Content uploaded by James A. Levin
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by James A. Levin on Oct 21, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
夽
This material is based upon work supported by the National
Science Foundation under Grant No. RED-9253423. The gov-
ernment has certain rights in this material. Any opinions, "nd-
ings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this
material are those of the authors and do not necessarily re#ect
the views of the National Science Foundation.
夽夽
Portions of this paper were presented at the 1996 annual
meeting of the American Educational Research Association. The
current version incorporates case study data collected and ana-
lyzed subsequent to that meeting.
*Corresponding author. Tel.: #1-217-244-3548; fax: #1-
217-333-5689.
E-mail address: r-clift@uiuc.edu (R.T. Clift).
Teaching and Teacher Education 17 (2001) 33}50
Technologies in contexts:
implications for teacher education
夽
夽夽
Renee T. Clift*, Laurie Mullen, James Levin, Ann Larson
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1310 South Sixth Street, Champaign, IL 61820, USA
Ball State University, Muncie, IN 47306, USA
University of Louisville, KY 40208, USA
Received 3 September 1999; received in revised form 20 December 1999; accepted 15 February 2000
Abstract
This paper discusses the interaction among school and university contexts, instruction, and individual practice that
occurs as telecommunications technology is integrated into teacher education programs. Data from a series of studies of
such integration within one university are presented and discussed. A model to guide future research is pro-
posed. 2000 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd.
Keywords: Telecommunications; Technology; Preservice teacher education
1. Introduction
At this point in the evolution of instructional
technologies, computer based technology is (and
will become even more) a component of school and
university classrooms. While we are mindful of
Cuban's (1986) caution that many technologies,
such as instructional television, were once heralded
as innovative and later discarded, we are seeing
more and more schools and universities invest in
hardware, software, and computer-(and Internet)
dependent course development (NCES, 1999). For
the past 15 years teacher education programs in the
United States have been expected continuously to
increase their emphases on integrating technology
with instruction (OTA, 1995; NCATE, 1997; ISTE,
1999) and to insure that program graduates meet
standards for computer competence. Some pro-
grams are wealthy in terms of hardware, software,
and knowledge resources. Other programs are just
beginning to incorporate technology into their pro-
grams *and are struggling to "nd the resources to
do so. As more teachers, teacher educators, and
teachers-to-be work to meet these standards, it is
important to understand the impact of technology
on the individuals and on the contexts in which
they work. In this article we discuss the evolution of
0742-051X/00/$ - see front matter 2000 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd.
PII: S 0 7 4 2 - 0 5 1 X ( 0 0 ) 0 0 0 3 7 - 8
Fig. 1. An overly simple model of research on prospective
teachers'use of telecommunications.
a model to explore this impact, based on 4 years of
data from a project called `Teaching Teleappren-
ticeshipsa.
The Teaching Telapprenticeships project (TTa)
began as a National Science Foundation-funded
research and development activity to extend the
traditional face-to-face apprenticeships currently
used in teacher education through the use of elec-
tronic networks (Levin, Waugh, Brown, & Clift,
1994; Levin & Waugh, 1998). The project brought
faculty who were interested in technology hard-
ware, software and the applications of technology
in teacher education together with faculty interest-
ed in the process of learning to teach. Thus, repre-
sentatives from two professional communities were
encouraged to work together and to learn from one
another. Faculty from the "rst community tended
to raise questions about the nature and frequency
of network use; the nature and impact of network-
based projects; and the nature and impact of vari-
ous forms of distance learning (Honey &
Henriquez, 1993; Waugh, 1994; Stuve, Bombardier,
Secaras, & Levin, 1995). Faculty from the second
community tended to ask questions about the roles
of technology in bridging isolation among teachers
(Merseth, 1991; Bitter & Yohe, 1989) and about the
use and misuse of technology in teacher education
curricula (Thomas, Clift, & Sugimoto, 1996;
Thomas, Larson, Clift, & Levin, 1996).
Prior work, therefore, led us to adopt an implicit
model of research on technology use that inquired
into how prospective teachers used hardware and
software in the process of learning to teach. Our
initial research questions all related to a general
theme *what kinds of students use telecommuni-
cations during coursework prior to student teach-
ing, as well as during student teaching, for what
kinds of purposes? We felt that demographic in-
formation about prospective teachers was impor-
tant, as was information about their abilities and
their decisions leading to any use (or lack of use) of
the telecommunications. We began our work posit-
ing a rather simplistic, linear relationship among
university requirements and prospective teachers'
use of telecommunications (Fig. 1).
As we will document in the next section, we
found that this model was far from adequate as we
sought to capture the interactive nature of techno-
logy use and impact on teacher education pro-
grams and their participants.
This model suggests that studying the use of
telecommunication means that one is, essentially,
studying individuals, with instruction serving as the
primary modi"er of individual practice. Re-
searchers using this model might study people,
characteristics, or instruction. Instruction in
teacher education programs might be organized
around individual di!erences and variations in in-
structional designs.
2. The series of studies
Over a 4-year period (from 1994 to 1998) project
research teams collected and analyzed data on the
evolution of the use of computer-based technology
in the elementary and secondary teacher prepara-
tion programs. Four research methods were em-
ployed: surveys of students in the elementary and
secondary programs (Levin, 1995; Benson, 1995);
intensive interviews with elementary and secondary
students (Larson, 1998); e-mail messages for stu-
dents who checked out project-owned Macintosh
PowerBooks (Thomas et al., 1996); and intensive
case studies of students in the program (Thomas,
1998; Larson, 1998). In this section we present se-
lected examples of each of these studies in order to
support a more sophisticated model of technology
use in teacher education.
2.1. Survey studies and a second model
2.1.1. Student survey data (collected from 1994
to 1996)
Over the course of this research project, we have
conducted numerous surveys of students'self-rated
34 R.T. Clift et al. /Teaching and Teacher Education 17 (2001) 33 }50
Table 1
Elementary teacher education students'responses to technology instruction
1994}1995 Elementary students 1995}1996 Elementary students
What was the most useful thing that
you learned from the Technology
Component of the C&I block?
How to use: How to use:
e-mail (21) `Netscapea(11)
Gopher (4) `Scannera(5)
Word processing (2) e-mail (8)
Spreadsheets/databases (2) `presentation graphicsa(2)
Awareness of: Awareness of:
The variety of software available The variety of software available
(10) (13)
Multimedia/CD-ROMs (3) Multimedia/CD-ROMs (7)
Access to: Access to:
Macintosh PowerBooks (5) Macintosh PowerBooks (3)
What was the least useful thing that
you learned?
Course requirements: Already knew how to use:
Accessing ERIC (7) e-mail (4)
Accessing preservice teacher list word processing (2)
serve (5) Presentation format:
Software: lectures/large group instruction (4)
spreadsheets (4)
databases (3)
Gopher (2)
Instruction
not enough time (3)
Too basic (2)
What suggestions would you make for
changes next semester?
Content: Content:
more connection to actual K-12 uses more relevant to classroom use (6)
(7) Presentation format:
CD-ROM and other educational more hands on (7)
applications (2) shorter or fewer technology
Presentation format: sessions (5)
form small ability-level groups (7) more structured technology
more hands-on learning (7) sessions (3)
teach at a di!erent time (4) Instructional level:
make it optional (2) ability group the class or allow
Instructional level: choice of attending technology
too simple (6) sessions
too complex (3) (4)
expertise and attitudes toward technology and its
applications. These surveys have changed as tech-
nologies have changed and as the integration of
technology into the teacher education courses has
changed. We used the results of each survey to
reshape the nature of the integration of technolo-
gies into courses. A comparison of two surveys will
be presented here, to give an overview of the nature
of change that occurred over the time of this re-
search project.
One of the undergraduate groups that we studied
was the Year-Long Project (YLP), an innovative
elementary education student teaching program
that served as the pilot for the complete redesign of
our elementary education program. Forty-one stu-
dents responded to surveys in 1994}1995; 49 stu-
dents responded in 1995}1996. Table 1 summarizes
responses to three, open-ended questions. We see
ade"nite shift from e-mail as a focus to a broader
range of software, including the World-Wide Web
R.T. Clift et al. /Teaching and Teacher Education 17 (2001) 33 }50 35
(WWW). This was due, in part, to the rapid devel-
opment of the Web over the course of the interven-
ing year. It also re#ects that, within just 1 year,
students entering the program had become more
pro"cient with technology on their own. Students'
greater acceptance of technology is seen in their
responses to `least useful learninga. The most strik-
ing di!erence between the 2 years is the much
smaller number of responses for the 1995}1996
group. There were 19 blank responses and
four explicit non-negative responses (`all good
thingsa,`nothinga,`n/aaand `nothing was use-
lessa). So almost half (49%) of the responding stu-
dents in 1995}1996 did not respond to this question
with a negative comment. In contrast, for the
1994}1995 group, there were about one-third
(32%) non-negative responses (13 blank and two
`Don't knowa).
2.1.2. Suggestions for change
Unlike the other two questions, there is a consis-
tent pattern of responses for both years to this
question. Students wanted to see more explicit con-
nections between technology and its use in actual
K-12 settings, and they wanted more `hands-ona
experience during their learning. It is also clear that
there was quite a range of technological expertise:
some thought that the technology strand was too
simple and several thought it was too advanced.
The suggestion of small ability-level groups came
out in both years. At this point in the program,
there was no evidence that students were tapping in-
to di!erent ability levels in order to learn from one
another. We will return to this point in a later
section.
These results had a direct impact on program
revision. During Spring 1996, the technology com-
ponent was modi"ed to provide several, simulta-
neous small groups that students could join, each of
which was held in a computer lab so that students
would have hands-on experience. This multiple
small-group, hands-on instruction required much
more in terms of resources, i.e., more instructors
with technological expertise, graduate assistants
who could be available on an as needed basis, and
multiple lesson preparations that matched techno-
logy with content and grade level.
2.1.3. A second research model
At the end of the "rst year of the project we found
that we needed to develop a more sophisticated
model to guide our research. We drew from Rogers'
general theory of di!usion of innovations (Rogers,
1983) and Markus'(1987) critical mass theory of
media adoption. The former, di!usion of innova-
tions, suggests that early users are seen to bene"t
from adopting a particular innovation (in our case,
electronic mail) and that others follow suit either to
stay competitive or because they are persuaded to
adopt the innovation by signi"cant (and often
powerful) others. Critical mass theory suggests
that using a new interactive medium (such as tele-
communication) is considered bene"cial only if
there are a su$cient number of innovators and if
universal access to interactive media is assured.
With universal access, users may be able to employ
the medium more e$ciently than alternatives and
an interdependence among users develops over
time.
With this model we predicted that the work
setting and the prospective teachers'perceptions of
that setting would a!ect and be a!ected by their
individual characteristics and their preferred modes
of communication, as well as the communication
media available to them. We also predicted that the
ease with which the prospective teachers could ac-
cess these media and their perceptions of the practi-
cal importance of the media would a!ect and be
a!ected by individual characteristics. This second
model also acknowledged the importance of con-
text as it in#uenced students'perceptions.
Unlike the earlier model, this one suggests that
not only are individual characteristics important,
but also researchers must take perceptions into
account (Fig. 2). Furthermore, the context in which
those individuals work should not be ignored. In
addition to people, characteristics, or instruction,
research questions might address how people's
thoughts and feelings a!ect their use of telecommu-
nications and other technologies. It might also be
important to study how the context promotes or
inhibits access to technology. Instruction in teacher
education programs might be organized to chal-
lenge perceptions that inhibit technology use and
might seek to ease access to various forms of tech-
nology.
36 R.T. Clift et al. /Teaching and Teacher Education 17 (2001) 33 }50
Fig. 2. A second model of research on prospective teachers'use of telecommunications.
2.2. E-mail and interview studies
2.2.1. Prospective secondary English teachers'
data (collected from 1994 to 1995)
Eleven secondary teacher education students
who were preparing to teach English agreed to give
us access to three sources of data: (a) all e-mail
messages sent and received on Macintosh Power-
Books (with personal, private messages deleted by
the students); (b) interviews with all participants
conducted at the end of the semester; and (c) re-
sponses to a survey distributed to all student par-
ticipants. The participants were told beforehand
that the messages would be read only by the re-
searchers. They were also told that they had the
right to delete the messages that they did not want
to share.
Analysis of the e-mail messages (complete details
are provided in Thomas et al., 1996) indicated that
while telecommunication served as a convenient
medium for meeting task demands, it also served as
a"lter of information. If the subject line in an
e-mail message indicated that a particular message
was not immediately relevant to either personal or
instrumental concerns, it was often unread. Seldom
was reading e-mail seen as an important profes-
sional exchange of information, but writing e-mail
(a program requirement) was seen as an aid to
re#ection by some of the student teachers. This was
corroborated by the interview data.
When the student teachers experienced extreme
stress, however, e-mail only served as a quick way
to send a `helpamessage. Telephone calls and
face-to-face communication were identi"ed as more
personal and often more helpful than e-mail. For
these 11 students, the electronic medium served as
an impersonal, but e$cient, way of accomplishing
work-related tasks. Telecommunication was per-
ceived to be a cool, impersonal medium. Students'
purposes for using e-mail were less often self-moti-
vated discoveries and were more often responses to
instructors'recommendations for using telecom-
munications media. The data we collected led us to
conclude that the university task demands had
a major impact on prospective teachers'use of
e-mail, if not other forms of telecommunication. We
also learned that the status/power imbalance be-
tween instructors and students led some students to
R.T. Clift et al. /Teaching and Teacher Education 17 (2001) 33 }50 37
perceive that messages from instructors were more
important than messages between students *re-
gardless of message content. In other words, use of
telecommunications did not automatically foster
students'abilities to engage in professional re#ec-
tive activity with one another.
Based on our analysis of e-mail messages, we
developed a more complex interview protocol to
increase our understanding of communication
choice during student teaching. The "rst set of
questions addressed the participants'biographies,
speci"cs about the courses they were taking, re-
sponsibilities during student teaching, and current,
as well as prior experience with computer techno-
logy. The second set focused on a typical teaching
day, in that each student teacher described their
interactions with people working at their site for
student teaching and with people working at the
university. We asked them to focus on the people
with whom they communicated about their teach-
ing and to discuss where this communication took
place. The "nal set of interview questions addressed
each student teacher's perception of communica-
tion media and the role each medium played in
their teaching and communications about their
teaching. We interviewed prospective secondary
teachers from the content areas of English, mathe-
matics, and science as well as prospective elemen-
tary teachers.
All interviews were transcribed and responses
were categorized under each speci"c interview
question. For the purpose of this article we focus on
the third section of the interview protocol, the sec-
tion related to media choice. We developed a com-
munication choice pro"le in relation to purpose of
choice for each student and then worked as a team
to identify themes that crossed individuals. We then
began to study unique instances that provided in-
sight into how some students did not "t the domi-
nant pattern. We used this discrepant analysis to
modify and re"ne our categories and themes.
2.2.2. Secondary student teachers in English,
Mathematics,and Science (collected from 1995
to 1996)
The secondary students we interviewed empha-
sized the importance of face-to-face communica-
tion with people who served as resources for lesson
planning and implementation. Such interactions
included seminars and team meetings, as well as
conversations with supervisors, cooperating
teachers, and other student teachers. The telephone
also served as a resource to connect students to
important persons who could provide professional
input. We were particularly interested in noting
that student teachers'parents were mentioned as
professional as well as personal resources. E-mail
served as a relatively `coolamedium for connecting
students back to the campus and to one another, in
that it was considered much less personal than
a telephone or talking face to face.
We found some di!erences across content areas,
with students preparing to teach English only using
e-mail to help with logistical arrangements with
their methods instructor, not discussing ideas
about instructional content or pedagogy. Neither
did they avail themselves of resources such as the
World Wide Web. The science student teachers
reported more use of Internet resources than did
the English student teachers, but the greatest use of
telecommunication for gathering professional re-
sources was reported by the mathematics student
teachers. Two reported using e-mail to send attach-
ments of lesson ideas to other students, something
not mentioned in the other two groups. One re-
ported being on Prodigy and getting `tons of
suggestions and answers to problemsa; another
received information from a methods instructor on
`Geoboardsaand communicated with her brother
on another campus about mathematical proofs and
rounding. The two consistent themes across all of
the secondary students were that e-mail saved time
and that they saw little use of electronic commun-
ications or the Internet in their "eld experiences.
2.2.3. Elementary student teachers'data
(collected from 1995 to 1996)
Unlike their secondary counterparts, the elemen-
tary student teachers reported using electronic
communications for social interactions as well as
for professional exchanges. They also reported nu-
merous interactions (that we classi"ed as support
seeking) through telephone and face-to-face com-
munications. Parents and friends were contacted by
telephone and, whenever possible, were visited in
person. Like their secondary counterparts, the
38 R.T. Clift et al. /Teaching and Teacher Education 17 (2001) 33 }50
elementary student teachers reported that elec-
tronic mail served as a way of staying connected to
people on the university campus. Interestingly, they
also noted that e-mail enabled them to discuss
sensitive issues such as racism in a safer environ-
ment than a face-to-face environment a!orded.
The elementary student teachers did not report
using Internet resources to plan and implement
lessons or to access materials. They did report
being aware of such resources. Few reported using
Internet activities with their students. Interestingly,
several students reported that their teachers were
beginning to incorporate Internet activities into
their work. One young man surfaced as someone
who built on his cooperating teacher's use of the
Internet to plan a school-wide participation in the
`TeleOlympics,ain which students competed in
selected track and "eld events with counterparts all
over the world. Times and distances were recorded
at a given school site and then sent to a central
location. This project provided instruction in phys-
ical education, mathematics, and social studies.
The interview studies led us to more closely
examine the varied contexts that impacted stu-
dents'learning to use technology. In order to get
a detailed picture we conducted case studies of
elementary and secondary students. Four of these
studies are summarized below.
2.3. Four case studies
Two of the co-authors of this paper conducted
extensive, year-long case studies of students and the
teacher education programs in which they studied.
One study was of elementary students (Larson,
1998) and one was of secondary students (Thomas,
1998). The data for these studies were collected and
analyzed 1996}1998 and 1997}1998, respectively.
We have selected and abbreviated two of the case
studies from each of two dissertations in order to
illustrate similarities and di!erences between stu-
dents in and across programs.
2.3.1. Katia
At the time the data were collected, Katia was
a 21-year old white female who came into the
program already skilled in using computer techno-
logy. Her parents, scientists, used telecommunica-
tions in their work and Katia always had access to
a computer in her home. She described herself as
a voracious Internet user on campus, although
mainly for individual and recreational time as op-
posed to academic purposes. She liked to `hang
outain the computer lab where there was access to
computers 24 hours a day.
Despite her pro"ciency, Katia was not a strong
contributor to the use of computers in the elemen-
tary education program. On many occasions Katia
was impatient with the technology component of
the program. She felt that she had little need for
what was accomplished in the class sessions. She
did not see it as her role to help others learn about
computers and often asked to go home or to the
computer lab to work on her own. Katia believed
that she taught herself more about using computers
than did the teacher education curriculum. Her
peers who were not equally pro"cient both admired
her independence and were intimidated by it as
they observed her going beyond the curriculum to
develop an electronic portfolio or a plan for her
classroom layout.
But Katia's pro"ciency did not mean that she
was always prepared in her assignments. It was as if
practical, `teacher usesa, for the computer were not
worthwhile enough. For example, Katia would
push herself to think of elaborate ways to use the
computer, but she would not succeed in doing what
she wanted because the complex ideas were not
translated into implementation strategies. Conse-
quently, she would accomplish even less than other
students who recognized their place on a learning
curve, sought to accomplish de"ned tasks and ob-
jectives, and produced products that demonstrated
they had learned some practical skills for integrat-
ing computers in their teaching. We concluded that
Katia viewed the environment for computer tech-
nology use in the College of Education and in the
university portion of her teacher education pro-
gram as being at a lower level than other colleges
and programs on campus. This perception may
have caused her to pull back from some of the
opportunities and experiences with computers in
the program.
In her "eld work, Katia learned how to use
software in making items for the walls and bulletin
boards of her classroom from her cooperating
R.T. Clift et al. /Teaching and Teacher Education 17 (2001) 33 }50 39
teacher. She also worked near a teacher who had
written a large grant for integrating computers in
his classroom and expressed admiration for his
willingness to help other teachers and share his
expertise about computers. Katia was curious
about ways to use software in the classroom cur-
riculum. She was particularly interested in lan-
guage and literacy applications. For example, she
used word processing with her very young students
to write stories.
Katia was also concerned about the ways com-
puter technology a!ected social interactions. For
example, she talked at length about e-mail and how
individuals could `construct false identitiesawith
e-mail and in electronic chat rooms.
E-mail is a dangerous thing that way. Because it
allows you to be someone you're not. And I think
that2it depends on the kind of person you are.
If you're a verbal person in writing, rather than
speaking, I think it can be dangerous. Because
you can just use this persona. I see that so much
in my friends'crowds. They try to write these
things that look so cool2so mysterious and
dark and all that. And you can think through
what you want to say. And you can erase some-
thing and not send it. And you can be selective.
And you can be more open because you're not
writing to anything. It's not a `realaperson.
You're not judging their reactions. And they
have time to digest the thought. So I keep that in
mind now. From learning the hard way, I think.
This past year with e-mail2People need to
learn that it [e-mail] is not the same thing as
having a conversation.
This re#ection, and others, reveal that Katia
thought deeply about both the positive and nega-
tive in#uences of new technology on people. She
identi"ed some roles with which she was not com-
fortable (lurker, voyeur); she also thought about the
relationship of computer technology to schools and
society. She expressed some concerns about how
computers seem to be `accessible to kids who have
all the privileges anyway2
aand inaccessible to
those who do not. She was concerned that schools
could not `level the "eldabecause her students
would come to their learning experiences in class-
rooms with biographies that informed their skills
and pro"ciency levels for all kinds of learning, com-
puters included. Her re#ections about issues of
equity also led to re#ections on her own experien-
ces with computers in learning settings. She talked
about not realizing what privileges she had with
education, computers, and support systems until
she came to the teacher education program.
From Katia we learned that prior experiences
with computer technology did not necessarily cre-
ate bene"cial lenses for viewing ways in which
computers can be tapped for learning in elementary
schools. Neither did expertise mean that the more
experienced teacher education student would hap-
pily share that experience in helping others acquire
skills or in designing age or grade appropriate
instruction. We also learned that prior experiences,
particularly with chat rooms, may heighten stu-
dents'awareness of the ways in which technology
may change social interactions *and that such
changes were not always seen as desirable.
2.3.2. Syrie
Like Katia, Syrie was a 21-year old white female
who was from an upper middle class, two-parent
family. Syrie, however, did not come into the
teacher education program already pro"cient in
technology use. She did not prefer to use the com-
puter for writing in many circumstances, nor did
she prefer e-mail as an important means of com-
municating with others in the program. Syrie
needed to believe that computer use for a speci"c
assignment or task was required or expected. She
believed that this expectation gave her more con"-
dence as she increased her knowledge about using
computers.
Syrie valued the technology component in the
teacher education program and she was able to
identify several areas in which she learned speci"c
skills from the program. She was especially pleased
that she had access to a Macintosh PowerBook,
although she was often frustrated by technical
problems associated with its use. Syrie was not
averse to seeking help, however, and she often
sought the support and expertise of others who
would help her solve technical problems.
We concluded that Syrie was pragmatic in
her approach to using a computer for class
40 R.T. Clift et al. /Teaching and Teacher Education 17 (2001) 33 }50
assignments. When the bene"ts for using com-
puters were clear in Syrie's mind, she used the
PowerBook. When the bene"ts were not clear, and
costs were higher than bene"ts, she chose not to use
the computer and completed the assignment in
another form. She was less pragmatic in her deci-
sions to use e-mail to keep in touch with friends
with whom she had lost touch. She talked enthusi-
astically about these conversations with her `re-
trievedafriends, while at the same time she revealed
that she barely had enough time to get her univer-
sity work and her preparation for teaching accomp-
lished. She felt that requirements to communicate
by e-mail were often an `extraaand, therefore,
stressful thing to do.
Syrie used computers less in her "eld work than
in the university context or in her individual prac-
tice. She did have the opportunity to observe com-
puters being used in instruction. She reported that
in one of her "rst "eld placements one of her
cooperating teachers used `some kindergarten-type
programs with the childrena. The other cooperat-
ing teacher used technology `a great deal2
She had programs set up for kids to use2many
di!erent kinds of programs2She typed up stories
kids gave hera. In her second placement her
cooperating teacher had `a computer center. She
had a math software program in her classroom and
spelling programs2Roving computers came to
the classroom [along with] volunteers for extra
assistancea. Syrie felt that she observed many prac-
tical examples of computer use in her "eld place-
ments.
Syrie did not spend much time re#ecting on the
connections between computers and society. Tech-
nical problems and practical classroom applica-
tions were her greatest concern as she discussed the
importance of using computers and new technolo-
gies in her professional work. She recognized the
potential for applications and was a creative and
energetic teacher. She was particularly interested in
how computers might be used to teach writing and
mathematics in the elementary classroom. The dis-
parity between having and not having computers in
the university vs. the schools was not of as much
concern to Syrie as it was to other Year-Long
Project students *even though she experienced
this disparity across her "eld placements. For
example, she worried about the children in her
classroom who would come from impoverished
homes *although she seemed ready to accept that
these students might learn at lower levels because of
their life circumstances or biographies.
From Syrie we learned that, for certain students,
the absence of prior experience with computers
may actually be an asset. The concurrent struggle
to learn, to apply that learning, and to think about
lesson design may result in a synthesis of purpose
or instructional intent, provided that the teacher
education curriculum encourages such synthesis.
We also learned that students are very aware of the
cost/bene"t ratio when choosing to use computers
for their own assignments. This pragmatic ap-
proach, in some cases, might actually inhibit learn-
ing because the goal was to just get the assignment
done, not to explore alternative approaches and the
impact of those approaches on the "nal product.
Finally, while we were encouraged by Syrie's early
awareness of the disparate access to computers by
students from di!erent economic background, we
were troubled by her apparent acceptance of that
condition. It seemed to us that Syrie was not pre-
pared to think about how schools (and teachers)
might provide more equitable opportunities for
students.
2.3.3. Janee
When we began interviewing Janee, she was an
academically successful 20-year old junior who was
just beginning her course work in teacher educa-
tion. Janee's favorite teacher was her former ge-
ometry, trigonometry, and calculus teacher in high
school. Her opportunities for working with com-
puters began in the fourth grade, when her parents
enrolled her in a basic programming class in the
home of a local university professor. As a high
school senior she took a word processing class, but
reported limited opportunities for access and integ-
ration of computers in other classrooms. For
example, although she was encouraged to purchase
a graphing calculator while in a trigonometry class
in high school, the math teacher at the time did not
emphasize how to use it, except to check one's
evaluation of an integral. In addition she had access
to a home computer, used for word processing,
games, and spreadsheets, which she attributed to
R.T. Clift et al. /Teaching and Teacher Education 17 (2001) 33 }50 41
MUDs are Multi-User Domains, computer-based environ-
ments that allow multiple people to interact within a shared
virtual world. MOOs (MUDs Object Oriented) are MUDs that
can be modi"ed by users.
her parents'demand that she and her sister keep
a budget while students at the university.
Games represented some of her earliest recollec-
tions of using a computer. She described a variety
of computer games, many math related, such as
Alien Edition and Hunt the Wumpus. She also
discussed more complex games, similar to acti-
vities in MUDs and MOOs, where players take on
various identities with lists of tasks to accomplish.
One game, called The Cave, required players to
work through a cave using words only and on
occasion included the death and reincarnation of
its players.
While in university-required general education
courses, Janee used a variety of computer technolo-
gies for course completion. From her personal com-
puter, she hooked up to NovaNet in order to access
quizzes and print out quizzes. She also accessed
a campus computing laboratory in order to run
programs for her computer science class. This com-
puter science class used class newsgroups to post
the required machine problems and as places for
students to post questions about the problems
along with example answers to class assignments.
Her chemistry class posted lessons for review and
many other classes posted course lecture notes on
the World Wide Web.
The "rst "eld component of her mathematics
methods course took place in a middle school
eighth grade mathematics class located in the same
town as the university. Her cooperating teacher
had attended summer computer workshops given
by the university. Janee did not observe her
cooperating teacher using computer technologies
for instructional purposes, however. When describ-
ing the computers available in the classroom, Janee
reported that her cooperating teacher had a laptop
but did not use it in front of the students. The only
time Janee saw her use the computer was when she
demonstrated a project that she had completed for
a summer class at the university to Janee and other
preservice students. During her "eld assignment
Janee and the other prospective teachers were
asked to take the students to the computer lab for
an Internet search. Her role was to make sure that
they were on track. `I felt like I was more of
a resource for the computer and the Internet than
a math teacher, and I'm studying to be a math
teacher.a
In the second semester "eld experience Janee was
placed in a special education resource room, where
the students were allowed to play computer games
(action games) or access the Internet after their
work in study hall was completed. The Internet
sites she saw the students access were those they
had seen on television. She saw no examples of
incorporating the Internet into instruction. When
comparing both of her "eld placements, she com-
mented that she saw more direct use of technology
during the "rst semester (the middle school mathe-
matics class). Technology during the second semes-
ter was used for non-instructional time. Based on
what she saw and experienced in her "eld place-
ments, Janee summarized the use of computer tech-
nologies as a `fun break.a
Janee shared that she felt there would not be
much di!erence between the role she imagined for
herself and the role of the mathematics teachers 10
years ago. She did see, however, that there might be
di!erent tools, such as the computer, the graphing
calculator, or standard calculator. Janee lamented
about the over-reliance on calculators for computa-
tion based on observations from her "eld experi-
ence. She went on to describe this student over-
reliance on calculators as forcing the classroom
teacher to gear the problems more toward the
calculator, `if you know they are going to use it,
you may as well [gear problems that way]a. Yet
when asked to give a metaphor for the computer
she answered,
It's like a friend to help you do things much more
quickly than before. I could never hack doing
papers on a typewriter. You can't revise or look
at things clearly. Seeing my mom using it for her
checkbook now. It is so much easier. It takes two
minutes to balance your checkbook instead of
adding all this stu!up by hand. It is a waste of
time especially when you are adding 100 num-
bers, you are bound to make a mistake.
42 R.T. Clift et al. /Teaching and Teacher Education 17 (2001) 33 }50
When asked, `If you had one computer in your
room with an Internet connection, what site might
you use and how would you employ it?a, Janee
responded that she had heard of a website that
hosted lessons posted from other math teachers
and would use this site as a resource to get new
ideas about how to present things to see if they
worked or not. At that time, her image of the Web
was for teacher use. At the time of the study she did
not think in terms of the students exploring the
Web for their own learning purposes.
From Janee we learned that not only do prior
experiences with computers serve as "lters for
thinking about how to incorporate technology into
instruction, but images of good teaching do so as
well. Janee, at that point in her preparation pro-
gram, had not been able to get away from a tradi-
tional view of mathematics instruction. We also
learned that the teacher education program (both
"eld and course requirements) had not helped this
student (and others as well) to develop a coherent
view of what it means to incorporate technology
into mathematics instruction.
2.3.4. Chris
Of all of the students we studied intensively,
Chris, a 20-year old junior studying mathematics
education, was the most technologically sophisti-
cated. One of the reasons he decided to teach sec-
ondary mathematics was because those teachers
often teach computer applications. His experience
with computer technologies began when he was
5-years old with access to an Apple II#and a few
basic programming books. His elementary school
had 5 Apple IIe's on which "ve students would play
math games or work on typing skills each week. His
junior high curriculum included a BASIC program-
ming class. In high school he enrolled in additional
programming classes, including Pascal and Hyper-
Card. Some of the applications he used on his
personal computer were Microsoft O$ce, Power-
Point, and Mathematica, as well as word process-
ing, e-mail and games.
Chris used e-mail everyday for course related
and personal purposes. During Fall 1996, Chris
reported that he used the Web to examine sites
selling computer hardware and to buy a new
motherboard for his computer. Chris described the
computer as `like a student and the user is the
teacher. The computer is not going to do anything
that it is not told to do. It is like a perfect student
because it will only do what you tell it toa.
Like Janee, Chris was required to use a variety of
computer technologies for requirements in univer-
sity courses across campus. For a physics class he
logged on to NovaNet to access the homework
assignments. Chemistry classes required the same.
Computer science classes required programming
with Mathematica. Another physics class required
the students to access the course homepage for the
homework, where the work was also to be sent
when "nished. Chris reported that no computer
technologies were used in the educational psychol-
ogy course he took. He also noted that because
course notes were made available on the Web for
the educational policy course, he did not attend
lectures *opting to download the course notes.
The mathematics methods course, which he was
taking when we began interviewing him, required
the use of e-mail, accessing the Web for mathemat-
ics speci"c resources, and the creation of a personal
homepage. During the spring semester, a second
course in education required that e-mail be sent to
a class re#ector, as well as a subscription to a pro-
fessional listserv of interest to the student and fol-
lowing the conversation on that listserv for at least
2 months. In addition, this course required re-
searching the Web for resources appropriate for
a secondary classroom, previewing and critiquing
of multimedia software, and included the option to
create a personal portfolio in electronic form. Chris
reported that for the remainder of his second sem-
ester courses, word processing was required, but
not many more technology requirements were ex-
pected, particularly in his mathematics courses.
Chris felt strongly that computer technology was
a tool that could and should be utilized more in
classrooms. He imagined his future classroom to
house at least one computer with an LCD panel for
using HyperCard or PowerPoint. He wanted to
experiment with having `lessons made up on there
that I could just go through on my computer.
I think that would almost be a necessity for mea.He
felt that programs like PowerPoint could be e!ec-
tive because of the attractive presentation, and the
ability to plan out the lesson before class so that
R.T. Clift et al. /Teaching and Teacher Education 17 (2001) 33 }50 43
time is not wasted writing on an overhead or chalk-
board. Additionally, lessons prepared on Power-
Point were ready for a substitute teacher in the
computer lab. He hoped that computer technolo-
gies would open the students'minds to the fact that
math is a lot more than a textbook and a sheet of
paper.
When he was asked, `If you had one computer in
your room with an Internet connection, what site
might you use and how would you employ it?a,
Chris responded that he would use the `Puzzle of
the Dayaweb page, `because I think I could hook
up the computer to an LCD display. It would make
fun warm-up exercises or if there is ever 10 minutes
left in the class period, I could do thata.
Chris's fall classroom placement was at a high
school in the same town as the university. He was
assigned to observe two classrooms: a lower level
pre-algebra class, in which 12 of the 16 students
were African-American; and a sophomore ge-
ometry class, which was primarily white, with one
African-American student. His cooperating
teacher, a graduate of the mathematics education
program from Chris's university, was currently en-
rolled in the Master's degree program. In coopera-
tion with the Davea Career Center in northern
Illinois, the high school geometry students in this
class were `hiredaas subcontractors for a `Base
Plate Projectaby a company producing a new
video game. The product was manufactured at the
Davea Career Center and the students were to
correspond with the Center via e-mail after down
loading the blueprints from the Davea Web Page.
A key element in this project was the use of
Macintosh-based mathematical software called
Geometer's Sketchpad. Chris and his colleagues
were given this software on the Macintosh Power-
Book laptops loaned out for the semester. Chris
was assigned to work with one of the base plate
production teams. In further interviews with Chris,
there was no reference to how he might use such
a project with his own students. We concluded that,
like Janee, he had not abandoned a traditional view
of teaching and the role of the teacher.
Chris'second "eld placement was at a local high
school in a special education classroom. This class-
room held only "ve students and was a more re-
laxed atmosphere. Every so often the cooperating
teacher let the students play chess, and Chris
played with them. The classroom housed an Apple
IIe. One particular student in the class wrote letters
on it. Chris was not sure about the degree to which
his cooperating teacher relied on computer techno-
logy.
The only time I've seen him use a computer is
when we took the class to the library to the
computer lab and did an Internet search on tor-
nadoes. They were supposed to look for how
many people died and where the tornadoes hit.
Chris felt that none of his courses or his "eld
experiences introduced him to any computer soft-
ware that would be used in basic math classes. He
did not feel prepared to incorporate computer tech-
nologies with lower track students or students with
special needs. He did note that, `you can always
"nd ways of using stu!you are familiar with until
you can "nd new stu!a.
Before his year in the teacher education curricu-
lum, Chris had never considered the computer for
instructional purposes. He began to feel that the
`lecture styleamathematics classroom was out-
dated and that computer technology could be
a useful tool*for the teacher. His image of com-
puter as information giver only put a modern spin
on what we often refer to as `chalk and talka
instruction.
From Chris we learned that even though a "eld
experience demonstrated technology use in a novel
and innovative manner, this was insu$ciently
powerful to overcome a teacher-centered view of
teaching*at least initially. While Chris eagerly
adapted his instruction to take advantage of com-
puters, this advantage did not extend to student
use. We were especially concerned with Chris'ap-
parent views that technology use was appropriate
for high track students, but not for students in the
lower tracks in the high school where he was ob-
serving.
2.4. A third model
At this point we began to look across the data we
had collected in order to develop a third model that
acknowledged the inferences we had made based
44 R.T. Clift et al. /Teaching and Teacher Education 17 (2001) 33 }50
Table 2
Summary of conclusions across data sources
Surveys Interviews Case studies
Individual practice is shaped by the culture/setting in which the individual works X X
Di!erent settings encourage di!erent practices in the same individual. X X
Purpose for communication also impacts individual practice X X X
Di!erent communication options are used, based on purpose for communication and
on the ease with which they can be accessed.
XX X
Ease of access depends, in part, on individual perceptions of such ease. X X
Purpose and task demands may override individual characteristics when using
technology and telecommunications
XX X
The di!erential power and status relations between instructors and prospective teachers
can have a strong e!ect on perceptions of both task demands and purposes.
XX X
The university and school settings di!er greatly with regard to the ability to access
technology and, therefore, the communications options available to prospective teachers.
XX
The university and school settings di!er greatly with regard to the group norms that
encourage technology use.
XX
Across the university, departments also vary with regard to the group norms that encourage
technology use.
X
Students can handle the variation among the contexts, but do not actively transfer learning
about computer use from context to context.
X
Students are only beginning to be aware that telecommunications technology implies social as
well as pedagogical changes.
X
Students do not necessarily view technology as a way to ameliorate economic disparities as they
impact school work.
X
on our various analyses. We began with acknowl-
edging that in our project, the university setting
exerted a powerful and intentional force on many
of the prospective teachers by infusing telecommu-
nications use and technology use throughout the
curriculum. The program (and our project in par-
ticular) made technology available on and o!the
campus. Thus, for these prospective teachers, issues
of access and available communication forms were
not as important as they would be for students who
are working in university contexts that are not as
technology rich. Table 2 summarizes our con-
clusions.
We do not argue that our data are illustrative of
all, or even most, teacher preparation institutions.
We also recognize that as times, people, and tech-
nologies rapidly change (which has happened since
we submitted this article for review), our con-
clusions will not necessarily continue to hold for
our own programs, much less for any others. One
concern of any study concerning new technologies
is whether the conclusions will remain relevant over
time given the rapid rate of change in technology.
A study whose "ndings were dependent on the
details of particular ways of interacting with tech-
nologies, with the speci"cs of computer speed or the
limitations of communication bandwidth at a par-
ticular moment in time may not be relevant as
those speci"c features change radically over a few
years. We do argue that our "ndings can inform
both program design and future research as techno-
logy becomes more and more important in educa-
tion and in teacher education. In our work we have
attempted to focus on those aspects of technology
use that are less impacted by the speci"cs of the
software or hardware and, hopefully, less sensitive
to the changes in technology.
As we re#ected on our own work, plus our know-
ledge of the varied university contexts that sup-
ported students'learning to use technology, we
found that, not surprisingly, university instructors
di!ered in the expectations for students and in the
support they provided. We also found that di!erent
groups of students evolved their own, unstated
norms for what were and were not useful practices
related to telecommunications. The model we have
since developed to guide our research, shown in
Fig. 3, expands the concept of contextual factors
R.T. Clift et al. /Teaching and Teacher Education 17 (2001) 33 }50 45
Fig. 3. Technologies in contexts *a model to guide future research.
from our previous model and separates the univer-
sity context from the school context. In referring to
the visual representation of the model as a frame-
work, the inner circle of the model represents indi-
vidual practice in three distinct, but overlapping,
settings: (1) the culture of the schools in which "eld
experiences are situated; (2) the culture of the uni-
versity at large, in which students have been
a member for 4}5 years; and (3) individual practice
which includes strands of biography, purpose,
socioeconomic status, and linguistic preference.
For example, some preservice teachers come to the
university following consistent experiences with
computer technology in their homes or in their high
schools. Others come to the university having had
little exposure or opportunity to use computers as
part of their personal biographies or in their high
schools. However, by the time these students be-
come preservice teachers, their individual practices
are informed and modi"ed by their university ex-
periences, and later, in their teacher education pro-
gram by their school experiences.
Inside the school setting, the university setting,
and within individual practice are multiple contexts
in which preservice students'experiences with tech-
nology emerge, are perceived, and are interpreted
*each of which contributes to an emerging know-
ledge base. Within and between the school and
university settings, the model represents ways
preservice students might experience and perceive
computer technology as: (1) a form of communica-
tion in that setting; (2) a form of communication
that is practical, accessible, or easy to use in that
setting, (or that it is not); and (3) a form of commun-
ication that relates to issues of access, group norms,
costs and bene"ts, communication options, instruc-
tor and mentor teacher support, and task demands
in each setting. Each of these categories informs the
others as preservice teachers move beyond tech-
nical skills to thinking through meaning and
46 R.T. Clift et al. /Teaching and Teacher Education 17 (2001) 33 }50
interpretation of technology use in their individual
practice and in the contexts in which they work.
The italicized features, within both the school
and university context and within the domain of
individual practice, are features that our data have
led us to believe are important for thinking about
how telecommunications technology interacts with
other forms of communication as one is learning to
teach. We would not argue that those features in
plain text are unimportant, we instead note that the
data we have collected to date do not address these
issues speci"cally.
As we analyzed our data we learned that indi-
viduals were also a!ected by evolving norms within
university classes, and within the school settings,
that made a powerful impact on the students. In
some classes, not using technology and telecommu-
nications was simply not an option. In such set-
tings, individual practice was shaped by these
groups'norms, which seemed to be constructed
jointly by students and instructors. In other classes,
wherein use of technology or telecommunications
was not emphasized, use of technology varied more
from individual to individual. We predict that this
will hold in school and in university settings *for
faculty as well as for students.
Our data indicated that students'options for
communicating with others, including their
cooperating teachers and others in the "eld, were
tapped for di!ering purposes. That is, students
availed themselves of numerous forms of commun-
ication while learning about teaching. Internet-
based communication was only one such option.
We also noted that when prospective teachers
entered "eld settings with teachers who were inter-
ested in technology use, but not necessarily
experienced, the student teachers served as teachers
of teachers. This leads us to wonder about the
potential of technology to encourage communities
of learners in which issues of status and power are
downplayed more than they are when technology
use is not an issue. It also leads us to wonder if
prospective teachers can become partial change
agents unless they are actively invited and encour-
aged to do so by experienced teachers and adminis-
trators in school settings.
This model, our most sophisticated to date, rec-
ognizes that there are many contextual factors that
impact upon inhabitants'use of technology, not
simply access or resource allocation. Equally im-
portant are additional, less easily measured factors
such as group norms for technology use and the
costs or bene"ts the context assigns to its use. The
model also emphasizes that in order to understand
the congruence or dissonance between settings, it is
important to examine the settings separately. Like-
wise, teacher education programs should alert stu-
dents to the possible di!erences between campus
and "eld settings *and then strive to minimize
any problematic disparity, possibly providing
a series of professional development opportunities
for practicing teachers.
3. Final observations and conclusions
From our work to date we o!er the following
thoughts concerning teacher education program
design and for further research on the impact of
technology on teaching and learning to teach.
3.1. The importance of `just in time supporta
or support on demand.
Our work has led us to conclude that
coursework in technology and telecommunication
is not nearly as important as embedding techno-
logy and telecommunication use throughout the
university curriculum *in and out of education
courses. Indeed, this "nding has formed the basis
for the redesign of our teacher education programs
for elementary and secondary students. This con-
clusion has been con"rmed by a national survey of
teacher education conducted by the International
Society for Technology in Education (1999) and by
other research (Zhao, Rop, Banghart, Hou, &
Topper, 1998; Thurston, Stuve, Secaras, & Thomas,
1998). Embedding, however, requires that faculty and
cooperating teachers be technologically pro"cient.
3.2. The importance of support for all teacher
education participants
Although our data focus mainly on teacher
education students'learning, our students often
commented on the teacher education program,
R.T. Clift et al. /Teaching and Teacher Education 17 (2001) 33 }50 47
which necessarily means the teacher education fac-
ulty. Our Teaching Teleapprenticeships project of-
fered some support to interested faculty, but only
provided systematic support to one elementary
education professor. At this point we note that
there is insu$cient research on how faculty learn to
incorporate technology into their instruction (Han-
dler, Strudler, & Falba, 1998). We suspect that by
supporting instructors'use of technology, and by
also supporting cooperating teachers'uses of tech-
nology, we will see a dynamic change in the degree
to which both the university and the school con-
texts support technology use. Through workshops,
easily accessible consultants, and sharing of
information, we will most likely in#uence teacher
educators'use of telecommunications and that of
their prospective teachers. This teaching of teachers
function has not typically been the role of teacher
education, but we agree with others who have
reached the same conclusion and advocate the ex-
pansion of such a role (Roberts & Ferris, 1994).
3.3. The potential of preservice teacher education
as change agent in school settings
The concept of prospective teachers serving as
change agents within the schools in which they are
placed is discussed for many instructional innova-
tions, despite the research on student teaching that
emphasizes the low power status of prospective
teachers and the degree to which they conform to
their cooperating teachers'pedagogical styles (Clift,
Meng, & Eggerding, 1994). While our work con-
"rms the existence of social pressures exerted by the
"eld settings (Loveless, 1998), we note that there
were occasions when a prospective teacher served
as a teacher educator. We advocate for more delib-
erate program designs in which occasions for mu-
tual learning and the sharing of expertise are
emphasized. We also note that the university can
support such learning by making technology re-
sources available when the school context cannot.
3.4. The absence of shared knowledge among
students of diwering abilities
The previous recommendation was made even
with the knowledge that much of our data suggest
that teacher education students with expertise do
not share that expertise with others. When we jux-
tapose this against research on cooperative learn-
ing, we are led to conclude that program designers
should deliberately create contexts in which pro-
spective teachers share their abilities with one an-
other. At the same time, we also advocate more
research on intentional and unintentional learning
when teacher education students with mixed abil-
ities work together on projects designed to encour-
age such sharing.
3.5. The awareness of purpose in communication
choice as a factor in course design
Our students reported that sometimes the re-
quirement to use telecommunications was more
frustrating than helpful, but sometimes it was a tre-
mendous asset. When communicating with people
who were hard to reach in person or by telephone,
technology was perceived as helpful. Based on our
analysis we have concluded that asynchronous tele-
communication technology is particularly helpful
when one does not need or want a rapid inter-
change. But when rapid interchange is important,
particularly in times of emotional stress, asyn-
chronous telecommunication is not valued. The
delays between the time a message is sent and
a reply is received are too long. Furthermore, pro-
spective teachers often want the visual reassurance
that face-to-face communication can provide.
We have also found that some individuals are
using technology as a distancing mechanism when
they do not wish to be overburdened with others'
expressed thoughts or feelings. Busy students or
busy professors can use e-mail as a way of avoiding
communication with one another, just as they can
use it as a means of increasing communication with
one another. The same holds for communications
with "eld-based teacher educators. It is much easier
to avoid an electronic message than it is to avoid
a telephone call or someone's presence in your
o$ce or classroom. We believe that further re-
search involving communication choice will be
helpful to program designers, particularly as pro-
grams experiment with forms of distance education.
Our "nal thought is based on the re#ection and
the revisiting of data that occurred as we prepared
48 R.T. Clift et al. /Teaching and Teacher Education 17 (2001) 33 }50
this article. The Teaching Teleapprenticeship pro-
ject supported practice, practical learning, and re-
search. Without the ongoing collections of data and
analyses we would not have learned about the
interaction among individual characteristics and
contexts. Without a project team comprising indi-
viduals with di!erent areas of expertise and di!er-
ent research agendas, we would not have raised the
multiplicity of issues found in this article, nor
would we have modi"ed our own separate views
based on the sharing of data and data analyses. We
strongly advocate that ongoing research conducted
in mixed ability teams can and should be a primary
component of teacher education program design
and modi"cation.
References
Benson, S. (1995). Year-long project program evaluation.O$ce of
Clinical Experiences, Department of Curriculum and In-
struction, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Bitter, G., & Yohe, R. (1989). Preparing teachers for the In-
formation Age. Educational Technology,29,22}25.
Clift, R. T., Meng, L., & Eggerding, S. (1994). Mixed messages in
learning to teach. Teaching and Teacher Education,10,
265}279.
Cuban, L. (1986). Teachers and machines: The classroom use of
technology since 1920. New York: Teachers College Press.
Handler, M., Strudler, N., & Falba, C. (1998). Supporting faculty
in e!orts to integrate technology into teacher education. In
S. McNeil, J. Price, S. Boger-Marshall, B. Robin, & J. Willis
(Eds.), Proceedings from the ninth annual conference of the
society of information technology and teacher education (pp.
331}332). Washington, DC: Association for the Advance-
ment of Computing in Education.
Honey, M., & Henriquez, A. (1993). Telecommunications and
K-12 educators: Findings from a national survey. New York:
Center for Technology in Education, Bank Street College of
Education.
International Society for Technology in Education. (1999). Will
new teachers be prepared to teach in a digital age?A national
survey on information technology in teacher education. Milken
Family Foundation, Santa Monica, CA. Available:
http://www.milkenexchange.org/publication.taf?}function"d
etail&Content}uid1"154.
Larson, A. (1998). Social foundations perspectives on technology
education in teacher preparation: A qualitative study. Unpub-
lished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois, Urbana,
Champaign.
Levin, J. A. (1995). Organizing educational network interactions:
Steps towards a theory of network-based learning environ-
ments. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Ameri-
can Educational Research Association, San Francisco.
Levin, J. A., & Waugh, M. L. (1998). Teaching Teleappren-
ticeships: Frameworks for integrating technology into
teacher education. Interactive Learning Environments,6(1}2),
39}58.
Levin, J., Waugh, M., Brown, D., & Clift, R. (1994). Teaching
Teleapprenticeships: A new organizational framework for
improving teacher education using electronic networks.
Journal of Machine-Mediated Learning,4(2&3), 149}161.
Loveless, A. (1998). Where do you stand to get a good view of
pedagogy?. In S. McNeil, J. Price, S. Boger-Marshall, B.
Robin, & J. Willis (Eds.), Proceedings from the ninth annual
conference of the society of information technology and teacher
education (pp. 1271}1274). Washington, DC: Association for
the Advancement of Computing in Education.
Markus, M. L. (1987). Toward a `Critical Massatheory of
interactive media: Universal access, interdependence and
di!usion. Communication Research,14, 491}511.
Merseth, K. (1991). Supporting beginning teachers with com-
puter networks. Journal of Teacher Education,42, 140}147.
National Center for Education Statistics. (1999). Internet access
in public schools and classrooms: 1994}98. Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Education, O$ce of Educational
Research and Improvement.
National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education.
(1997). Technology and the new professional teacher. Prepar-
ing for the 21st century. National Council for Accreditation
of Teacher Education Task Force on Technology. (On-line).
Available: http://www.ncate.org/specfoc/techrpt.html.
Roberts, N., & Ferris, A. (1994). Integrating technology into
a teacher education program. Journal of Technology and
Teacher Education,2(3), 215}225.
Rogers, E. M. (1983). Diwusion of innovations (3rd ed.). New
York: Free Press.
Stuve, M., Bombardier, P., Secaras, E., & Levin, J. (1995). Teach-
ing teleapprenticeships and the learning resource server: im-
proving teacher education using Gopher and WWW.
Presentation made to the annual meeting of the National
Educational Computing Conference, Baltimore, MD.
Thomas, L. (1998). Images of self as teacher mediated by
computer technologies in learning to teach. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois, Urbana, Cham-
paign.
Thomas, L., Clift, R. T., & Sugimoto, T. (1996). Telecommunica-
tion, student teaching, and methods instruction: An explora-
tory investigation. Journal of Teacher Education,47(3),
165}174.
Thomas, L., Larson, A., Clift, R., & Levin, J. (1996). Integrating
technology in teacher education programs. Action in Teacher
Education,17(4), 1}8.
Thurston, C., Stuve, M., Secaras, E., & Thomas, R. (1998).
Multiple means of support: The role of the O$ce of Educa-
tional Technology in faculty development. In S. McNeil, J.
Price, S. Boger-Mehall, B. Robin & J. Willis (Eds.), Proceed-
ings for the ninth annual conference of the society of informa-
tion technology and teacher education conference (p. 352).
Washington, DC: Association for the Advancement of Com-
puting in Education.
R.T. Clift et al. /Teaching and Teacher Education 17 (2001) 33 }50 49
U.S. Congress O$ce of Technology Assessment. (1995).
Teachers and technology: Making the connection (OTA-EHR-
616): Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing O$ce.
Waugh, M. L. (1994). Telecommunications and teacher education:
Developing electronic communities of teachers and learners.
Panel presentation on the integration of technology into
"eld experiences of preservice teachers presented at the
National Educational Computing Conference Annual Meet-
ing, Boston, June.
Zhao, Y., Rop, R., Banghart, R., Hou, K., & Topper, A. (1998).
Life on the Margins: Stories of Techguides. In S. McNeil, J.
Price, S. Boger-Marshall, B. Robin, & J. Willis (Eds.), Pro-
ceedings from the ninth annual conference of the society of
information technology and teacher education (pp. 361}365).
Washington, DC: Association for the Advancement of Com-
puting in Education.
50 R.T. Clift et al. /Teaching and Teacher Education 17 (2001) 33 }50
