Integrating technology in a field-based teacher training program: The PT3@ASU project

Abstract

The Preparing Tomorrow’s Teachers to Use Technology (PT3) initiative has funded various efforts to improve and enhance the
technology preparation of preservice teachers. At Arizona State University, these efforts have focused on providing preservice
teachers with opportunities to develop, implement, and evaluate their own instructional activities that utilize technology
effectively and appropriately in authentic situations, to give them the myriad of tools necessary to integrate technology
into teaching and learning activities. This paper focuses on the integration of these efforts into the field-based elementary
education program, and discusses our formative evaluation of the field-based technology integration model, through the following
questions: What are the preliminary successes of the model with regard to student perceptions, attitudes, and integration
of technology into instructional activities? and What components of the model require additions or modifications?

Full text

Integrating Technology in a Field-Based
Teacher Training Program:
The PT3@ASU Project
Thomas Brush
Krista Glazewski
Kathy Rutowski
Kimberly Berg
Charlotte Stromfors
Maria Hernandez Van-Nest
Laura Stock
Jean Sutton
The Preparing Tomorrow’s Teachers to Use
Technology (PT3) initiative has funded
various efforts to improve and enhance the
technology preparation of preservice teachers.
At Arizona State University, these efforts have
focused on providing preservice teachers with
opportunities to develop, implement, and
evaluate their own instructional activities that
utilize technology effectively and appropriately
in authentic situations, to give them the
myriad of tools necessary to integrate
technology into teaching and learning
activities. This paper focuses on the
integration of these efforts into the field-based
elementary education program, and discusses
our formative evaluation of the field-based
technology integration model, through the
following questions: What are the preliminary
successes of the model with regard to student
perceptions, attitudes, and integration of
technology into instructional activities? and
What components of the model require
additions or modifications?
The Preparing Tomorrow’s Teachers to Use
Technology (PT3) initiative has funded various
efforts to improve and enhance the technology
preparation of preservice teachers. Many of
these efforts have focused on supporting educa-
tion faculty, others have concentrated primarily
on preservice teachers, and still others have
developed repositories of resources for dissemi-
nation. However, these initiatives have not oc-
curred in isolation. After publication of the
Office of Technology Assessment (1995) national
report, Teachers and Technology: Making the Con-
nection, many colleges and universities began
examining more effective means for technology
preparation. This report examined schools’ tech-
nological capabilities, barriers to student learn-
ing via technology, and teachers’ current
preparedness for technology integration. The
report concluded that, “Despite technologies
available in schools, a substantial number of
teachers report little or no use of computers for
instruction” (p. 1). The report also stated that
teachers still struggle with integrating technol-
ogy into the curriculum, and attributed much of
this to inadequate training: “Most teachers have
not had adequate training to prepare them to
use technology effectively in teaching . . . On
average, districts devote no more than 15 per-
ETR&D, Vol. 51, No. 1, 2003, pp. 57–72 ISSN 1042–1629 57
AAH GRAPHICS, INC. / 540-933-6210 / FAX 540-933-6523 / 03-04-2003 / 09:40

cent of technology budgets to teacher training”
(p. 8).
Much of the research related to technology
integration in K–12 classrooms corroborates the
results of the Office of Technology Assessment
report. More recent research continues to show
that teachers feel they are not provided adequate
support to effectively use technology in their
classrooms (Schrum, 1999; Strudler & Wetzel,
1999; Topp, Mortensen, & Grandgenett, 1995).
This lack of support leads teachers to use tech-
nology for low-level, supplemental tasks such as
drill and practice activities, word processing,
educational games, and computer-based
tutorials (Strudler & Wetzel, 1999; Willis,
Thompson, & Sadera, 1999). As Abdal-Haqq
(1995) stated, “[F]ew teachers routinely use com-
puter-based technologies for instructional pur-
poses” (p. 1).
Inadequate instruction and support for tech-
nology integration is not an issue only with K–12
teachers; research has demonstrated that tech-
nology preparation provided by teacher training
institutions to preservice teachers with regard to
technology has similar problems. In a review of
the literature related to technology and teacher
education, Willis and Mehlinger (1996) stated:
Most preservice teachers know very little about effec-
tive use of technology in education and leaders believe
there is a pressing need to increase substantially the
amount and quality of instruction teachers receive
about technology. . . . [T]he virtually universal con-
clusion is that teacher education, particularly preser-
vice, is not preparing educators to work in a
technology-enriched classroom (p. 978).
In 1997, the National Council for Accredita-
tion of Teacher Education (NCATE) commis-
sioned a task force on technology in teacher
education. Findings indicated that college facul-
ty underestimated the importance of technology
in K–12 education and treated integration as a
“special addition” to teacher education. In addi-
tion, faculty viewed technology instruction as
“other faculty’s” responsibility and, consequent-
ly, were not modeling the use of technology in
their teaching (NCATE, 1997).
In light of reports such as these, many
educators have recommended restructuring
technology preparation toward more integrative
models (Larson & Clift, 1996; Northrup & Little,
1996; Rodriguez, 1996). Increasingly, preservice
field experiences are recognized as oppor-
tunities for technology preparation (Brush et al.,
2001; Hoelscher, 1997). In a survey of innovative
teacher education programs, Strudler and Wet-
zel (1999) discussed how teacher education in-
stitutions such as Vanderbilt and the University
of Virginia were focusing on collaboration
among methods faculty and educational tech-
nology faculty in order to provide preservice
teachers with experiences integrating technol-
ogy into their teaching. These programs em-
phasized the need to provide preservice teachers
with technology training in field-based teaching
situations. This field-based model focuses on
providing preservice teachers with authentic
teaching experiences in real classrooms prior to
student teaching.
Why a Field-Based Model?
At Arizona State University (ASU), most stu-
dents enter the preservice teacher education pro-
gram at the beginning of their junior year. Once
they enter the program, they are immediately
enrolled in a series of semester-long field-based
teaching methods experiences at local “place-
ment” schools. Each of these experiences re-
quires students to successfully complete more
traditional methods classes taught by methods
faculty at the placement schools, and serve as in-
terns for “placement teachers” (teachers work-
ing at the placement schools), assisting them
with instructional activities and observing class-
room practices.
Students are required to participate in a dif-
ferent methods experience (or block, as it is
called at ASU), each semester. Each block
focuses on different content and provides stu-
dents with different experiences. For example,
elementary education students complete the fol-
lowing sequence of field-based methods ex-
periences: Block I—social studies and language
arts, Block II—mathematics and science, and
Block III—reading and multicultural education.
Thus, students are involved in field-based teach-
ing activities throughout the teacher education
program. The field-based aspects of the program
supplied a mechanism for providing teacher
AAH GRAPHICS, INC. / 540-933-6210 / FAX 540-933-6523 / 03-04-2003 / 09:40
58 ETR&D, Vol. 51, No. 1

education students with authentic opportunities
to integrate technology into teaching and learn-
ing activities.
In contrast, prior to 1999 the integration of
technology within the field-based teacher educa-
tion program at ASU was not emphasized.
Preservice teachers were required to participate
in a campus-based educational technology class
sometime during their junior or senior year, but
there was no real coordination between what
students were learning in this class and what
they were doing in their methods experiences.
Thus, teacher education students were learning
discrete technology skills such as Web page
design, PowerPoint®, and basic technology
literacy without opportunities to apply technol-
ogy in authentic teaching situations. The move-
ment of methods courses to field-based settings,
however, provided an opportunity to imple-
ment a plan to integrate technology skills and
experiences with the field-based methods ex-
periences. A collaborative effort between educa-
tional technology faculty and methods faculty in
the elementary education program at ASU led to
the development of new requirements for
preservice teachers with regard to technology.
These new requirements provided teacher
education students in the elementary education
program with opportunities to create technol-
ogy-rich learning activities and implement those
activities as part of their methods instruction.
Goal and Components of the
Field-Based Model
The overall goal or outcome for the technology
experiences we provide our preservice teachers
at ASU is for them to develop, implement, and
evaluate their own instructional activities that
utilize technology effectively and appropriately
in authentic situations. We believe that this, in
turn, will provide our teacher education stu-
dents with the myriad of tools necessary to in-
tegrate technology into teaching and learning
activities once they leave our program. There are
two major components of the field-based tech-
nology integration model at ASU specifically
designed to achieve this goal: (a) modeling effec-
tive technology integration, and (b) providing
just-in-time support to preservice teachers,
placement teachers, and methods faculty (see
Figure 1). These components are described
below.
Modeling effective technology integration. In order
to provide authentic and appropriate technol-
ogy experiences for preservice teachers, educa-
tional technology and methods faculty
collaborated to develop a set of model lessons
designed to demonstrate methods for effectively
using technology in the classroom. Each model
lesson focused on a specific content area (lan-
guage arts, social studies, mathematics, or
science), as well as a different form of technol-
ogy. For example, in one of the language arts les-
sons, a work of children’s literature that
preservice teachers were using to practice
specific oral reading strategies was used as the
basis for a lesson that integrated reading, writ-
ing, digital imagery, and oral presentations.
Graduate students from the educational technol-
ogy and curriculum and instruction programs
delivered the lesson to preservice teachers at one
of their placement schools. Preservice teachers
participated in the “modeling sessions” in a
similar fashion to the way students in their class-
rooms would participate: using the technology
integrated into the lesson to complete projects or
other activities for which the lesson was
designed. After completing the lesson, preser-
vice teachers critiqued the effectiveness of the
lesson, discussed issues associated with im-
plementing the lesson in an authentic classroom,
and described modifications that could be made
to the lesson in order for it to be appropriate for
other teaching and learning situations.
Preservice teachers participate in a minimum
of two modeling sessions each semester. Once
they have completed these activities, they are re-
quired to develop an instructional activity in-
tegrating technology and content. The content
focus for the lesson varies depending on their
progress through the program (e.g., Block I stu-
dents are required to develop a language arts or
social studies lesson, Block II students develop a
math or science lesson). Once they have
developed their activities, they implement the
lessons with students in their placement schools.
This provides preservice teachers with authentic
AAH GRAPHICS, INC. / 540-933-6210 / FAX 540-933-6523 / 03-04-2003 / 09:40
INTEGRATING TECHNOLOGY 59

experiences using technology to facilitate in-
structional activities. After they have delivered
their lessons, preservice teachers complete
postlesson reflections in which they describe the
procedures they followed in implementing the
lessons, and discuss successful strategies
employed during the delivery of the lessons,
things they would do differently if they were to
teach the lessons again, and the effectiveness of
the technology used in the lessons.
At the end of each semester, preservice
teachers at each placement school collectively
meet with faculty and graduate students to
discuss their lessons. These “reflection and
debriefing sessions” are designed to provide op-
portunities for preservice teachers to share their
activities with their peers, receive feedback and
suggestions for improving their teaching (and
use of technology), and acquire additional ideas
and resources for integrating technology into fu-
ture activities.
Providing just-in-time support to preservice
teachers, placement teachers, and methods faculty.
It was apparent that preservice teachers would
require additional support if they were going to
develop technology-rich lessons and implement
them with students. Most of the preservice
teachers in the program had little or no teaching
experience at all, let alone experience teaching
with technology. Thus, it was necessary to in-
clude an ongoing, just-in-time support structure
to the field-based model. Students in either the
educational technology or curriculum and in-
struction graduate programs were recruited to
provide this support. These students were
selected based on their previous experience as
teachers in K–12 classrooms, and their
demonstrated knowledge of effective methods
for integrating technology into the K–12 cur-
riculum. The graduate students selected to par-
ticipate in this program were provided with
stipends and opportunities to receive graduate
course credit.
Figure 1 PT3@ASU technology integration model.
AAH GRAPHICS, INC. / 540-933-6210 / FAX 540-933-6523 / 03-04-2003 / 09:40
60 ETR&D, Vol. 51, No. 1

The graduate students were assigned to
placement schools on an ongoing basis in order
to provide support and guidance to the preser-
vice teachers placed at those schools. This sup-
port included assistance with both technical and
pedagogical issues, help acquiring technological
resources needed to implement lessons, and
guidance regarding appropriate and inap-
propriate uses of technology in specific teaching
situations. This support was generally provided
at the placement schools, however graduate stu-
dents tried to be as flexible as possible in provid-
ing assistance whenever and wherever needed.
In addition, although many of the methods
faculty and field-based mentor teachers already
possess exceptional skills in integrating technol-
ogy with teaching, there was still a need to pro-
vide many of these individuals with additional
training regarding effective uses of technology
in various teaching domains, as well as available
technology resources in those domains.
Methods faculty and field-based mentors are not
expected to possess comprehensive knowledge
about the vast number of resources available or
the resources that might be most appropriate for
various teaching and learning activities. In
response to this need, ongoing support was also
provided in the field to these individuals by the
educational technology faculty and educational
technology graduate students.
Educational technology graduate students
are continually placed in placement schools
(typically one graduate student is assigned to a
specific school) to assist both preservice
teachers, methods faculty, and placement
teachers. These students have expertise in both
teaching and technology integration; thus, they
are able to assist the placement teachers with ac-
tivities they would like to attempt with their stu-
dents, as well as activities the preservice
teachers are planning. We believe that this sup-
port structure helps methods faculty and place-
ment mentor teachers better model effective
integration of technology into teaching and
learning activities.
Initial Evaluation of Field-Based Model
The remainder of this paper focuses on our for-
mative evaluation of the field-based technology
integration model. We initially implemented the
new technology requirements with preservice
teachers in the elementary education program.
This is the largest teacher training program at
ASU, enrolling approximately 400 students per
semester. We focused the evaluation on preser-
vice teachers located at eight placement schools
(four in Block I and four in Block II). In order to
guide our evaluation, we focused on the follow-
ing questions:
•What are the preliminary successes of the
model with regard to student perceptions, at-
titudes, and integration of technology into in-
structional activities?
•What components of the model require addi-
tions or modifications?
METHOD
Participants
Participants in the study were 100 preservice
teachers enrolled in the elementary education
program. All but 5 of these students were com-
pleting either their junior or senior year at ASU;
94% were female, and 91% were between the
ages of 20 and 25.
Participating students were enrolled in either
Block I or Block II of their program. None of the
students had begun their student teaching ex-
periences; 47% of the participants planned to
teach in the lower elementary (K–3) grades
when they received their teaching credentials.
When asked how often they use computers, 94%
responded that they used them at least “several
times a week.”
Design and Data Sources
A formative evaluation methodology was used
that included both qualitative and quantitative
data collection. This methodology was used in
order to explain the successes and problems that
occurred as we implemented and modified the
interventions associated with the project, and to
explore possible changes or modifications that
could improve the effectiveness of the project ac-
tivities (Guba & Lincoln, 1981). In addition, the
AAH GRAPHICS, INC. / 540-933-6210 / FAX 540-933-6523 / 03-04-2003 / 09:40
INTEGRATING TECHNOLOGY 61

use of multiple data sources increases the
reliability and validity of the interpretations
(Mathison, 1988). Data sources used in this
evaluation included technology attitudes and
perceptions survey, preservice teacher lesson
plans, postunit reflections, and preservice
teacher interviews.
Technology attitudes and perceptions survey. The
survey was developed as a means of measuring
preservice teacher perceptions regarding tech-
nology integration, their general attitudes
toward the technology integration activities, and
the effectiveness of the activities with regard to
helping preservice teachers overcome common
barriers impeding the effective use of technol-
ogy for teaching and learning activities. The 42-
item survey consisted of three sections: (a)
background information, (b) attitudes toward
integration, and (c) environmental resource bar-
riers. The overall Cronbach-alpha coefficient of
the survey was relatively high (α = 0.81), indicat-
ing that it was a fairly consistent measure.
The background information section con-
tained 8 items designed to collect demographic
information such as future teaching goals, age,
gender, academic year, and frequency of com-
puter use. The attitudes toward integration sec-
tion included 18 Likert-type items measuring
attitudes and beliefs related to technology in-
tegration and the effectiveness of the prepara-
tion received in the teacher education program.
Example items in this section included “A
variety of technologies are important to enhance
student learning,” and “I feel that my technol-
ogy course has prepared me to integrate technol-
ogy into my content area specialization.” The
final section, environmental resource barriers,
contained 16 Likert-type items dealing with per-
ceptions of potential technology integration bar-
riers. Example items included, “There isn’t
enough time in class to implement technology-
based lessons,” and “It is easier to use technol-
ogy with smaller class sizes.” Participants rated
the items in the last two sections of the survey on
a four-point scale from strongly agree to strongly
disagree.
Preservice teacher lesson plans. Preservice
teachers were required to develop, either in-
dividually or in teams, an instructional activity
that utilized technology, and implement that ac-
tivity with students in their placement teachers’
classrooms. A requirement for this activity was
to develop a detailed lesson plan for these ac-
tivities. These lesson plans were analyzed to
determine the types of technology used in the
lessons, and how technology was used by the
preservice teachers and their students. The les-
son plans (n = 57) were collected and analyzed
for this evaluation.
Postunit reflections. After the preservice teachers
delivered their activities, they were required to
participate in a final group debriefing session.
During the debriefing, they described the ac-
tivities they had designed and delivered, ex-
plained the instructional strategies they had
used to integrate technology successfully into
their lessons, and reflected on portions of the ac-
tivities that had not been effective, including
things they would do differently the next time
they delivered the activities to students. In
preparation for this debriefing, preservice
teachers were asked to complete postunit reflec-
tions in which they described (in written form)
the instructional strategies they believed were
most effective, the impact that technology had
on their lessons, and how they would change or
alter their lessons if they were to deliver them in
the future. Completed reflections (n = 57) were
collected and analyzed for common themes
among the participants.
Preservice teacher interviews. Six preservice teach-
ers (two participating in Block I and four par-
ticipating in Block II) were randomly selected
from the overall population to participate in
semistructured interviews. Each 30-min inter-
view was audiotaped and immediately
transcribed. Interview questions related to cur-
rent uses of technology, beliefs regarding the
role of technology in education (e.g., How im-
portant is technology in K–12 environments
today?), perceptions of the effectiveness of
preservice teacher preparation for technology
integration (e.g., How well do you think the col-
lege is preparing preservice teachers to integrate
technology?), and ideas for effective technology
integration preparation (e.g., What should
teachers be able to do with technology?).
AAH GRAPHICS, INC. / 540-933-6210 / FAX 540-933-6523 / 03-04-2003 / 09:40
62 ETR&D, Vol. 51, No. 1

Procedures
Survey data were collected from the participants
in November 2001 during their final reflection-
debriefing sessions. Participants were given ap-
proximately 15 min to complete the survey. At
the conclusion of the debriefing sessions, stu-
dents provided researchers with copies of lesson
materials for the activities they designed and
copies of their postunit reflections.
Over the next two weeks, participants
selected for interviews were contacted and inter-
view times were scheduled. Each interview was
conducted in a small conference room on the
university campus. One of two researchers con-
ducted each of the interviews using the semi-
structured interview protocol described above.
Each interview session lasted approximately 30
min. All interviews were audiotaped and
transcribed for data analysis. All interviews
were completed by the end of December 2001.
RESULTS
Participant Surveys
A summary of participant responses (N = 100) to
the attitudes toward integration section of the
survey is provided in Table 1. In terms of posi-
tive responses, 86% (n = 86) of participants
agreed with the statement, “I am confident
about integrating technology into a language
arts, social studies, math, science or other con-
tent area lesson,” 92% (n = 92) agreed with the
statement, “Given a learning goal, I am able to
develop ideas for integrating technology,” and
92% agreed with the statement, “A variety of
technologies are important to enhance student
learning.” In terms of negative responses, 53% (n
= 53) participants disagreed with the statement,
“I feel that my technology course has prepared
me to integrate technology,” 57% (n = 57) dis-
agreed with the statement, “I do not need more
training on how to integrate technology,” and
36% (n = 36) disagreed with the statement, “I do
not need assistance to deliver a technology-in-
tegrated lesson.”
A summary of participant responses (N =
100) to the environmental resource barriers sec-
tion of the survey is provided in Table 2. State-
ments that had the highest levels of agreement
among participants included: “It is easier to use
technology with smaller class sizes” (95% agree-
ment, n = 95), “In order for technology integra-
tion to be successful, teachers should have more
access to computer labs” (93% agreement, n =
93), and “There isn’t enough time in class to im-
plement technology-based lessons” (85% agree-
ment, n = 85). Statements with the highest levels
of disagreement among participants included:
“A successful lesson that integrates technology
can be accomplished with one computer in the
classroom” (46% disagreement, n = 46), “More
teachers would integrate technology if they had
more training on how to use technology” (61%
disagreement, n = 61), and “A teacher must have
advanced technology skills to effectively use
technology in a lesson” (50% disagreement, n =
50).
Lesson Plans
Analysis of the 57 individual and team lesson
plan documents revealed that they used a
variety of technology, ranging from overhead
projectors to televisions to digital video tech-
nologies, such as camcorders and digital tech-
nologies. In terms of hardware, a majority of
participants (80%, n = 46) used some form of
computer technology in their lessons. Other
hardware devices most often used in lessons in-
cluded printers (used by 22% of participants, n =
13) and video-image capture technologies such
as digital cameras, scanners, and video cameras
(used by 24% of participants, n = 14).
Word processing software, such as Claris-
Works® or Microsoft Word®, was integrated
into lesson activities by 29% (n = 17) of the par-
ticipants. Some form of Internet browser
(Netscape® or Internet Explorer®) was used in
20% (n = 11) of the lessons, and PowerPoint®
was used in 13% (n = 7) of the lessons.
Finally, many of the lessons focused the use
of technology on preparation and teacher
presentation of concepts. One third (n = 19) of
the lessons did not include any use of technol-
ogy by students; that is, the technologies incor-
porated in the lesson were used exclusively by
AAH GRAPHICS, INC. / 540-933-6210 / FAX 540-933-6523 / 03-04-2003 / 09:40
INTEGRATING TECHNOLOGY 63

the teacher to present information or collect
resources prior to the implementation of the les-
son. Two fifths (42%, n = 24) of the lessons in-
tegrated technology exclusively for student use,
and the remaining lessons involved a combina-
tion of teacher-student use of technology.
Postunit Reflections
After implementing their technology-integrated
lessons, participants were required to complete
a postunit reflection activity. A total of 57 pos-
tunit reflections were analyzed. The reflections
consisted of participants’ written responses to
the following questions:
•Describe the parts of the lesson that you felt
were successful. What are some of the
strategies that you used that you would use
again in other lessons?
•Describe the parts of the lesson that you felt
were not successful. If you were to deliver
this lesson again, what revisions would you
make to the content or strategies used in the
lesson?
•Do you think the technology incorporated
into your lesson worked effectively? Would
you use the technology again? Why or why
not?
Perceived successful lesson strategies. Participant
Table 1 Participant responses to attitudes towards integration portion of the survey (in rank
order).
Participant Response (N=100)
Item Description X* SD
A lack of knowledge about technology will impede a teacher’s ability 1.57 0.69
to integrate technology.
A variety of technologies is important to enhance student learning. 1.66 0.62
Technical problems often occur regardless of the extent of teacher 1.69 0.69
planning when integrating technology.
Content instruction should take priority over technology skills. 1.77 0.62
Technologies used in a lesson should be selected based on the 1.78 0.69
learning goals of the lesson.
I can deliver a technology-integrated lesson with technical 1.79 0.62
support preparing and delivering the lesson.
I could integrate technology into a lesson with more technology skills training. 1.81 0.72
I am confident about integrating technology into a language 1.84 0.73
arts, social studies, math, science, or other content area lesson.
Given a learning goal, I am able to develop ideas for integrating technology. 1.86 0.57
A lack of knowledge about how to integrate technology into 1.90 0.80
content areas is a barrier.
For effective technology integration in a lesson, a teacher needs 1.99 0.63
to adapt his or her teaching strategies to become more student-centered.
It is important to select technology to use in a lesson prior to 2.22 0.96
planning for the content of the class.
I do not need assistance to deliver a technology-integrated lesson. 2.26 0.77
I feel that my technology course has prepared me to 2.61 0.80
integrate technology into my content area specialization.
I do not need more training on how to integrate technology. 2.65 0.94
Technical problems can be avoided with proper teacher planning. 2.72 0.81
Teaching students to use technology is not my job. 3.18 0.85
It is unreasonable to expect teachers today to integrate technology 3.21 0.79
into instructional activities.
* Note: 1 = strongly agree; 4 = strongly disagree
AAH GRAPHICS, INC. / 540-933-6210 / FAX 540-933-6523 / 03-04-2003 / 09:40
64 ETR&D, Vol. 51, No. 1

reflections (N = 57) regarding the successful
strategies utilized in delivering their lessons
tended to focus on preplanning strategies, en-
couraging student involvement, modeling class-
room activities, and establishing collaborative
groups. Eleven of the participants (19%) dis-
cussed the effectiveness of preplanning and
motivating students early in the lesson as effec-
tive strategies. For example, one participant
stated, “It . . . worked well to have students
prepared for what they were going to do. I
quickly explained what we would do, and its
application to the lesson.” Another participant
said, “My anticipatory set for this lesson was ex-
tremely successful because the students were
drawn in.” Similarly, one participant stated, “I
believe that my grabber, animal charades, was a
successful strategy. The kids loved it.”
Nine of the participants (16%) specifically
discussed the effectiveness of modeling the ac-
tivities students were expected to complete prior
to beginning the lesson. As one participant
stated, “Modeling what children were supposed
to do proved very beneficial and helped them
understand the goal of the assignment.”
Another participant was even more specific,
stating “I feel modeling to the class the process
of writing a script and having students
demonstrate it was successful. This helped stu-
dents get an idea of what was expected of them.
Table 2 Participant responses to environmental resource barriers portion of the survey (in rank
order).
Participant Response (N = 100)
Item Description X* SD
It is easier to use technology with smaller class sizes. 1.55 0.63
In order for technology integration to be successful, teachers should 1.68 0.60
have more access to computer labs.
There is not enough technology support in schools today. 1.88 0.81
There isn’t enough time in class to implement technology-based lessons. 1.91 0.68
Technology-integrated curriculum projects require more preparation time 1.93 0.82
than projects not incorporating technology.
Schools do not provide enough support to teachers for technology integration. 1.98 0.68
Students with novice technology skills can learn effectively in a technology- 1.98 0.60
integrated lesson.
A teacher with novice technology skills can deliver an effective lesson 2.07 0.74
integrating technology.
It is more difficult to deliver a technology-integrated lesson in a classroom 2.12 0.73
with 1–4 computers than in a computer lab.
Lower-elementary students (K–2) cannot effectively use technology as a 2.20 0.83
learning tool.
Most schools do not have enough computers to effectively integrate 2.21 0.76
technology.
An unsuccessful technology-integrated lesson is usually the result of a 2.38 0.83
lack of teacher’s technology skills.
A teacher must have advanced technology skills to effectively use 2.48 0.73
technology in a lesson.
A successful lesson that integrates technology can be accomplished with 2.48 0.91
one computer in a classroom.
More teachers would integrate technology if they had more training on 2.66 0.78
how to use technology.
Lack of software availability in schools is a barrier to effective integration 2.93 0.83
of technology.
* Note: 1 = Strongly Agree; 4 = Strongly Disagree
AAH GRAPHICS, INC. / 540-933-6210 / FAX 540-933-6523 / 03-04-2003 / 09:40
INTEGRATING TECHNOLOGY 65

It also served as a good reminder to students of
what needed to be done when they forgot or felt
confused.”
Finally, nine participants (16%) discussed the
success of collaborative grouping when im-
plementing their lessons. One participant said,
“The most successful part of the lesson was stu-
dents helping each other.” Similarly, another
participant stated, “I would definitely use group
work again. [The students] were able to help one
another and learn to successfully interact as a
group.” One participant stated that she was
pleasantly surprised by the effectiveness of col-
laboration: “I felt that it was helpful to have the
students sit in partners rather than alone. The
students helped each other when they were
having trouble. . . . To my surprise, the students
did not fight over who got to use the [computer]
first.”
Perceived areas for improvement. When asked to
describe difficulties they had implementing
their lessons, and revisions they would make the
next time they delivered a technology-enhanced
lesson, participants focused on preplanning and
preparation, the need for collaborative groups,
and improving their estimates of the amount of
time needed to complete technology-enhanced
activities. Interestingly, many of the comments
regarding improvements needed for imple-
menting the lessons were similar to comments
made by other participants when asked to
describe the successful strategies they employed
when implementing their lessons.
Planning and preparation was a major theme
throughout the debriefings. Ten participants
(17%) stated that they felt additional planning
was needed to implement lessons incorporating
technology. One participant stated, “I would . . .
make sure I knew what level of understanding
[the students possessed] prior to instruction. I
would explain the activity better before begin-
ning it. I would make sure that I knew exactly
what I was doing on the computer and how to
explain it.” Other participants described specific
preparations they would make before delivering
their lessons again:
If I were to deliver this lesson again, I would have
precut male and female figures. . . . Making the
[figures] was just supposed to be a quick and fun ac-
tivity that reinforced one of the sets of myths and facts
that we learned. It turned out that this activity took the
longest out of the entire lesson.
Seven participants (12%) also discussed the
effectiveness of incorporating collaborative ac-
tivities when using technology in the classroom.
One participant stated, “I think it would be neat
to let the students work in groups, and let them
find information themselves on the Internet.”
Another participant said, “The difficult part of
the lesson was teaching the technology portion
of the lesson to a large group. In the future, I
would [use] smaller groups . . . to allow for more
individualized instruction.”
Finally, time was a recurring theme through-
out the debriefings. Eleven participants (19%)
specifically stated that they did not allocate
enough time for the activities, or that they un-
derestimated the amount of time certain por-
tions of their lessons would take to complete.
When asked what revisions she would make to
her lesson, one participant said, “I would make
it a two-day lesson instead of the hour I was
given.” Similarly, another participant stated:
“Next time, I would give myself a lot more days
and time to instruct and implement my lesson.”
Participants were also surprised at the time
needed for students to complete activities on the
computer. As one participant stated, “The tech-
nology part was difficult, since they were so
young. They were not very familiar with com-
puters.” Another said, “The main problem was
the amount of time it took. I did not take into ac-
count how long it would take the students to
type.”
Effectiveness of technology. When asked to dis-
cuss the effectiveness of technology, many par-
ticipants responded enthusiastically that the
technology had a positive impact on their in-
struction and the attitudes of their students.
Thirty-six (63%) of the participants made posi-
tive statements regarding the effectiveness of the
technology incorporated into their lessons. One
participant said, “The technology I incorporated
into my lesson was crucial for the overall effec-
tiveness of the lesson. The [use of technology]
made a huge difference on the excitement the
kids had for the assignment. I would definitely
use it again.” Another participant stated, “[The
AAH GRAPHICS, INC. / 540-933-6210 / FAX 540-933-6523 / 03-04-2003 / 09:40
66 ETR&D, Vol. 51, No. 1

technology] kept the students engaged and in-
terested in the subject. The students felt a huge
sense of accomplishment once they completed
the assignment on the computer.” Finally, the
lessons preservice teachers were required to
develop and implement encouraged many of
them to learn more about technology integra-
tion: “Seeing how students loved to be involved
with this lesson has encouraged me to want to
learn more about using computers in the class-
room.”
However, several participants did state that
there were some difficulties integrating technol-
ogy, particularly with younger students (n = 11,
19%). When asked to discuss the effectiveness of
technology for instruction, one participant said:
“I would use technology again especially in the
upper grades. With kindergarteners there is not
too much they can do with computers.” Other
participants stated that “The technology part
was difficult, since they were so young,” and, “I
feel that technology is more useful with older
children.”
Finally, seven participants (12%) expressed
their frustrations with the lack of support for
technology integration provided by their place-
ment teachers. When asked if they would incor-
porate technology differently, one participant
stated:
I think instead of having them do word processing, I
would have them do PowerPoint presentations. . . . I
think this would be more [effective]. However, . . . you
have to work with your [placement] teacher, and if
they want you to do something a certain way, that is
how you do it.
Another participant described his frustration at-
tempting to implement a lesson incorporating
the use of the Internet in his placement teacher’s
classroom:
I . . . planned a lesson that integrated language arts, so-
cial studies, and technology. I thought the lesson plan
was creative and purposeful. In addition, I thought the
students would particularly enjoy it because the ac-
tivity revolved around each individual student. . . .
When I presented my lesson plan to the teacher, she in-
formed me that even though she was certified for the
Internet, she did not want to integrate it into the cur-
riculum. She explained that even though firewalls
were in place, she was not ready or prepared to deal
with the implications of the Internet. Therefore, my
lesson plan was unacceptable. . . . I was really disap-
pointed that my [placement] teacher did not want to
use the Internet.
Participant Interviews
During interviews, preservice teachers stated
that even after they had completed the required
technology-integrated lesson activities, they did
not feel that the experiences provided in the
teacher education program adequately prepared
them to utilize technology in future teaching
and learning activities. For example, when
asked whether the teacher education program
had prepared them to integrate technology, one
preservice teacher responded: “I don’t think
they’re doing a good job . . . I didn’t learn any-
thing in this course. . . . All [I had] to do is put
together a lesson plan.” A second interviewee
stated: “I’m computer illiterate. I don’t know
how to use programs with kids and I don’t
know where to learn it.” Another interviewee
concurred, commenting: “I haven’t learned any-
thing. I still don’t know how to do anything.”
Preservice teachers interviewed stated that
more focus needed to be given to providing
training on specific technology skills, as op-
posed to broader pedagogical issues. When
asked how the technology component of the
teacher education program could be improved,
an interviewee stated: “Teach us more technol-
ogy skills. If I don’t know the skill, how can I
teach the concept using the technology?”
Another interviewee stated, “We have excessive
training in courses and not enough in the techni-
cal areas.”
Interviewees also tended to have negative
views regarding the use of technology in educa-
tional settings. Several of the preservice teachers
stated that technology served as “an easy way
out” for conducting research or completing writ-
ing activities. In terms of using computers and
the Internet for research, one interviewee stated:
You can use the computer to do research. But you can
do it with other resources, [like] encyclopedias. I think
kids—they don’t know how to go to the library
anymore and look things up with a card catalog . . . the
card catalog was always so important. They always
taught us that. Now they don’t.
AAH GRAPHICS, INC. / 540-933-6210 / FAX 540-933-6523 / 03-04-2003 / 09:40
INTEGRATING TECHNOLOGY 67

A second student stated:
You can stay home and look up information on the In-
ternet, rather than going and checking out books at the
library. Now you can just stay home and look up re-
search on the Internet. They don’t even know if that’s
credible anyway. Which is what is the downfall about
the Internet. . . . I don’t know, I think that’s a lazy way
to be.
Preservice teachers had similar views regard-
ing writing activities. One interviewee stated:
[A] lot of teachers say, “This has to be typed.” If you’re
taught how to have good handwriting and enforce
good handwriting, you wouldn’t need it to be typed to
be able to read it, so I think it’s just a way of getting out
of doing sloppy work. I don’t think you need a com-
puter. I think you can write a report just as easily.
Many of the preservice teachers interviewed
stated that technology was more appropriate for
upper-elementary students than for lower-
elementary students. For example, one preser-
vice teacher stated:
I’m only in a first grade class so I think in order to bring
understanding to technology is difficult in a first grade
classroom. They don’t even have their writing skills
and their reading skills. You need to have those first
before you start throwing them on computers.
Another preservice teacher stated, “I’m in a
kindergarten classroom and there are five com-
puters—not for educational purposes but just to
play games and stuff and I think . . . [reading
and writing] should be [the focus]. Because they
need to learn how to write.” She concluded by
stating, “With younger kids, there are so many
other skills you need to attack before you even
start integrating technology.”
Interviewees were fairly critical of the use of
technology by methods faculty and the place-
ment teachers. Many interviewees found that
their placement teachers either used computers
for rewards after classwork had been completed,
or for drill and practice of basic skills. Few inter-
viewees stated that they observed their place-
ment teachers using technology with students in
the classroom. As one interviewee stated: “I
work with first graders and they’re not even al-
lowed to go [use the computers].” A second in-
terviewee stated bluntly, “My students don’t use
computers ever.”
Finally, comments from preservice teachers
during their interviews indicated that they had
difficulty determining how technology could be
used effectively in the classroom. Many of the
interviewees saw few benefits of technology in
their teaching. One preservice teacher stated:
“Computers are not interesting. And I don’t
think anything a teacher can do on a computer
to model something is going to be interesting.”
Another preservice teacher commented: “I’ve
learned so much stuff with technology, but I
don’t think it will help me with teaching in
elementary school.” One interviewee summed
up beliefs regarding technology by stating: “I
don’t really know what technology does to help
students.”
DISCUSSION
The purpose of this paper was to provide a
detailed overview of the field-based methods
used by faculty at ASU to integrate technology
into the preservice teacher education program.
In addition, we presented formative evaluation
data designed to assist with addressing two
major evaluation questions: (a) What are the
preliminary successes of the field-based pro-
gram with regard to student perceptions, at-
titudes, and ability to integrate technology, and
(b) What components of the model require
modifications or additions? These questions are
discussed below.
Preliminary Successes of Program
Components
Modeling. The data collected indicated several
components of the field-based model that may
have had a positive impact on preservice
teachers’ knowledge of technology integration.
The modeling activities we implemented may
have had benefits beyond simply providing the
preservice teachers with authentic examples of
effective technology-integrative lessons. When
asked to indicate successful strategies used
when delivering their lessons, numerous preser-
AAH GRAPHICS, INC. / 540-933-6210 / FAX 540-933-6523 / 03-04-2003 / 09:40
68 ETR&D, Vol. 51, No. 1

vice teachers specifically discussed their use of
modeling the lesson activities with their stu-
dents. Comments from the debriefing sessions
such as, “I think I did a pretty good job of model-
ing the lesson” may indicate that preservice
teachers adopted the strategy demonstrated
during the field-based technology activities with
their own students. However, further data col-
lection is needed in order to determine if the
modeling activities built into the technology
workshops had an impact on student use of this
strategy, or if the students acquired the techni-
que from other components of the teacher
education program. This additional analysis
could prove beneficial, since the use of modeling
to demonstrate technology integration activities
is considered to be a highly effective strategy not
only for preservice teachers, but for students in
K–12 classrooms as well (Faison, 1996; Koval-
chick, 1997; Nicaise & Barnes, 1996).
Collaborative activities. Many of the lessons im-
plemented by preservice teachers incorporated
collaborative groups as a classroom manage-
ment strategy. Once again, this could be at-
tributed to the effectiveness of the modeling
activities we provided to the preservice teachers
throughout the semester. Integrating collabora-
tive and cooperative learning strategies with
technology-integrated instructional activities
has been shown to have a positive impact on stu-
dent performance and attitudes (Brush, 1997;
Lou, Abrami, & d’Apollonia, 2001). Thus, we
continually stressed the effectiveness of design-
ing cooperative and collaborative activities, par-
ticularly when using limited resources (such as
computers) in a classroom situation. We in-
cluded collaborative activities in each of the les-
sons we modeled for the preservice teachers.
Participation in collaborative group activities
during the modeling sessions may have
provided preservice teachers with additional
methods for implementing collaborative struc-
tures in their own lessons. As with preservice
teacher use of modeling techniques, however,
further data needs to be collected in order to
determine the extent to which other components
of ASU’s teacher education program positively
affected their use of cooperative and collabora-
tive learning strategies with their technology
lessons.
Confidence and enthusiasm. One of the most en-
couraging findings from the data was the con-
fidence and enthusiasm demonstrated by the
preservice teachers, particularly with regard to
designing and implementing technology-in-
tegrative lessons. A vast majority of participants
responded positively to survey items dealing
with developing content-area lessons that in-
tegrate technology (e.g., “I am confident about
integrating technology into a math, science, lan-
guage arts, social studies, or other content area
lesson”), and with generating ideas for integrat-
ing technology into the curriculum (e.g., “Given
a learning goal, I am able to develop ideas for in-
tegrating technology”). In addition, when asked
to discuss the effectiveness of the technology in-
corporated into their lessons, numerous preser-
vice teachers responded positively, with
statements such as “the children loved the tech-
nology portion of the lesson,” “The technology
really enhanced what I did,” and “I would
definitely use technology again in future les-
sons.” Although these results cannot be directly
attributed to preservice teacher participation in
this program, research has demonstrated that
providing teachers with a supportive, positive
environment while they are initially attempting
to implement curricular innovations such as
technology in classroom contexts has a positive
impact on their willingness to utilize technology
in future activities (Beyerbach, Walsh, & Van-
natta, 2001; Ely, 1999). Based on these data, par-
ticipants of this program may be increasingly
willing and able to integrate technology in fu-
ture classroom situations.
Potential Modifications and Additions
Additional focus on early elementary models. In both
interview and debriefing-reflection data, several
preservice teachers suggested that technology
was inappropriate for early elementary stu-
dents. Preservice teachers were continually
providing statements such as: “I would definite-
ly use technology with older children,” and “I
feel that it is difficult to integrate technology into
the lower grades.” While we thought that the
modeling activities we designed were adaptable
for a wide range of grade levels, these data sug-
AAH GRAPHICS, INC. / 540-933-6210 / FAX 540-933-6523 / 03-04-2003 / 09:40
INTEGRATING TECHNOLOGY 69

gest that we did not provide effective models for
use with students in early elementary grades
(K–3). The limited time we had available with
the preservice teachers somewhat hindered our
efforts to provide a wide range of models. How-
ever, one solution we will be implementing in
the future is the use of video cases of teachers ef-
fectively integrating technology (Savenye,
Brush, Middleton, Blocher, & others, 2002).
Many teacher education programs are using
video cases to supplement preservice teachers’
field experiences (e.g., Barab, MaKinster, Moore,
& Cunningham, 2001; Morey, Bezuk, & Chiero,
1997). Based on the results of this evaluation, we
have specifically developed several cases focus-
ing on K–3 teachers utilizing technology to
facilitate instruction. We plan to incorporate
these cases into subsequent modeling sessions.
Additional support for placement teachers and
methods faculty. Another area of concern ex-
pressed by some preservice teachers was the
lack of modeling and technology support
provided by some placement teachers and
methods faculty. As one preservice teacher
stated, “[S]tudents [in my placement teacher’s
classroom] don’t use computers ever.” Although
we provided modeling and support to preser-
vice teachers both during the formal modeling
sessions and informally throughout the
semester, the use of technology for teaching and
learning activities needs to be modeled by
methods faculty and classroom teachers as well
(Carlson & Gooden, 1999; Duhaney, 2001). To
this end, we have begun to implement a series of
“technology institutes” specifically designed to
provide methods faculty and placement
teachers with additional skills and experiences
regarding the use of technology in classroom
situations, and strategies for integrating technol-
ogy into the core content areas (Brush et al.,
2001). In addition to this more formal training,
we have increased our efforts to provide just-in-
time support to methods faculty who wish to in-
corporate technology into their class activities,
and have invited teachers at our placement
schools to attend modeling sessions with our
preservice teachers.
Changing perceptions of preservice teachers. A
final area for improvement relates to the percep-
tions of preservice teachers in the field-based
program regarding both the appropriate uses of
technology in schools and the effectiveness of
the experiences in which they participated as
part of the new program. It is interesting that
while 86% of the preservice teachers felt confi-
dent in their abilities to integrate technology into
their lessons, many did not view their experien-
ces in the educational technology workshops as
contributing to those abilities. More than 50% of
preservice teachers responded negatively to sur-
vey items related to their formal technology in-
struction (e.g., “I feel that my technology courses
have prepared me to integrate technology into
my content area”) as well as their level of train-
ing related to technology integration (e.g., “I do
not need more training on how to integrate tech-
nology”). Further research should investigate
preservice teacher understanding of technology
integration (types of technologies, high-level
use, low-level use, etc.) and the curricular ex-
periences they feel contributed to building their
confidence about integrating technology into
their instruction.
Preservice teacher comments about the effec-
tiveness of the technology incorporated into
their lessons focused on how they perceived
technology as a motivating factor, for example,
“[T]he children loved the technology portion of
the lesson,” “[The technology] kept the students
engaged and interested in the subject,” and
“Seeing how students loved to be involved with
this lesson . . . .” Preservice teachers did not cite
technology as contributing to increased student
understanding of the concepts taught, nor did
they speak of technology as enhancing their in-
struction in ways that would have been impos-
sible without it. Research with inservice teachers
has demonstrated that teacher training and ac-
cess to technology does not necessarily result in
increased technology integration in classroom
instruction (Cuban, Kirkpatrick, & Peck, 2001;
Windschitl & Sahl, 2002) but is mediated by
teacher beliefs about the value of technology and
the culture of the school. The value preservice
teachers placed on the technology-rich modeling
activities they experienced in their educational
technology workshops may have been mediated
by their prior experiences and the beliefs they
had formed about learning and teaching.
AAH GRAPHICS, INC. / 540-933-6210 / FAX 540-933-6523 / 03-04-2003 / 09:40
70 ETR&D, Vol. 51, No. 1

Interview data from the preservice teachers
working in early elementary classrooms indi-
cated that they tended to distinguish between
instruction in reading and writing, and access to
computers. Content instruction was described
as a precursor to access to technology. Technol-
ogy was described in terms of motivating games
that did not have an educational value. “I’m in a
kindergarten classroom and there are five com-
puters—not for educational purposes but just to
play games and stuff.” In addition, two inter-
viewees stated that technology could detract
from content area instruction. There was a con-
cern that the use of a word processor could in-
hibit children from developing good
handwriting, that children were not taught
traditional research methods using card
catalogues and encyclopedias, and that the In-
ternet contained unreliable information. These
statements may indicate that we need to en-
hance discussions dealing with technology’s
ability to facilitate more rigorous research ac-
tivities in classrooms. However, this involves
providing guidance to preservice teachers in
developing more expansive research activities
with their students.
One of the challenges for this program is to
engage our preservice teachers in conversations
about their beliefs regarding the role technology
should play in teaching and learning, while at
the same time training them to use specific tech-
nologies. This is a difficult task, but if it can be
accomplished, we have the potential to address
two of the issues voiced by the preservice
teachers in this study—"I don’t really know
what technology does to help students," and, “I
still don’t know how to do anything.”
Conclusions
Providing preservice teachers with meaningful
and effective experiences related to technology
integration is a daunting task. In this paper, we
have described one model for providing these
experiences, and preliminary data that both sup-
ports the effectiveness of our model and indi-
cates components that need improvement.
Although we are in the first year of fully im-
plementing this new approach, we believe that
preservice teachers in our program are already
receiving experiences with increased relevance
and applicability to their future professional
placements. It is hoped that through continued
evaluations and modifications to this model, we
can further enhance the experiences we provide
our teacher education students.
Thomas Brush [tbrush@indiana.edu] is Assistant
Professor of Instructional Systems Technology at
Indiana University, Bloomington. Krista Glazewski,
Kathy Rutowski, Kimberly Berg, Charlotte Stromfors,
Maria Hernandez Van-Nest, Laura Stock, and Jean
Sutton are at Arizona State University.
REFERENCES
Abdal-Haqq, I. (1995). Infusing technology into preser-
vice teacher education. ERIC digest. ERIC Document
Reproduction Service # ED 389 699
Barab, S., MaKinster, J., Moore, J., & Cunningham, D.
(2001). Designing and building an on-line com-
munity: The struggle to support sociability in the In-
ternet Learning Forum. Educational Technology
Research and Development, 49(4), 71–96.
Beyerbach, B., Walsh, C., & Vannatta, R. (2001). From
teaching technology to using technology to enhance
student learning: Preservice teachers’ changing per-
ceptions of technology infusion. Journal of Technology
and Teacher Education, 9(1), 105–127.
Brush, T. (1997). The effects of student achievement
and attitudes when using integrated learning sys-
tems with cooperative pairs. Educational Technology
Research and Development, 45(1), 51–64.
Brush, T., Igoe, A., Brinkerhoff, J., Glazewski, K., Ku,
H. & Smith, T. C. (2001). Lessons from the field: In-
tegrating technology into preservice teacher educa-
tion. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 17(4),
16–20.
Carlson, R. & Gooden, J. (1999). Are teacher prepara-
tion programs modeling technology use for pre-ser-
vice teachers? Journal of School Research and
Information, 17(3), 11–15.
Cuban, L., Kirkpatrick, H., & Peck, C. (2001). High ac-
cess and low use of technologies in high school class-
rooms: Explaining an apparent paradox. American
Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 813–834.
Duhaney, D. (2001). Teacher education: Preparing
teachers to integrate technology. International Journal
of Instructional Media, 28(1), 23–30.
Ely, D. (1999). Conditions that facilitate the implemen-
tation of educational technology innovations. Educa-
tional Technology, 39(6), 23–27.
Faison, C. (1996). Modeling instructional technology
use in teacher preparation: Why we can’t wait.
Educational Technology, 36(5), 57–59.
AAH GRAPHICS, INC. / 540-933-6210 / FAX 540-933-6523 / 03-04-2003 / 09:40
INTEGRATING TECHNOLOGY 71

Guba, E. & Lincoln, Y. (1981). Effective evaluation. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Hoelscher, K. (1997). The road ahead: Pre-service
educators’ ideas for using technology in K–6 class-
rooms. Computers in the Schools, 13(1–2), 69–75.
Kovalchick, A. (1997). Technology portfolios as in-
structional strategy: Designing a reflexive approach
to preservice technology training. TechTrends, 42(9),
31–36.
Larsen, A.E. & Clift, R.T. (1996). Technology education
in teacher preparation: Perspectives from a year-
long elementary teacher education program. Educa-
tional Foundations, 10(4), 33–50.
Lou, Y., Abrami, P., & d’Apollonia, S. (2001). Small
group and individual learning with technology: A
meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 71(3),
449–521.
Mathison, S. (1988). Why triangulate? Educational Re-
searcher, 17, 13–17.
Morey, A., Bezuk, N., & Chiero, R. (1997). Preservice
teacher preparation in the United States. Peabody
Journal of Education, 72(1), 4–24.
National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Educa-
tion, Task Force on Technology and Teacher Educa-
tion. (1997). Technology and the new professional
teacher: Preparing for the 21st century classroom.
Washington D.C.: Author. (Also available online at
http://www.ncate.org/projects/tech/TECH.HT
M).
Nicaise, M. & Barnes, D. (1996). The union of technol-
ogy, constructivism, and teacher education. Journal
of Teacher Education, 47(3), 205–212.
Northrup, P.T. & Little, W. (1996). Establishing instruc-
tional technology benchmarks for teacher prepara-
tion programs. Journal of Teacher Education, 47(3),
213–22.
Office of Technology Assessment (1995). Teachers and
technology: Making the connection. Available:
ftp://gandalf.isu.edu/pub/ota/teachers.tech.
Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Rodriguez, S. (1996). Preparing preservice teachers to
use technology: Issues and strategies. TechTrends,
41(4), 18–22.
Savenye, W., Brush, T., Middleton, J., Blocher, M., and
others. (2002, April). Improving teaching with technol-
ogy: The “best practices” digital video project. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, New Orleans,
LA.
Schrum, L. (1999). Technology professional develop-
ment for teachers. Educational Technology Research
and Development, 47(4), 83–90.
Strudler, N. & Wetzel, K. (1999). Lessons from ex-
emplary colleges of education: Factors affecting
technology integration in preservice programs.
Educational Technology Research and Development,
47(4), 63–81.
Topp, N.W., Mortensen, R., & Grandgenett, N. (1995).
Building a technology-using facility to facilitate
technology-using teachers. Journal of Computing in
Teacher Education, 11(3), 11–14.
Willis, J.W. & Mehlinger, H.D. (1996). Information
technology and teacher education. In J. Sikula, T.J.
Buttery, & E. Guyton, (Eds.) Handbook of research on
teacher education (2nd ed., pp. 978–1029). New York:
Simon & Schuster Macmillan.
Willis, J., Thompson, A. & Sadera, W. (1999). Research
on technology and teacher education: Current status
and future directions. Educational Technology Re-
search and Development, 47(4), 29–45.
Windschitl, M., & Sahl, K. (2002). Tracing teachers’ use
of technology in a laptop computer school: The in-
terplay of teacher beliefs, social dynamics, and in-
stitutional culture. American Educational Research
Journal, 39(1), 165–205.
AAH GRAPHICS, INC. / 540-933-6210 / FAX 540-933-6523 / 03-04-2003 / 09:40
72 ETR&D, Vol. 51, No. 1