb_memo_and_principles_0807.pdf Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (3rd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Researchware. (2007). HyperRESEARCH. Randolph, MA: Researchware. Rhodes, F. (2001). The creation of the future: The role of the American university. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Sarason, S. (1996). Revisiting the culture of the school and the problem of change. New York: Teachers College Press. Secretary’s Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills. (1991). What work requires of schools: A SCANS report for America: 2000. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor. Strudler, N., & Grove, K. J. (2002). Integrating technology into teacher candidates’ field experiences: A two-pronged approach. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 19(2), 33–39. SurveyMonkey.com (2007). SurveyMonkey. Software available October 3, 2007, from http://surveymonkey.com Wetzel, K., Wilhelm, L., & Williams, M. K. (2004). The introductory technology course: A tool for technology integration. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education [Online serial], 3(4). Available: http://www.citejournal.org/vol3/iss4/general/article4.cfm Windschitl, M. (2002). Framing constructivism in practice as the negotiation of dilemmas: An analysis of the conceptual, pedagogical, cultural, and political challenges facing teachers. Review of Educational Research, 72(2), 131-175.