Strategies for Increasing Technology Integration into Pre-Service Teachers Teaching Dr. Rick Mrazek and Jeff Meadows
5th Annual Hawaii International Conference on Education August, 2006
ii Abstract A number of strategies were employed to increase the technology integration support and opportunities that students in the University of Lethbridge, Faculty of Education receive during both their on-campus courses and off-campus placements. This study tracks those efforts over two separate student practicum semesters in 2005-2006 with 223 students in Professional Semester I and 207 students in Professional Semester II and attempts to identify current opportunities and the impact made by these efforts on the Faculty members’, students’ and cooperating teachers’ experiences. Baseline data was gathered from a previous set of practicum students through the use of on-line survey instruments and video interviews. These same survey instruments were used with the two prior practicum groups in order to be able to draw parallels between the groups. This report outlines the current structure of the practicum programs within the University of Lethbridge, Faculty of Education, as well as identifies the modifications that were attempted to enhance the ICT opportunities. It also identifies strengths and weaknesses of both the on and off campus components of our practica in that relationship. Because students were surveyed before and after they were in their field based practicum, we are able to draw some conclusions about the present state of technology integration in the schools in which these students were placed. While this was not the focus of this study, because substantive qualitative and quantitative data was collected and analyzed, we are able to comment on it as well. The overall goal of this study was to present a set of recommendations to both the Faculty of Education and Alberta Education concerning strategies and methods that would increase and sustain the integration of technology during pre-service teacher development programs.
iii Table of Contents Abstract ............................................................................................................................... ii Table of Contents............................................................................................................... iii List of Figures ..................................................................................................................... v Project Overview ................................................................................................................ 1 Project Background – Our Program.................................................................................... 1 Current Professional Semester I Program Model ........................................................... 1 Current Professional Semester II Program Model .......................................................... 2 Basis for Change ................................................................................................................. 2 Literature Review............................................................................................................ 2 Other Changes Within the Faculty................................................................................ 10 Research Methodology ..................................................................................................... 11 Overview....................................................................................................................... 11 Project Overview .............................................................................................................. 12 PS I & II Faculty. .......................................................................................................... 12 Pre-Service Teachers. ................................................................................................... 13 Teacher Associates........................................................................................................ 13 Project Timelines .............................................................................................................. 14 Results............................................................................................................................... 16 Quantitative Data .......................................................................................................... 16 Qualitative Data ............................................................................................................ 25 Conclusions....................................................................................................................... 28 Recommendations for the Future...................................................................................... 29 References......................................................................................................................... 32 Appendices........................................................................................................................ 34 Appendix I – Map of Practicum Placements ................................................................ 34 Appendix II – Table 4.2 from Information and Communication Technologies in Teacher Education: A Planning Guide ....................................................................................... 35 Appendix III – PS I Teacher Associate Orientation Package ....................................... 38 Appendix IV – PS II Teacher Associate Orientation Package ..................................... 39 Appendix V – PS II/III Survey ..................................................................................... 40
iv Appendix VI – PS I Pre Survey .................................................................................... 47 Appendix VII – PS I Post Survey ................................................................................. 50 Appendix VIII – PS I Post-Post Survey........................................................................ 54 Appendix IX – PS II Post Survey ................................................................................. 57 Appendix X – PS II Post-Post Survey .......................................................................... 59 Appendix XI – PS I School Placements ....................................................................... 62 Appendix XII – PS II School Placements..................................................................... 63
v List of Figures Figure 1 – Essential Conditions for Implementing ICT’s in Teacher Education ............... 4 Figure 2 – Research Methodology.................................................................................... 11 Figure 3 - Project Timeline ............................................................................................... 15 Figure 4 – 2005 Student Intake Demographics (Gender) ................................................. 16 Figure 5 – 2005 Student Intake Demographics (Average Age)........................................ 17 Figure 6 – Subject Major Distribution of Responses........................................................ 17 Figure 7 – Survey Responses............................................................................................ 18 Figure 8 – Practicum Placement Distribution................................................................... 19 Figure 9 – Rate Your Experience With Computers .......................................................... 20 Figure 11 – Degree of Technology in Instructor’s Teaching............................................ 21 Figure 12 – Level of Technology Integration During Practicum ..................................... 22 Figure 13 – Teacher Associate Encouragement to Integrate Technology ........................ 23 Figure 14 – Time Spent Discussing Technology Integration ........................................... 24 Figure 15 – Use of ICT Program of Studies ..................................................................... 25 Figure 16 – Student Comment Response Rate ................................................................. 26 Figure 17 – Student Survey Comments (Classified)......................................................... 27
1 Project Overview Currently all students enrolled in Professional Semester I (PSI) take an online course entitled: Communication and Technology (ED 3508). The course is designed to be consistent with current research on web-based learning, and to address the need for all students both to understand the demands of the Alberta ICT Program of Studies and to explore larger issues of technology in society. The course is designed to address the need for pre-service teachers not only to learn about a range of technology applications, but also to understand what technology means for their future classrooms. Thus, the course focuses on process-oriented instruction, and on teaching students how to learn and teach within constantly changing technological environments. The course is designed to afford all students a range of opportunities to explore features of various software tools woven into discussions, exemplars, and/or assignments. It is designed to engage students in explorations and reflections concerning the appropriate use of various technologies in teaching and learning. Through the design of a unit of study using University of Lethbridge curriculum guidelines, students are required to explore practical methods to integrate these basic technologies into their teaching and learning. The primary focus of this project was to develop a practicum-based component within PS II that builds on the knowledge obtained by students in PS I. It would also establish an online Professional Learning Community which utilizes tools developed by the Faculty of Education through the Curriculum Re-Development Center (CRDC) and use of the University of Lethbridge “Virtual Library”. Practicum placements for Professional Semesters I and II were made primarily within Zone 6. See Appendix I for a map of the placement area and the School Districts involved. Project Background – Our Program Current Professional Semester I Program Model The Education program consists of four practicum-based components that integrate faceto-face on-campus courses with classroom based pre-service teacher education. The first practicum component takes place before students enter the Faculty and is called Education 2500. This course is outside the scope of this research project and therefore is not described further. Professional Semester I (PS I) is the first practicum based component once students enter the Faculty. It consists of seven modules, each focusing on a different area of importance to pre-
2 service teacher development and the practicum. The focus of these modules is the development of pre-service teachers’ general day-to-day teaching skills and attitudes that are necessary at all levels and subject areas of education. Students attend on-campus modules in Curriculum and Instruction, Educational Psychology, Language in Education, Evaluation of Learning, Teaching Seminar and Communications Technology and Education. In addition to this course work, students participate in 125 hours of classroom-based teaching under the primary supervision of a practicing teacher (Teacher Associate) and on a regular basis a Faculty member or designate. During their on-campus courses, students work in larger groups of up to 45 students for many of the modules, with Teaching Seminar being the exception. In this course, they are placed into small, intimate groups of 10 to 15 so that they create a strong support structure with their peers and receive personal attention to their development. Current Professional Semester II Program Model The third practicum-based component for pre-service teachers is Professional Semester II (PS II). The focus of this cluster of courses is that of longer-term planning in the students’ subject major. This is done through five courses, Principles of Curriculum and Instruction for Majors, Psychology and Education of Atypical Students in the Regular Classroom, Social Context of Schooling, Evaluation of Student Learning and the practicum component. This time students teach approximately 150 hours with as much of this as possible within their subject major or minor. Students’ are again primarily supervised by a practicing teacher or teachers (Teacher Associate) and a faculty member or designate observes on a regular basis to ensure that students are demonstrating the daily requirements of a classroom teacher, as well as providing the necessary planning and evaluation for their teacher associate. Basis for Change Literature Review Each member of the research team brought a unique and divergent view of what technology integration should look like in a pre-service teacher education program. In fact it was this diversity of opinions that was the catalyst for this project. As a result it was especially important for the project to have a solid foundation based upon current literature in the area of technology integration in pre-service teacher education. Despite our differences of opinion, we all agreed that the largest obstacle in this project would be bringing the Faculty members responsible for teaching Professional Semester I and II on-side with respect to seeing the need
3 for an increased emphasis on ICT integration across the teaching modules. Each of the instructors in the program have their own areas of interest and research and a project of this nature could potentially lead to a situation in which there is competition for limited studentinstructor time. In addition to this, there was the difficulty of finding a sufficiently generic approach such that all involved faculty members could find ways to incorporate the integration of ICT modeling and exposure in ways that fit with their teaching style, comfort levels with the technology and pedagogical approach to teaching. Recently one contribution to the literature, stands out as being not only an extremely comprehensive body of work in the area of teacher preparation with respect to technology integration, but also an appropriate staring point for the discussion of ICT integration in this study. The document Information and Communication Technologies in Teacher Education: A Planning Guide edited by Resta (2002) was produced for UNESCO’s Division of Higher Education and is a multi nation survey of principles and practices that have been successful in integrating ICT into pre-service teacher educational programs. While the document is 273 pages in length, its central statement can be summed up in the following quote: “Technology should be infused into the entire teacher education programme. Throughout their teacher education experience, students should learn about and with technology and hot to incorporate it into their own teaching. Restricting technology experiences to a single course or to a single area of teacher education, such as methods courses, will not prepare students to be technology-using teachers. Pre-service teacher education students should learn about a wide range of educational technologies across their professional preparation, from introductory and foundations courses to student teaching and professional development experiences.” (Resta, 2002, pp 32-33) The CEO Forum on Education and Technology (1999) further support these recommendations in their report titled Professional Development: A Link to Better Learning by stating “every professional development program should integrate technology as a part of all training components” (p. 4). They go on to state that exceptional teacher preparation programs do not just prepare their pre-service teachers directly, but they have a further influence in the classrooms that those students engage in practical development by sharing their knowledge with colleagues, modeling best practices with respect to the use of technology and motivate other teachers to follow their example (CEO Forum, pp. 10-11).
4 Resta (2002) identifies the following conditions as being necessary for Implementing ICTs in Teacher Education: Shared Vision Access Skilled Educators Professional Development Technical Assistance Content Standards and Curriculum Resources Student-Centered Teaching Assessment Community Support Support Policies
There is proactive leadership and administrative support from the entire system. Educators have access to current technologies, software, and telecommunications networks Educators are skilled in the use of technology for learning. Educators have consistent access to professional development in support of technology use in teaching and learning. Educators have technical assistance for maintaining and using the technology. Educators are knowledgeable in their subject matter and current in the content standards and teaching methodologies in their discipline. Teaching in all settings encompasses student-centered approaches to learning. There is continuous assessment of the effectiveness of technology for learning. The community and school partners provide expertise, support and resources. School and university policies, financing, and rewards structures are in place to support technology in learning (ISTE, 2000)
Figure 1 – Essential Conditions for Implementing ICT’s in Teacher Education (Resta, 2002 p. 74) In 2002, The Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education identified basic principles for development of effective ICT teacher education (SITE, 2002). Resta (2002) includes a chart based on the ISTE National Educational Technology Standards for Students (International Society for Technology in Education, 2002) that clearly defines the conditions they feel must be in place “for each phase in the teacher preparation process in order to support effective use of technology to improve learning, communications, and productivity.”(Resta, 2002, p.77) This chart focuses on the stages of General Preparation, Professional Development, Student Teaching/Internship, and First-Year Teaching. It is so intrinsic to this study that it has been included in Appendix II to assist the reader in placing this study’s findings and recommendations into an appropriate context. This work was based on the need for a common shared vision among the various levels of educational organizations from K12 through to post-secondary education. ISTE assisted with the development and articulation of
5 the Technology Standards for School Administrators. “One of the most comprehensive undertakings in bringing meaning to the area of leadership for ICT in education is the work of the Technology Standards for School Administrators (TSSA) Collaborative. The Collaborative sought to recognize the key role of administrators in ICT leadership. Development of the document was based upon a process of national consensus across the United States identifying what administrators should know and be able to do to optimize effective use of technology. Three broad roles were identified with the necessary fundamental knowledge and skills identified as standards for each of the roles. These roles include a) superintendent and executive cabinet, b) district-level leaders for content specific or other district programs, and c) school-level leaders, including principals and vice-principals. Broad standards areas were established as core performance indicators, and then each standard area was further refined to highlight role-specific technology leadership tasks for each of the three leadership roles (Mrazek, Hollingsworth, and Steed, 2005). On a provincial and local level, Hollingsworth, and Mrazek’s (2004) Information Technology Leadership in Education: An Alberta Needs Assessment provided many insights into the process necessary for participation of the 10 school districts that comprise Zone 6 in the present study. Early in 2003, Alberta Learning released its proposed Learning and Technology Policy Framework for discussion. This served as a central focus for the Technology Plus section of Alberta’s Commission on Learning’s October, 2003 report Every child learns. Every child succeeds. In their recommendations section, there were 3 major areas to be addressed, including Learn with technology not about technology, prepare teachers for integrating technology, and use technology to improve access. The first two have direct implications for this study. For all involved in K-12 and post-secondary education systems in Alberta, the following recommendations related to the first area needed to be considered (Alberta’s Commission on Learning, 2003): 61. “Implement the proposed Learning and Technology Policy Framework and take action to fully integrate the use of technology in every classroom over the next five years… 62. Set province-wide standards for the types of technology that should be available in every classroom…and 63. Expect principals to provide proactive leadership in integrating technology in both the instructional and administrative aspects of the school” (pp. 108-110).
6 For Alberta Faculty of Education teacher education programs the recommendations in the second area were quite specific: 64. “Require all teachers to be proficient in the integrated use of technology in their teaching and ensure that they have the necessary support in their classrooms. To successfully integrate technology in the classroom, teachers should be expected to: •
Demonstrate a sound understanding of technology and electronic media operations and concepts
•
Plan and design effective learning environments and experiences supported by technology
•
Implement curriculum plans and strategies for applying technology to maximize student learning
•
Apply technology to facilitate a variety of effective assessment and evaluation strategies
•
Use technology to enhance their productivity and their professional practice
•
Access online resources both for their students and for their own professional development
•
Understand the social, ethical, legal and human issues involved in the use of technology in schools and apply that understanding in practice.
Achieving these expectations should be a professional responsibility of all teachers… 65. Model the appropriate application of technology in all teacher preparation programs and provide adequate, ongoing professional development. Teacher preparation programs currently are provided by universities through an agreement with the Minister of Learning. Their students are expected to have all the skills outlined in the Teaching Quality Standard for the province, including the ability to apply a variety of technologies to meet students’ learning needs. While all teacher preparation programs provide some courses on the use of technology, few model and integrate
7 the full potential of technology in courses taught by university faculty members.” (p. 110) In response to the Learning Commissions recommendations, In February 2004, the Faculty of Education participated in a symposium sponsored by The Canadian Association of Deans of Education (CADE) at the University of Calgary in the Faculty of Education. As a result of this National Symposium on the Integration of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) in Faculties of Education in Canada, there was unanimous commitment to a number of Guiding Principles in the summary proceedings document Emergent Framework for ICT Integration within Faculties of Education in Canada (LaGrange, A. and Foulkes, E., 2004) including the following: •
“Approaches to curricula and pedagogy in teacher education should respond to changing learner needs created by fundamental transformations in the world being brought about by the pervasive availability of ICTs and the increasingly influential role of ICTs in how knowledge is accessed, produced, extended, and transferred.
•
Teacher education programs must include elements supporting students in learning: o about technology (e.g., technical advancements, sociology of impact of technology on students’ current and future lives, the nonneutrality of technology); o with technology (e.g., using ICTs for their own learning, having use of ICTs modeled in professors’ pedagogy); and o how to seamlessly incorporate the use of ICTs to support rather than overtake their own professional curricular and pedagogical judgments and practices.
•
ICTs should be infused in a wide range of experiences throughout pre-service teachers’ professional preparation (i.e., from introductory and foundations courses, to practicum experiences, to continued professional development)
•
Experiences provided should focus upon both ongoing computer or technical literacy (i.e., with technology advancements) and professional literacy (i.e., using ICTs to foster educational growth within students).
•
Teacher education programs must acknowledge that all disciplines in the world are being transformed by technology, changing both what the
8 discipline is about and the way work is being carried out. •
ICT experiences must prepare teachers capable of recognizing and responding to the new ways K-12 students communicate and access information over the Internet, to how closely tied their school expectations are to their daily activities, and to the “information age” mindset of today’s youth.
•
Educators must now focus on where technology is taking us and not worry about the bells and whistles on the vehicles transporting our pre-service teachers or their students. (p. 10) and
•
Educators’ experience with ICTs should be embedded both within their professional preparation experiences, their professional practices, and in their future professional development activities.
•
Learning about ICT integration is more than just learning about the technologies (i.e., basic computer literacy among today’s students can be taken for granted). A tension exists between development of technical skills and development of the capacity to embed those skills in professional practice.
•
Skills learning is best followed up with authentic, integrated use in one’s own learning and, finally, embedded into one’s practice based upon how it contributes to pedagogical goals and principles.
•
Learning with ICTs must occur in meaningful and pedagogically sound ways (i.e., where appropriate, when appropriate).
•
Students must learn to discern appropriate use of technologies to support the teaching and learning process.
•
Pre-service students should be exposed to modeling of ICT embeddedness by their own teachers and provided with opportunities to embed ICTs in their practice teaching in K-12 classrooms.
•
Faculty members must be challenged and supported to model and discuss their particular disciplines as they are now configured in a digital age. In doing so, technology would simply be an embedded part of their courses.
•
Pre-service education, in-service practice, and research need to be harmonized and leveraged.
•
Implications for use of ICTs must be examined within the context of broader
9 approaches to teaching and learning (e.g., inquiry-based and problem-based pedagogies and constructivist epistemology).” (p. 11) But what key elements must be applied in the study of Practicum ICT Integration in a Faculty of Education in Alberta? The UNESCO report describes what the ideal pre-service teacher educational program should look like. The learners must be presented with contextually appropriate situations in which technology plays a role and then given the necessary technical skills to find solutions that fit with their personal philosophies and approaches to teaching and learning. The need for effective modeling of the use of technology in these situations as well as the support for the students’ use of it is absolutely necessary. (Resta, 2002, p. 33) Methods for increasing faculty modeling of the effective use of technology in teaching and learning situations along with an increased support for their application of the technology in the day-to-day learning of their students were identified as the focal point for our study based upon this literature. Finally, Resta states that if the ICT integration is to be successful in transforming the way that the pre-service teachers view it, it must be made applicable to their immediate teaching and learning realities. If it is not viewed as important and interesting, at best it will be catalogued as “another good teaching strategy”, but not be made a central skill in their everyday planning and student-teacher interactions and at worst completely disregarded. (p. 171) This is also echoed by LaGrange and Foulkes (2004) when they state that “Educators’ experience with ICTs should be embedded both within their professional preparation experiences, their professional practices, and in their future professional development activities”. (p. 11) One of the challenges posed in this study was the extent and range of the practicum placements over a large geographic area. The use of specific emergent technologies and tools were investigated in an attempt to identify successful models for developing on line learning communities. In this area we were fortunate to be able to draw on research initiatives we had previously been involved in focusing on on-line distributed learning projects (Steed, & Mrazek, 1999, 2000) and the use of video-conferencing in Alberta classrooms (Anderson, Mrazek, and Frieson, 2005). The challenge now was to now apply this knowledge base through translation into the needs of the students, faculty and field involved in the Professional semesters of the University of Lethbridge teacher preparation program.
10 Other Changes Within the Faculty During the course of this project, a number of changes were taking place that were outside the scope of our project, but which complimented what we were attempting to do. As a result, we were asked to participate in their introduction to both faculty and students. One major change which fit nicely with what we were attempting to do was the comprehensive updating of forms used to summatively and formatively assess the PS I and II students during their practicum. The new forms incorporated more descriptive language, a more accurate scale for rating the students and specifically addressed the use of technology within the pre-service teachers’ teaching during practicum. With the implementation of these new forms and an effort from our Field Experiences Office to “reconnect” in a face-to-face forum with teacher associates, a series of PS I and II teacher associate workshops were held. These workshops gave the Field Experiences Office an opportunity to meet with interested teacher associates to ensure that they understood the structure and function of the practicum that they were assisting with as well as to examine the new forms and discuss their use. By participating in these workshops, we were able to talk to the teacher associates about our research and the impact that it would have on their student teachers. We made it very clear that we were not assessing their use of technology, but instead were examining the opportunities that student teachers were given during their practicum. In all we attended six workshops and had an opportunity to talk with to over sixty teacher associates in PS I and II. For those unable to meet with us in this face-to-face manner we asked the Field Experiences Office to email a background information package (Appendices III and IV) to the teacher associates. A second change that occurred was the reintroduction of Integration Days within the PS II program. While this is not a new idea (it has been done in a number of different ways over the past ten years), its rebirth at this time allowed us an opportunity to not only meet with the faculty to discuss our research, but to also meet with all of the students. The idea behind the Integration Day was to provide a larger context to the courses for both the faculty and the students. It allowed time for key faculty members to meet and coordinate their activities and assignments so as to create assignments that were larger than just one module. During the Integration Day, students were given time to work with each of their instructors for the purpose of getting assistance with their unit plans before beginning their PS II practicum. We took this opportunity to talk to them about our research and what we required from them during their practicum. We
11 also took this opportunity to help them with technology integration ideas in their lesson and unit plans. Another change that took place that had an effect on our project was to move from teaching the Education 3508 Communication and Technology module of PS I in a face-to-face setting to an entirely online course. This change was made on a pilot basis. Based upon feedback from both students and faculty in this study, the course will be returning to at least a partial faceto-face delivery format in future versions. This change to the delivery format of this module may have negatively impacted students’ understanding of integration opportunities and ideas. This is discussed later in this report. Research Methodology Overview This project has three very different categories of participants involved; pre-service teachers, faculty instructors, and the teacher associates in the field who will be working with the pre-service teachers. The following is a graphic representation of the scope of this project: PS I Activity
Evaluation Tools
Pre-service teachers On campus participation in discussions and assignments that have been mapped to the ICT Outcomes. Pre survey Post survey Post practicum survey (See Appendix V, VI & VII)
PS I Faculty Modeling of possible classroom methods for integrating technology into teaching and learning. Post survey of each Instructors methods for addressing ICT Outcomes in their courses.
Teacher Associates Providing opportunities and support for the students use of technology in the classroom Post practicum survey (to be completed with their pre-service teacher)
Pre-service teachers On campus participation in discussions and assignments that have been mapped to the ICT Outcomes. Pre survey Post survey Post practicum survey (See Appendix IX & X)
Figure 2 – Research Methodology
PS II PS II Faculty Modeling of possible classroom methods for integrating technology into teaching and learning Post survey of each Instructors methods for addressing ICT Outcomes in their courses.
Teacher Associates Providing opportunities and support for the students use of technology in the classroom
Post practicum survey (to be completed with their pre-service teacher)
12 Project Overview PS I & II Faculty. For change to occur within the minds and actions of students it must be modeled by their instructors. While some faculty members within the PS I program were aware of the ICT Outcomes and modeled the use of technology within their classrooms, it has not been a focus across the PS I program. Up until now, it was felt that the Education 3508 module – titled Communication and Technology, was sufficient. Unfortunately, this module does exactly what it teaches the students not to do – it teaches technology in isolation of subject material. In order to better align the Faculty instruction in PS I with the intentions of the ICT curriculum, more emphasis needed to be placed upon its integration throughout the PS I modules. This process was started during the summer of 2005, as Dr. Lorraine Beaudin personally met with instructors in PS I to discuss ways in which ICT Outcomes could be addressed within their modules. The method and degree of integration was entirely up to the individual instructor based upon their familiarity with technology, comfort level and teaching style. In order to assist faculty in this integration process, a correlation chart was drawn up that maps the current assignments being used within the modules (as taken from course outlines) to the ICT Outcomes. This tool was used to help instructors understand what outcomes can and are being covered, and also gave an overview of the outcomes that are being addressed and those that are not. At the conclusion of the PS I on-campus component, the PS I instructors were asked to provide feedback on the types of technology integration they attempted and how effective it was for them. This was used as one component of the evaluation. This same process outlined above was employed with the PS II Instructors. During the PS II planning meeting (held in November, 2005), a presentation was made to the faculty who would be teaching in PS II and methods of integrating technology into each of the courses were discussed. A correlation chart was established for the existing assignments within PS II and instructors were challenged to integrate technology in meaningful ways into their lectures and classroom activities. An educational technology specialist was available to assist with identifying different methods for integrating technology and then the faculty members were supported both by the technology support staff within the faculty as well as the Curriculum Re-Development Centre staff, who are available to assist with just these types of activities.
13 Pre-Service Teachers. As 222 students entered PS I in the fall of 2005, they completed an entrance survey that outlined their familiarity with different software. As well their expectations of the use of and integration of technology in both their teaching and their learning during PS I was gathered. This survey was used as a benchmark of their technical abilities as well as their “mind-set” with respect to the use of technology in teaching and learning. Once they completed the on-campus component of PS I, they were surveyed again to assess how the on-campus component met with their expectations and how this impacted their view of the use of technology in education. Upon the completion of their practicum component, they were asked to again fill in a brief survey to see if the classroom reality had changed their perceptions of technology and its place in the classroom yet again. This data followed students into PS II and was used as a baseline for the success of the integration efforts described above in the PS I faculty section. Any students who did not participate in PS I in the fall of 2005 were asked to complete an entrance survey. Students were surveyed again just prior to their practicum to assess the effects of the increased ICT focus on their planning and views of technology integration into their teaching. Upon the completion of their practicum, they completed one final survey to see if their expectations for ICT integration into their teaching and their students learning was realized and if it was not, identify what some of the barriers were. PS II students who completed their practicum in the spring of 2005 were also surveyed in an attempt to gather some baseline data for students’ views of ICT integration after the traditional offering of PS II on-campus courses and practicum. This survey was emailed to students prior to their beginning their PS III placements. Teacher Associates. Working in collaboration with the Field Experiences Office, the teacher associates were invited to orientation meetings held in their geographical areas just prior to the PS I students entering the field. At these orientation meetings, the teacher associates were informed about the practicum program and its expectations, as well as each person’s role within the practicum. During these orientations, we provided information about our research project, identified this as a focus for the Faculty, and solicited their assistance in providing the students with support and guidance with respect to the use of technology within their planning and teaching. This was not greatly emphasized within the PS I practicum due to the inexperience of the pre-service teachers and the expectations that are already be placed upon them during their teaching. The primary
14 purpose was to inform teacher associates of the changes that were made to the program and ask that they encourage any ICT integration made by the pre-service teachers while they are working with them. They were also asked to express their expectations of the types of technology integration activities they would like to see the pre-service teachers participating in during the practicum to ensure that our students are meeting and exceeding those expectations (were possible). This information was used to help correlate the on-campus activities in the future with the expectations in the field. The teacher associates were also asked to complete a survey at the end of the practicum (with their pre-service teacher) to provide feedback on the types of integration that were attempted and their success. Similar meetings were held with teacher associates prior to PS II students entering the field. It was at this point that the teacher associates were informed that the pre-service teachers had increased expectations placed upon them with respect to technology integration during their practicum. They had an opportunity to express their expectations for technology proficiency and use of their pre-service teachers during the practicum, and this information would be used to help correlate the on-campus activities in the future with the expectations in the field. The PS II teacher associates were also surveyed upon the completion of the practicum in order to gather information about the technology integration activities that were attempted in their classrooms.
Project Timelines The foundation for this project was laid in the spring of 2005 with the planning and initial implementation taking place between July and December of 2005. It was during this period that the pre-service teachers were introduced to the survey instruments and refinements made to the data-gathering model in order to increase the accuracy and validity of the final data. This initial data was also used as baseline data in order to examine the effects of the modifications made during the PS II session. The following Figure shows the progression of the project along with benchmarks.
15
Figure 3 - Project Timeline
16 Results Quantitative Data Before we began the central focus of this research, we attempted to gather a set of baseline date from the PS II and III groups that had just completed their practicum in the spring of 2005. Of the 41 students who responded, 14 had just completed their PS II practicum and the remaining 27 had completed their PS III practicum. They were asked to complete a 43 question on-line survey that asked them questions about their use of technology and their support of the use of technology during their practicum. The questions that were asked of this group were then mirrored throughout the rest of the surveys that were conducted with the PS I and PS II students over the next two semesters. In the following graphs, this data will be used to show changes to student perceptions after the modifications that we made. While we did not collect specific demographic data on the students who responded to the surveys used in this project, we did have access to the general demographic data that is collected from students during each intake. The 2005 student intake consisted of 222 students, 166 (74.8%) of which were female and the remaining 56 (25.2%) male. The average age of the female students was 24.6 years while the male students average was 26.6 years. This information is reflected in Figures 4 and 5 below.
Figure 4 – 2005 Student Intake Demographics (Gender)
17
Figure 5 – 2005 Student Intake Demographics (Average Age) In an effort to account for different levels of technology integration in different areas of instruction (Physical Education generally being lower than other areas), all students were asked what their major of study was. Figure 6 below shows the distribution of respondents with respect to their major (and in PS II this would be roughly equivalent to their teaching area).
Figure 6 – Subject Major Distribution of Responses
18 The student responses to the surveys varied widely. Some of the tools received a very good response rate (near 50%), while others received far poorer response rates (as low as 18%). In some cases this was due to timing (the PS II/III survey tool could not be released until it received clearance from LAFEC the University of Lethbridge/Alberta Teachers Association/School District liaison committee. This took longer than anticipated.), and in other cases it was due to the large amount of things that students have to attend to during the periods of the semester that we were trying to survey them at. Figure 7 below shows the distribution of responses over the six survey tools that were used.
Figure 7 – Survey Responses The nature of the professional semesters in our faculty are designed so that PS I focuses primarily on elementary level placements for the pre-service teachers. This ensures not only that students attempt to teach at a variety of different levels, but it also reduces the stress of teaching higher-level content during the early stages of teacher development. The grade level focus of students who responded to these survey instruments is shown in Figure 8.
19
Figure 8 – Practicum Placement Distribution One of the first questions that we asked all of the groups was to rate their experience with computers. The students were asked to rate themselves on a five-point scale (none, very limited, some experience, quite a lot, extensive and unsure). The central approach to technology competency within the U of L pre-service teacher program is Education 3508. This course covers basic technology skills and some discussion and activities that involve integration of these technology skills into teaching and learning. Unfortunately due to the design of the professional semesters, this course takes place during PS I, and there is no dedicated technology course during PS II. While the students’ responses to this question seemed to show some positive trends like the increase in their perceived experience with computers after Education 3508 and a trend towards more experience as they progressed through their practica, this is not consistent across all students. One of the key tools to be able to integrate technology into teaching is specifically instruction on how to link the theory and practice of integration together.
20
Figure 9 – Rate Your Experience With Computers The literature has clearly shown that to possess skills with technology (computers) does not guarantee that it will be used in teaching and learning. Unfortunately, as faculty see students becoming more and more competent with the use of technology, many seem to make the erroneous assumption that this means that they will be able to integrate this into their teaching In addition to trying to ascertain students’ perceptions of their own abilities with technology, we also wanted to look at their attitude towards the integration of technology into teaching as they moved through the Faculty. Figures 10 and 11 show the responses to the questions “to what degree do you feel that technology should be a part of your preparation for teaching during your practicum?” and “to what degree do you feel that technology should be a part of your instructor’s teaching during your on-campus courses?”
21
Figure 10 – Degree of Technology During Practicum Preparation
Figure 11 – Degree of Technology in Instructor’s Teaching While the data showed a slight increase in the students’ view of technology integration during their preparation, there was actually a slight decline in their view of their instructor’s use during on-campus instruction. This may be due to some negative experiences with their instructor’s use of technology that will be discussed further in the qualitative section. The final area that was examined in the surveys was the amount of support, modeling, and encouragement that the students received during their practicum placements. Figure 12 shows the students’ perception of the level of technology integration in the schools where they
22 were placed for their practicum. Although from the responses it would appear there were more opportunities during PS II and PS III, this is also greatly affected by the School District and grade level in which they were placed. PS I and PS II placement distribution is included in Appendices XI & XII.
Figure 12 – Level of Technology Integration During Practicum One of the key areas that we hoped to impact was the amount of support that the students received during their entire practicum to attempt to integrate technology into their teaching. Figures 13, 14, and 15 all examine ways in which the students were encouraged to think about and attempt to use technology within their teaching.
23
Figure 13 – Teacher Associate Encouragement to Integrate Technology We were quite surprised by the very low occurrences of technology integration that students reported seeing during their practicum. There are several factors that could contribute directly to this, not the least of which being that the students are often so immersed in their own classroom and experience that they do not get an opportunity to venture around the school and see what else is taking place. This does not explain why their teacher associates were not modeling these teaching techniques though. This may reflect that there is not only a need to increase our students’ use of technology but also indicate a need to encourage that the ICT Outcomes should be addressed by all schools, but we do not have enough data to make that conclusion. The feedback from this question suggests that the student experience varied greatly with respect to the encouragement that they received with respect to technology integration. At the PS I level we would think that the encouragement should have been less as there would have been more focus on core teaching skills, classroom management, pacing, achieving closure to the lessons and getting used to the rigors and routines of the classroom. By PS II, students should have these basic skills developed and should be beginning to attempt to incorporate other strategies and methods of delivery in order to engage their students. This is reflected in the evaluation criteria for the practicum. At this point they should be encouraged to try many different styles of delivery, but these results seem to suggest that the integration of technology was not one that was highly supported by the teacher associates.
24
Figure 14 – Time Spent Discussing Technology Integration One of the comments that comes through consistently in the qualitative section of the responses is the difficulty of accessing the technology that is in place in the schools because of the high demand on the limited resources. From our previous experience in the schools, we suspected that this was going to be an issue, so one of the things that was discussed with both the teacher associates who attended the workshops and the students, was the importance of at least discussing how the ICT outcomes could be addressed during lessons if there had been access to the technology that was within the school. Figure 14 illustrates there was some impact upon the amount of discussion that took place around the integration of ICT Outcomes and technology.
25
Figure 15 – Use of ICT Program of Studies Without a doubt the most challenging feedback that we received was to the question “I referred to the ICT Program of Studies during my practicum?”. It is very difficult to meet ICT Outcomes and track them if the program of studies for it is not used during the lesson planning process. This data paints a very bleak picture of the use and integration of technology and the mapping of that technology use back to the outcomes. This was further supported by qualitative data from students who in PS III didn’t even know that there were ICT Outcomes. During the PS II Integration Day activities, more than one student commented on whether or not these Outcomes were necessary and why they needed to worry about them. Comments like this would suggest that in some cases the ICT Curriculum has really not come very far in the 10 years since it was introduced and that many teachers still view it as an add-on to core curriculum. Qualitative Data Each of the surveys contained an open-ended comment question that allowed students to address things that they felt were not touched on in the other questions or to make statements about their on-campus or practicum classrooms. While not all students who completed the surveys chose to make comments, the number of students who we received comments from was substantial. Figure 16 shows the number of respondents who chose to make comments on each of the surveys.
26
Figure 16 – Student Comment Response Rate In order to make some general statements about the types of comments that were made by the students, each comment was placed into a category based upon the content. The classifications that were used were Positive (meaning that the student had something positive to say about their experience either on-campus or in their practicum with respect to technology integration), Neutral (meaning that the students comments were neither supportive or positive about their experience nor negative with respect to technology integration), and finally Negative (meaning that the comment was negative in nature about the technology integration they experienced or the setting that they were in). We anticipated some difficulties trying to categorize the comments in this way, but surprisingly the comments fit quite easily into one of these three categories. The students were for the most part either very passionate for or against the experiences they had with respect to technology integration, or their comment did not apply to this research project (Neutral). Due to the extremely small response rate of the PS I Post Survey (5%), we will avoid making any general comments about this set of data. Figure 17 shows these responses as percentages of the total number of responses in that particular survey.
27
Figure 17 – Student Survey Comments (Classified) We had anticipated some negative comments about the practicum placements, as we know that there are schools and placements where technology integration is not the priority of the learning community. What we hadn’t anticipated was the large number of negative comments about the on-campus portion of the PS II practicum semester. As mentioned, the extremely low response rate makes it impossible to compare PS I to PS II on-campus courses, but from the comments made on the PS II Survey, it was very clear that students wanted a module like Education 3508 at the PS II level as well. The majority of the negative comments mentioned 3508 and stated that any technology integration that was done in PS II was not done in the context of their teaching. Students commented consistently that they wanted specific instruction in which the strategies and techniques were modeled and discussed as methods of delivery and student engagement. Similarly disturbing were comments that it was not fair to evaluate students on technology integration when “ICT/tech was not touched on in ANY PS II course we had.” This was not an isolated comment as others stated things like “I think it would have been helpful for professors to demonstrate, through their lessons, HOW to use technology in the classroom” (PS II Post Survey) or “there was little to no focus or mention of technology in my course work and I wonder why it’s not there” (PS II Post Survey). These comments suggest that despite many faculty members trying to integrate technology in their classroom, PS II is not meeting the ICT needs of all the students in our program. Students are not getting a clear and consistent picture
28 of the range of methods and ways in which technology can be integrated into their students learning. The post practicum comments were equally disturbing. While some of the students who responded did receive supportive and positive placements, many of the students who responded had very negative comments about technology integration, such as “I had 60 students, so access to the lab was limited because there are not enough computers”, or “Old technology in the school affected how it was used in the classroom. Also some students in the class were not allowed to use a computer and the internet”, and “Where I was placed there was a computer lab, but I didn’t have access to it at any times I was teaching”. Variations of these comments are echoed by other students as well leading us to believe that the support and encouragement for our students to integrate technology is not what we had hoped for, despite our efforts to create receptive and supporting environments for them. In some cases, our efforts to create these opportunities may have been misinterpreted by both faculty members and students alike. PS II students’ comments such as “using technology just to use it is very effective in creating new teachers that do not want to associate themselves with technology” is very disturbing. Many of the PS II comments that were negative had very constructive suggestions (interestingly many of which reflected what we were attempting to do with them). This is shown in suggestions like “technology should be integrated into the methods for majors classes so we are able to understand how to use technology specifically within our major!” and “if the faculty feels this is very important, more emphasis should be placed on it throughout the semester”.
Conclusions Based upon our previous experiences, we anticipated that we would discover that technology integration was being integrated on a “hit and miss” basis within the faculty with marginal impact upon our students. We also expected to see that in their practicum our students were being encouraged to use many different teaching strategies but that technology was not necessarily a focus for many of them. The feedback has shown a more challenging state of affairs with respect to the modeling and encouragement of technology integration within teaching. To have students at the PS II level who are still making comments like “is technology really necessary in the classroom” and questioning why they have to use it suggests a much larger problem than just addressing technical skills. It suggests that there are discussions about the ICT Outcomes and the mandated curriculum that they encompass, which need to be included
29 with all of the students to ensure that they understand the importance of these outcomes in their daily teaching. In working with individual faculty members it became clear that some faculty are doing amazing things with technology integration in an effort to model how it can be used effectively for their students. Unfortunately, this is not taking place in all of the courses and for all of the students. On many levels the frustration and resistance to the use of technology that is present in the school system is also present at the university level. Faculty members who see value in its use and have the technical ability often make liberal use of it in their teaching. Those who do not see value or lack the technical skills and time do not. Just like our students, we need to remember that technology integration is a very small part of what we do in training pre-service teachers, but it is a part nonetheless. With respect to the field and the placements that we put our students into, it is unrealistic to believe that we will be able to put all of our students into technology rich environments. Due to the vast differences in classrooms, schools and division views of technology integration, not all classrooms are using technology. Due to self selection by students of practicum opportunities, it is not always possible to place students where they will be allowed to and encouraged to make use of whatever technology the school has in a meaningful way. In schools where the technology is already being heavily used, we need to ensure that our students will have access to that technology and in placements where there is very little technology or support, we need to find ways to support them better. If students are exposed to technology integration ideas while on campus, they need to make use of these ideas and methods in their classrooms during their placements to truly integrate these strategies into their repertoire of skills. Therefore we also need to continue to provide workshops for our teacher associates to inform them of what to expect from our program and our students as well as to encourage them to provide as much support as they can for our students to integrate technology in their experiences.
Recommendations for the Future In an attempt to provide some direction as a result of this study, we have outlined a set of recommendations for our Faculty and on a broader scope, any Education Faculty struggling with ways to provide technology integration support for their pre-service teachers. 1. The use of technology within each classroom needs to be organized in such a way that all students are exposed to subject appropriate technology modeling. In order for this to
30 work, there needs to be a framework created for PS I and II that takes existing course material and assignments and integrates the technology into them. This should be done in groups by the course instructors involved with the assistance of a technology specialist advising and consulting where required. 2. When technology is integrated into the daily teaching, faculty members should, where possible, have debriefing sessions in class to discuss why they used that specific technology and discuss the impact that it had on the teaching and learning. At present this step is not often included, and our students are missing the queues. 3. One of the most common examples of technology modeling that was observed was the use of students to model the technology. While this is effective, there is no substitute for students observing their instructor making use of the technology in their teaching. There needs to be continued support and encouragement for faculty to make use of the tools within their teaching. This will also create opportunities to develop an awareness of the issues involved with the use of technology and methods for overcoming obstacles that so often challenge teachers. 4. The Faculty of Education used to employ education students as part of their technical support team. These students provided not only technical expertise, but were available to help with technology integration within the classroom if necessary. Discussions should take place regarding the possibility of returning to this model. It provides not only technology rich opportunities for students who are interested, but it also provides fresh ideas and energy for faculty members who may not have the technical skills themselves. 5. One of the things that students asked for was a module or series of sessions like Educ 3508 in PS II. The reality is that PS II is already packed with required material, but brown-bag sessions, online supported materials, or even a mini-conference during the oncampus portion could help to address this need. ICT Integration planning days could be interspersed throughout the on-campus experience. 6. Our students need to be familiar with the technology that they will come into contact with so that they can use it in meaningful ways with their students. One area in particular that needs to be addressed is the use of SMART boards which have become very popular in many of the school districts that our students are placed. 7. The reality of the field is that teachers are in most cases doing the best that they can with the daily demands that are placed upon their time and skills. Many of the teachers and administrators that we talked to made reference to relying upon the infusion of
31 technology skill and enthusiasm that our students bring to help encourage their teachers. If this is the case, then we need to do everything that we can to ensure that the schools are ready to receive our students by making whatever technology that they do have available for them to use during their brief stay. We need to begin tracking placements and schools that create this supportive environment so that we can encourage our students to take advantage of these placement. By making this a very clear requirement of our students’ evaluation during their practicum, we have clearly asked the schools to support them in using the technology and we need to continue encouraging and supporting. 8. Continued contact between the schools and the Faculty of Education is a must. The work that Dr. Gerald McConaghy and the Field Experiences Office did this past year needs to be continued. It not only allows us to get our messages out about what we are doing, but provides an opportunity for the field to talk and discuss their concerns, so that they feel that they are being heard. Teachers and school administrators need to be encouraged to take advantage of these occasions.
32 References Alberta’s Commission on Learning. (2003). Every child learns. Every child succeeds. Report and recommendations. Edmonton, AB: Alberta Learning. Alberta Learning. (2003). Learning and technology policy framework: Draft for discussion only. Edmonton, AB: Author. Anderson, T., Mrazek, R., and Frieson, S. (2005). Videoconferencing Research Community of Practice. Learning and Technology Research, Stakeholder Technology Branch. Alberta Education. Edmonton, Alberta. CEO Forum (1999). Professional Development: A Link to Better Learning, Year . The CEO Forum on Education and Technology: School Technology and Readiness Report. Washington, D.C. Hollingsworth, M. and Mrazek, R. (2004). Information Technology Leadership in Education: An Alberta Needs Assessment. Learning and Technology Research, Stakeholder Technology Branch. Alberta Learning. Edmonton, Alberta. International Society for Technology in Education. National Educational Technology Standards web site. Available: http://www.iste.org and http://cnets.iste.org [2002, January 1] LaGrange, A. and, Foulkes, E., (2004). Emergent Framework for ICT Integration within Faculties of Education in Canada: National Consultation on the Integration of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) in Faculties of Education in Canada. Mrazek, R., Hollingsworth, M. and Steed, M. (2005). Scaling the Digital Divide. SITE 2005 Conference. Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education. Norfolk, VA. Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education. 1819 – 1826. CD-ROM.
33 Resta, P., Ed. (2002). Information and Communication Technologies in Teacher Education: A Planning Guide. UNESCO, Division of Higher Education. Paris, France Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education. 2002. Basic Principles [Online] Available: http://www.aace.org/site [2002, February 20] Steed, M. & Mrazek, R. (2000). Interactive Multimedia as Research Portrayal. Site 2000 – Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education. Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education. Charlottesville, VA. AACE. CD-ROM. Steed, M. & Mrazek, R. (1999). Online Distributive Education Project. Multi-Conference Proceedings (1994-1999). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education. Charlottesville, VA. AACE. CD-ROM TSSA Collaborative [The Collaborative for Technology Standards for School Administrators. (2001). Available at: http://www.iste.org/tssa/framework.html
34 Appendices Appendix I – Map of Practicum Placements
35 Appendix II – Table 4.2 from Information and Communication Technologies in Teacher Education: A Planning Guide
36
37
(Resta, 2002, pp. 77-79)
38 Appendix III – PS I Teacher Associate Orientation Package
Enhancing ICT Outcome Opportunities in Practicum Placements A Joint Research Project of the Faculty of Education, University of Lethbridge and Alberta Education Teacher Orientation Package 2005-2006 Project Overview: The Faculty of Education is currently involved in a research project in conjunction with Alberta Education to examine ways in which ICT integration opportunities can be enhanced during pre-service teacher education. What does this mean to the Students’? This means that they are receiving more technology integration modeling during their on-campus courses in PS I and more reference is being made to ICT Outcomes in these courses. They are also being given increased opportunities to make use of technology in their learning. They have been surveyed about their prior experience with technology and their attitudes towards the use of technology in teaching and learning. They will be asked to complete another follow-up survey once they have completed their practicum portion of PS I, to help assess how they attempted to integrate technology into their teaching. The students are not being given additional assignments or activities to complete during the practicum. They are only being challenged to integrate technology into their teaching where possible and practical based upon their situation. What does this mean to you, the Teacher Associate? All that we are asking is that you be supportive of the students’ use of technology within your classroom. Our intention is not to make ICT Integration a focal point during PS I, but to merely give students opportunities to make use of it as they see fit, during their practicum. At the conclusion of the practicum, we ask that you take a few moments and sit down with your student and complete a short survey. This survey will help us better understand the types of technology integration activities that they attempted and the types of barriers that they were faced with during that process. Questions: If you have any questions or concerns about this project, please contact us: Dr. Richard Mrazek – Project Education Lead Office Phone: 403-329-2452 Email:
[email protected] Dr. Lorraine Beaudin – Project ICT Lead Office Phone 403-329-2356 Email:
[email protected]
39 Appendix IV – PS II Teacher Associate Orientation Package Enhancing ICT Outcome Opportunities in Practicum Placements A Joint Research Project of the Faculty of Education, University of Lethbridge and Alberta Education Teacher Orientation Package 2006 Project Overview: The Faculty of Education is currently involved in a research project in conjunction with Alberta Education to examine ways in which ICT integration opportunities can be enhanced during pre-service teacher education. What does this mean to the Students’? This means that they are receiving more technology integration modeling during their on-campus courses in PS II and more reference is being made to ICT Outcomes in these courses. They are also being given increased opportunities to make use of technology in their learning. They have been surveyed about their prior experience with technology and their attitudes towards the use of technology in teaching and learning. They will be asked to complete another follow-up survey once they have completed their practicum portion of PS II, to help assess how they attempted to integrate technology into their teaching. In order to encourage students’ to participate in a “community of learners”, students are being asked to contribute 4 postings to major specific discussion groups with their peers. Many of the students have been using this discussion area during their on-campus courses and the intent is for these postings to be a continuation. These postings will be based upon guided questions, which will vary depending upon the subject major of the student and will be included in their final Unit Plan assignments. What does this mean to you, the Teacher Associate? All that we are asking is that you be supportive of the students’ use of technology within your classroom. Our intention is not to make ICT Integration a focal point during PS II, but to merely give students opportunities to make use of it as they see fit, during their practicum. We are hoping that you will engage in discussions about the realities of integrating technology on a day-to-day basis in your classroom. We also encourage you to take part in the on-line discussions that your students’ will be participating during their practicum. At the conclusion of the practicum, we ask that you take a few moments and sit down with your student and complete a short survey. This survey will help us better understand the types of technology integration activities that they attempted and the types of barriers that they faced during that process. Questions: If you have any questions or concerns about this project, please contact us: Dr. Richard Mrazek – Project Education Lead Office Phone: 403-329-2452 Email:
[email protected] Dr. Lorraine Beaudin – Project ICT Lead Office Phone 403-329-2356 Email:
[email protected]
40 Appendix V – PS II/III Survey
41
42
43
44
45
46
47 Appendix VI – PS I Pre Survey
48
49
50 Appendix VII – PS I Post Survey
51
52
53
54 Appendix VIII – PS I Post-Post Survey
55
56
57 Appendix IX – PS II Post Survey
58
59 Appendix X – PS II Post-Post Survey
60
61
62 Appendix XI – PS I School Placements
School Board Grasslands Holy Spirit Horizon Lethbridge 51 Livingstone Range Medicine Hat Catholic Medicine Hat Public Palliser Prairie Rose Westwind
Total:
# of Placements
# of Elementary
# of Secondary
17 16 24 21 32 8
13 9 22 21 25 5
4 7 2 0 7 3
12
8
4
42 21 30
39 12 20
3 9 10
223
63 Appendix XII – PS II School Placements
School Board Bankwood School Battle River Regional Division No. 31 Calgary Waldorf School Canadian Rockies Public Schools Central Okanagan School District No. 23 Christ the Redeemer Catholic Separate Regional DivNo3 East Central Alberta Catholic Schools Reg. Div. No. 16 Ecole Secondaire L'Escale Foothills School Division No. 38 Golden Hills School Division No. 75 Holy Spirit Roman Catholic Separate Regional Division Horizon School Division No. 67 Immanuel Christian High School Lethbridge School District No. 51 Livingstone Range School Division No. 68 Master's Academy and College Medicine Hat School District No. 76 Palliser Regional Division No. 26 Peace Wapiti School Division No. 76 Prairie Rose Regional Division No. 8 Prairie Valley School Division No. 208 Rain Forest International School Rainbow District School Board Red Deer Catholic Regional Division No. 39 Red Deer School District No. 104 Rocky Mountain School District No. 6 Rocky View School Division No. 41 Saskatchewan Rivers School Division No. 119 School District No. 68 (Nanaimo-Ladysmith) St. Thomas Aquinas Catholic Reg. Division No. 38 Waterloo Region District School Board Westwind School Division No. 74 Wild Rose School Division No. 66 Total:
# of Placements 1 1 1 1 1 2
# of Elementary 1 0 0 1 0 1
# of Secondary 0 1 1 0 1 1
1
0
1
1 6 1 21
0 2 0 7
1 4 1 14
5 1 44 8 0 4 13 2 3 1 0 1 1 1 1 4 2
1 0 7 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0
4 1 37 6 1 3 12 2 3 1 0 1 1 0 0 4 2
1 1
0 1
1 0
1 10 1
1 0 0
0 10 1
142
