down arrowMenu

Marvin Harrell & Nancy Smith's INTIME Journal

Preparing Pre-Service Teachers to Integrate Technology

Into Elementary Mathematics Instruction

Introduction

Few people would argue today that information technologies are having and will continue to have major impacts on how we in education view schooling, teaching, and learning. Some see technology as the driving force for all that will be good about education in the future. Others see information technology as a force that will destroy education as we now know it and drive us toward all of the negative aspects of consumerism.

Like most complicated technological developments and their associated social changes, the truth is somewhere between these two extreme positions. However, those who fear the consequences of information technology developments may do so because of the possibilities these technologies present for a fundamental shift in how we think about schooling, teaching, and learning. Unfortunately, people who advocate this shift and support technology have failed to show how technology can actually promote the core values of American education.

If technology is indeed a facilitator of quality education in mathematics and all content areas, how will it be used? How can developments in information technology facilitate an education appropriate for the 21st century while enhancing student achievement in core areas deemed important to our democratic society? How can preservice elementary teachers be prepared to integrate this technology into mathematics instruction to optimize learning for all students?

One model that addresses these issues and provides answers to these questions is currently being developed at the University of Northern Iowa through a U.S. Department of Education grant, Preparing Tomorrow's Teachers to Use Technology (PT3). Called Technology as Facilitator of Quality Education (TFQE), the model is established under the I
NTIMEproject (Integrating New Technologies into the Methods of Education, www.INTIME.uni.edu). This three-year project addresses deficiencies in teacher education programs in preparing preservice teachers to use technology effectively in the PreK-12 classroom. The purpose of INTIME is to provide the necessary resources for methods faculty to revise their courses, model technology integration, and require preservice teachers to integrate technology and components of quality education in their lessons and units. A consortium of five participating Renaissance Group universities is working together in this project to create new learning resources and implement new standards for technology integration in preservice teacher preparation.

This project is intended to produce change in teacher education programs in three ways. First, it has generated new learning resources on the web to support new teaching and learning processes in education methods courses. New learning resources include video scenarios of PreK-12 teachers effectively integrating technology, along with components of quality education, in a variety of grade levels and content areas. These videos are accessible online nation-wide. Second, methods faculty in mathematics and other content areas are revising their courses to model technology integration using the video scenarios and online discussion forum, requiring students to apply technology, and implementing the Preservice Teacher Technology Competencies as exit criteria for their courses. Finally, methods faculty will share strategies for integrating technology and course revisions with other faculty involved in the grant through a variety of activities.

The Technology as Facilitator of Quality Education (TFQE) model (see Figure 1) includes seven major dimensions organized in a circular fashion to show their interconnections:

  1. Students at the center of their own learning; 

  2. Principles of good learning;

  3. Aspects of information processing;

  4. Standards from content disciplines, 

  5. Tenets of effective citizenship in a democratic society, 

  6. Teacher knowledge and behavior, and 

  7. Technology.

Figure One

These seven dimensions of the TFQE model provide a way for educators to view the integration of technology related tools into a robust educational environment. The model identifies key points at which technology should be implemented and evaluated to determine its impact. It simultaneously allows for the integration of new research findings into the appropriate segments of the model while maintaining the structure to evaluate the impact of technology tools on these new findings as part of an ongoing evaluation process. In so doing, it allows a variety of users (preservice teachers, teachers, administrators, and others) to see the complex process that is education and how technology is affecting that process.

Review of the Literature

A review of the literature used to develop the essential elements of quality education for the TFQE model answers questions regarding a support for the shift in our educational activities toward technology and how the model can prepare preservice teachers to integrate technology effectively into social studies instruction.

Students at the Center of Their Own Learning

The TFQE model revolves around the central element of “student-centered learning (SCL), [which] places the student (learner) in the center of the learning process. In student-centered learning students are active participants in their learning rather than passive recipients; students learn at their own pace and use their own strategies...” (Learner-Centered Classrooms, Problem Based Learning and the Construction of Understanding and Meaning, 1999).

Student-centered learning is distinguished from teacher-centered learning or instruction that is characterized by the transmission of information from a knowledge expert (teacher) to a relatively passive recipient (student/learner) or consumer (McCombs & Whisler, 1997). By putting students at the center of their own learning, we blend these various components into a unique learning system, a system that allows us to view the complicated process that is learning and its individual parts.

According to Stiggins (1997), "The most valuable lesson we have learned in recent years from those studying cognitive processes is that rote memorization does not ensure understanding, and thus is not a powerful way to promote learning" (p. 257). In addition, a report from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP, 1996) found that when technology and other instructional strategies are used to promote higher-order thinking and problem solving, student achievement in mathematics is positively impacted. However, they also found that many students, especially those in urban, poor, and rural areas, are often only introduced to lower-order uses of technology and those uses are not conducive to high levels of academic achievement.

The construction of knowledge means that the learner links new information with existing and future-oriented knowledge in unique and meaningful ways (McCombs, 1997, p.5). Although knowledge acquisition processes are needed to form the base, that knowledge is useful to the degree it can be applied or used to create new knowledge (Marzano et al., 1988, p.33). Learning and self-esteem are heightened when individuals are in respectful and caring relationships with others who see their potential, genuinely appreciate their unique talents, and accept them as individuals (McCombs & Whisler, 1997).

For student-centered learning to occur, high quality classroom management is needed. Woolfolk (2001) cited three reasons for the importance of such a management system: to allocate more time for learning, to give more access to learning, and to help students develop their self-management.

Principles of Learning

This second essential element in the Technology as a Facilitator of Quality Education model includes aspects of what we now know about learning. Current research in cognitive science has suggested that big differences exist between knowledge based on recall and deeper forms of understanding. EweIl (1997) described seven insights about learning:

Active Involvement - The learner is not a "receptacle" of knowledge, but rather creates his or her learning actively and uniquely.

Patterns & Connections - Learning is about each individual learner making meaning by establishing and reworking patterns, relationships, and connections.

Informal Learning - Every student learns all the time both in "formal" education and in informal learning situations out of direct interactions with complex environments and a range of "cues" from peers and mentors.

Direct Experience - Direct experience decisively shapes individual understanding, which certainly lends credence to educators' efforts to create active student engagement in any teaching situation. 

Compelling Situation - Maximum learning tends to occur when people are confronted with specific, identifiable problems that they want to solve and that are within their power to solve.

Reflection - Building lasting cognitive connections requires sizeable periods of reflective activity, meaning that effective learning situations need to include thinking time.

Enjoyable Setting - Effective learning, which is social and interactive, occurs best in a cultural context that provides enjoyable interactions and substantial personal support.

Aspects of Information Processing

Developing the dispositions and skills necessary for informed information processing has become a necessary component of education in an information age. Switzer, Callahan, and Quinn (1999) suggested using The Pathways to Knowledge model (Pappas &Tepe, 1997) that allows users to see how contemporary technology influences the individual parts of their model and to view the parts as a coherent element of the TFQE model.

The component parts of the process include:

Appreciation - of literature, arts, nature, and information through varied multiple formats (stories, film, paintings, natural settings, music, books, periodicals, the Web, video, etc.)

Presearch - Making connections between a topic, question, or information need and the searcher's prior knowledge.

Search- Identifying appropriate information providers, resources and tools; planning and implementing a search strategy.

Interpretation - Assessing the usefulness and quality of their information gathered and reflecting to develop personal meaning.

Communication - Organizing, applying, and presenting new knowledge relevant to the searcher's research. Choosing a format that reflects the new knowledge; plan and create the product.

Evaluation - Evaluating by both self and peers at each stage of this nonlinear information process model (Pappas & Tepe, 1997).

Standards from Content Disciplines

In recent years, content standards have been developed for almost all of the discipline areas, including mathematics, either by teams from the disciplines themselves or by agencies in various states (Switzer, Callahan, & Quinn, 1999). These content standards serve as a third dimension of effective learning and integration of technology using the TFQE model. Content standards in the model are explained for the arts, foreign language/ESL, health/P.E. language arts, math, social studies, science, vocational education, and other areas.

Tenets of Effective Citizenship in a Democratic Society,

Research on the tenets of democracy in a robust learning environment show great similarity between what we know about good classrooms and what we know about democracy. At the heart of our education system is the preparation of students to lead productive lives consistent with the basic tenets of a democratic society. Unfortunately, most schools and classrooms, especially those in urban, poor, and rural areas, are not organized to consciously promote democratic disposition and skills. The basic tenets of democratic schools and classrooms include the following that serve as the fourth component of the TFQE model:
Tolerance - the capacity for or the practice of recognizing and respecting the beliefs or practices of others (The American Heritage Dictionary, 1982).


Critical Thinking and Decision Making - People who think critically proceed on the basis of careful evaluation of the premises and evidence and come to conclusions as objectively as possible by considering all pertinent factors and using valid logical procedures (Good, 1973). To think critically, citizens must gather necessary information using inquiry skills (observe, describe, compare, identify, etc.) and avoiding common problems in logic (for instance, getting personal, making false comparisons, saying things everyone will like, arguing in circles etc.) (Callahan, 1998). Then citizens must decide on the reliability of the information that they use as evidence to support their positions on complex social problems. Decision-making in democracies is a process of reaching agreement in group situations through dialogue, discussion, debate, and analysis (Callahan, 1998)

Thinking Together and Making Meaning - Citizens must decide how to deal with complex social problems: how to define the problem, what values should be pursued, what public policies should be supported, what candidates should be elected to office, what actions should be taken with respect to social concerns (Engle & Ochoa, 1988, p. 61). Steiner (as cited in Lipset, 1995) argued that in a democratic society as many people as possible should be involved in making decisions to help sharpen the issues and check the soundness of the arguments. The discipline of team learning starts with dialogue and the capacity of team members to suspend assumptions and enter into genuine "thinking together" (Senge, 1990).

Power Sharing and Empowerment - Empowerment is “the opportunity and means to effectively participate and share authority” (Bastian, Fruchter, Gittell, Greer, & Haskins, as cited in Simon, 1987, p. 374). Empowerment can lead to rapid intellectual growth (Hill, 2000, p. 61) and the ability to deal with complexity, uncertainty, and ambiguity.

Individual Responsibility and Civil Involvement with Others - These traits will grow with the opportunities in a democracy to share the mutual tasks for the orderliness and welfare of the group and for personal independence (Good, 1973). Hollingshead (1941) noted that democracy is not solely a political organization, but rather a social relationship, a conscious striving on the part of each member for the advancement of the common welfare; a shared responsibility with individual accountability (pp. 17-18).

Teacher Knowledge and Behavior

This essential element of the TFQE model describes the following components of an effective teacher in any subject area: knowledge of student characteristics, teachers' in-depth content knowledge, classroom management, and pedagogy.


Teacher Knowledge: Student Characteristics - Research has revealed the importance of adjusting learning activities to the learner. The closer the match between students' learning styles and their teachers' teaching styles, the higher the grade point average (Dunn, R., Griggs, Olson, Gorman & Beasley, 1995). A Learning Style Model (R. Dunn & Griggs, 1995) revealed that students are affected by five main factors: their immediate environment, their own emotionality, their sociological preferences, their physiological characteristics, and their processing inclination. Accommodating instruction to these styles is much easier with the rich resources available through various technologies.

Practitioners throughout the United States have reported statistically higher test scores or grade point averages for students who changed from traditional teaching to learning-style teaching at all levels -elementary, secondary, and college (Brunner & Majewski, as cited in Shaughnessy, 1998; Alberg, Cook, Fiore, Friend, & Sano, 1992).

Teacher Knowledge: Teachers In-Depth Content Knowledge - To teach all students according to today's standards, teachers need to understand subject matter deeply and flexibly so they can help students create useful cognitive maps, relate one idea to another, and address misconceptions. Teachers need to see how ideas connect across fields and to everyday life and then assist their students in seeing these connections. This kind of understanding provides a foundation for pedagogical content knowledge that enables teachers to make ideas accessible to others (Shulman 1987, 1986). If beginning teachers are to be successful, they must wrestle simultaneously with issues of pedagogical content (or knowledge) as well as general pedagogy (or genetic teaching principles)" (Grossman as cited in Ornstein, Thomas, & Lasley, 2000, p. 508).

Teacher Behavior: Classroom Management - School and classroom management aims to encourage and establish student self-control by promoting positive student achievement and behavior. Thus academic achievement, teacher efficacy, and teacher and student behavior are directly linked with the concept of school and classroom management (Froyen & Iverson, 1999). Classroom management focuses on content management, conduct management, and covenant management.

Teacher Behavior: Pedagogy - The professional teaching standards represent the teaching profession's consensus on the critical aspects of the art and science of teaching (pedagogy) that characterize accomplished teachers in various fields, including mathematics. Effective teachers display skills at creating curriculum designed to build on students' present knowledge and understanding and move them to more sophisticated and in-depth abilities, knowledge, concepts, and performances. Teachers in mathematics employ a range of instructional strategies and resources to match the variety of student skills. They observe and assess students in the context of ongoing classroom life. They understand and respect diversity in students' cultures, values, languages, and family backgrounds (National Board of Professional Teaching Standards, 1998).

Technology Components

Technology is the set of the powerful tools that the teacher and learner can use to facilitate his/her own learning process. Technology resources can be used to provide opportunities for learning and create the "conditions that optimize learning" (Switzer, Callahan, & Quinn, 1999). It has been found that when technology becomes an integrated part of the classroom, in meaningful and higher-order ways, it can improve the effectiveness of classroom instruction (Dublin et al., 1994).

To ensure that technology is used to facilitate quality education, the key elements of the TFQE model need to be matched with a set of standards for the appropriate uses of technology. The I
NTIME project is using the Preservice Teacher Technology Competencies, performance-based competencies modeled on several national standards documents, developed by the UNI Teacher Education faculty.

These technology competencies include: Basic Technology Equipment Operations and Concepts, Technology Resources and Tools for Information Literacy, and Technology Resources and Tools for Content Areas.

Method

The project goals were to familiarize students with the Technology as Facilitator of Quality Education model (TFQE), for students to see examples of appropriate integration of technology into elementary mathematics instruction, to increase their knowledge of effective integration of technology into mathematics instruction, and to successfully participate in an online discussion. 

Two pre-assessments were administered at the beginning of the course. The UNI Preservice Teacher Technology Competencies (PTTC) measured knowledge and skill in the use of a variety of technologies. The ESU Technology Survey measured confidence in the ability to integrate the Essential Elements of the TFQE model into designing classroom lessons and using technology as a tool for facilitating their own learning. Furthermore, on the post ESU Technology Competencies students were asked to rate the value of the I
NTIME assignment and to recommend if future students should complete the assignment

During the Fall 2001 semester, an assignment, the Technology Critique, was developed for the courses MA306, Foundations Lab, and EE317, Teaching Mathematics in the Elementary School. See Appendix A. First, the students were to complete the online PTTC and ESU Technology Survey. Next, students were given the introduction, literature review, and references of this manuscript, Preparing Preservice Teachers to Integrate Technology into Elementary Mathematics Instruction, in order to familiarize them with the TFQE model. Each student then independently viewed one of the two I
NTIME elementary mathematics videos. The primary grades video was “Givin ′Em the Business” and the intermediate grades video was “Harry Potter Research Project.” Students were instructed to take notes about the parts of the TFQE model they saw in the videoed lesson. Once the preliminary work was complete, students used WebCT to participate in an online discussion. They were instructed to post a minimum of one original reaction to the video they viewed, and at least one response to another student’s posting. Finally, the students completed the online PTTC and the ESU Technology Survey.

Results

The data were analyzed using one-tailed t-tests. Table 1 summarizes the ESU Technology Survey data from the mathematics course MA 306, Foundations Lab. Mean differences in items 1, 2, and 4 were found to be statistically significant at the .05 level, t = 2.22, d.f. = 34; t = 1.96, d.f. = 34; and t = 2.27, d.f. = 34, respectively. Hence, there is evidence that at the completion of this project, preservice teachers were more confident in planning lessons with technology that engage their students in activities where the student constructs his or her own knowledge, and that such lessons support the development of patterns, connections, reflection, informal learning and the attainment of state and national standards.

I
NTIME staff provided data for ten MA 306 students’ PTTC scores. Sixty percent of the students had no change in their pre and post-PTTC scores, while 40% had positive change.

Table 2 summarizes the data from the ESU Technology Surveys for the EE 317, Teaching Mathematics in the Elementary School classes. Note that the t statistic for each item is statistically significant at the .01 level and items 3,4, and 5 are significant at the .001 level. In other words, all mean differences are statistically significant at the identified levels. Thus, the differences provide evidence that at the completion of the project the students’ confidence in using technology as related to the TFQE model has impacted positively. 

I
NTIME staff provided data related to the online PTTC survey for thirty-six EE 317 students. Twenty-eight percent of the student showed a positive change from the pre to the post scores, 64% showed no change and 8% show an equal distribution of scores split between no change and positive change.

In terms of the preservice teachers’ perceptions of the value of the I
NTIMEassignment and the recommendation to have future students complete the assignment, several students commented on the benefits of the assignment.

“It was a good video and they should get the opportunity to reflect on it.”

“It lets you see technology already in place and working in a classroom.”

“It gave me my first experience in an online discussion room.” 

Other students expressed dissatisfaction with the assignment. Particularly in the EE317 methods course, students felt they already knew about technology integration. 

“INTIME took too much time and was not that informative. Most of the technology items that were talked about, I already knew.”

Some of the dissatisfaction was due to technical difficulties. At times it was difficult to get a quality audio and video transmission.

“I did not learn any extra technology by doing this. It did not even work properly. I ended up just reading the lesson plan.”

Each semester in EE317, students are asked to rate the value of the various class assignments and experiences. While the scores for the other six class assignments ranged from 3.75-4.71 on a 5-point scale, the INTIME assignment was rated at 2.36.

 

Table 1

Data from MA 306 on the ESU Technology Survey

Rate each of the following statements using the scale shown.

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neither A or D

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

I am confident that I can:

5

4

3

2

1

Pre

Post

1.  integrate technology into mathematics lessons that wouldengage students as active participants and problem solvers, working at their own pace and determining their own strategies or approaches inconstructing new knowledge.

mean

3.85

4.19

variance

0.24

0.16

2. develop a mathematics classroom environment that encourages the use of technology and supports the development of patterns, connections , reflection, informal learning.

mean

3.70

4.19

variance

0.85

0.16

3. develop mathematics lessons that integrate technology and encourage student appreciation of the usefulness ofmathematics as an investigation and communication tool. The students begin with a question, develop and carry out an investigation, interpret and analyze the information, and communicate what they have learned with others.

mean

3.75

3.94

variance

0.62

0.20

4. develop mathematics lessons that integrate technology and support the attainment state and national variance mathematics standards

mean

3.65

4.19

variance

0.56

0.43

5. organize a classroom environment that supports the tenants of a democratic society including: tolerance, critical thinking and decision making, cooperation, empowerment, individual responsibility and involvement.

mean

4.00

4.38

variance

0.63

0.39

6. develop mathematics lessons that use technology to support the needs of all diverse learners in my classroom.

mean

4.00

4.00

variance

0.42

0.13

7. use my own mathematics knowledge and technology to help students develop deep understanding of mathematics.

mean

4.10

4.38

variance

0.31

0.25

8. create a classroom environment that integrates technology and utilizes effective classroom management techniques.

mean

4.05

4.25

variance

0.26

0.20

9. design mathematics curriculum and instructionthat integrates technology to build on students’ present knowledge and skills and moves them to more sophisticated knowledge and skills.

mean

3.85

4.13

variance

0.56

0.25

10. use technology as a tool tofacilitate my own learning and professional development.

mean

4.20

4.38

variance

0.38

0.25

† n = 20

‡ n = 16

Table 2

Data from EE 317 on the ESU Technology Survey

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neither A or D

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

I am confident that I can:

5

4

3

2

1

Pre

Post

1. integrate technology into mathematics lessons that wouldengage students as active participants and problem solvers, working at their own pace and determining their own strategies or approaches inconstructing new knowledge

mean

3.90

4.22

variance

0.42

0.25

t = 3.01

p < 0.01

2. develop a mathematics classroom environment that encourages the use of technology and supports the development of patterns, connections , reflection, informal learning.

mean

3.90

4.35

variance

0.52

0.30

t = 3.86

p < 0.001

3. develop mathematics lessons that integrate technology and encourage student appreciation of the usefulness ofmathematics as an investigation and communication tool. The students begin with a question, develop and carry out an investigation, interpret and analyze the information, and communicate what they have learned with others. 

mean

3.76

4.17

variance

0.51

0.31

t = 3.51

p < 0.001

4. develop mathematics lessons that integrate technology and support the attainment state and national mathematics standards.

mean

3.81

4.22

variance

0.58

0.34

t = 3.32

p < 0.001

5. organize a classroom environment that supports the tenants of a democratic society including: tolerance, critical thinking and decision making, cooperation, empowerment, individual responsibility and involvement.

mean

4.18

4.52

variance

0.48

0.29

t = 3.02

p < 0.01

6. develop mathematics lessons that use technology to support the needs of all diverse learners in my classroom. 

mean

3.90

4.25

variance

0.45

0.39

t = 2.85

p < 0.01

7. use my own mathematics knowledge and technology to help students develop deep understanding of mathematics.

mean

3.94

4.23

variance

0.49

0.25

t = 2.70

p < 0.01

8. create a classroom environment that integrates technology and utilizes effective classroom management techniques.

mean

4.06

4.37

variance

0.49

0.34

t = 2.59

p < 0.01

9. design mathematics curriculum and instructionthat integrates technology to build on students’ present knowledge and skills and moves them to more sophisticated knowledge and skills.

mean

3.77

4.13

variance

0.44

0.39

t = 3.08

p < 0.01

10. use technology as a tool tofacilitate my own learning and professional development.

mean

4.29

4.57

variance

0.44

0.32

t = 2.48

p < 0.01

† n = 62

‡ n = 60

Conclusions

Overall, the preservice elementary teachers in the two courses did show gains on the two assessments. The gains were greater in EE317, a methods course, than in MA306 which was an inquiry-based mathematics course for preservice elementary teachers. In MA306, recommended methods for teaching elementary mathematics are modeled. The INTIME assignment was probably the first opportunity for many of the MA306 students to experience recommended teaching methods. The items that the preservice elementary teachers showed significant gains in are consistent with the topics that are addressed in the course and the class discussion of the state and national standards for school mathematics. On the other hand, students in EE317 were further along in their professional education courses. Many would be student teaching in semester following this project. While the data support the use of the “Technology Critique” project, other activities in EE317 may explain the large gains. In other words, during the methods semester, the study of recommended teaching methods is a high priority, and one could possibly attribute the large gains to other assignments and experiences in that semester.

In spite of some positive comments and gains on the assessments, we do not recommend implementing this assignment as described here. The student response was more negative than positive. It is possible that the assignment may be more appropriate earlier in the students’ careers. It could also be improved by spending more time on the assignment in class. Several of the students considered it to be “busy work.” The videos are a nice resource and provide good real-life examples. The assignment was also beneficial in that it gave students experience with websites and online discussions. 

References

            Alberg, J., Cook, L., Fiore, T., Friend, M., & Sano, S. (1992).Educational approaches and options for integrating students with disabilities: A decision tool. Triangle Park, NC: Research Triangle Institute.

           
The American Heritage Dictionary. (1982). The Second College Edition. Boston: Houghton, Mifflin Company.

            Brunner, C. E., & Majewski, W. S. (1990). Mildly handicapped students can succeed with learning styles.
Educational Leadership, 48 (2), 21-23.

            Callahan, W. P. (1998).
Common mistakes made when we make decisions [On-line]. Available: http://www.uni/edu/coe/admin/decisionmkg.html [ 1999, December]

            Dublin, et al. (1994). Integrating computers in your classroom: Elementary education, New York: Harper Collins.

            Dunn, IL, & Griggs, S. A. (1995).
Learning styles: Quiet revolution in American secondary schools. Westport, CT: Praeger.

            Dunn, R., Griggs, S. A., Olson, J., Gorman, B., & Beasley, M. (1995). A meta-analytical validation of the Dunn and Dunn learning styles model.
Journal of Educational Research, 88 (6), 353-61.

            Engle, S. H., & Ochoa, A. S. (1988). Education for democratic citizenship:
Decision making in the social studies (pp. 61-67). New York: Teachers College Press.

            Education Testing Service (1996) National Assessment of Educational Progress, Technology Report. Princeton, NJ.

            Ewell, P. T. (1997, December). Organizing for learning: A new imperative.
AAHE Bulletin, 3-6. [Online]. Available: http://www.aahe.org/members-only/bul-dec1.htm [2000, May 17].

            Froyen, L. A., & Iverson, A. M. (1999).
School wide and classroom management. The reflective educator-leader (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

            Glatthorn, A. A. (1990).
Supervisory leadership. New York: Hater Collins.

            Good, C. V. (Ed.). (1973).
Dictionary of education. New York: McGraw Hill, Inc.

            Hill, L. (January/February, 2000).
Journal of Teacher Education, 51 (1), 53, 61.

            Hollingshead, A. D. (1941).
Guidance in democratic living (pp. 17-18, 43-44). New York: D. Appleton-Century Company, Inc.

           
Learner-centered classrooms, problem based learning, and the construction of understanding and meaning. (1999). [Online]. Available:http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/content/cntareas/science/sc3learn.htm

            Lipset, S. M. (Ed.). (1995).
The encyclopedia of democracy (Vol. 2, p. 340). Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Inc.

            Marzano, et al. (1988).
Dimensions of thinking: A framework for curriculum and instruction Alexandria, VA: Association for supervision and Curriculum Development.

            McCombs, B.L., & Whisler, J. S. (1997).
The learner centered classroom and school. San Francisco: Jossey- Bass Publishers.
National Board of Professional Teaching Standards. (1998). Washington, D.C.

            Ornstein, A. C., Thomas, J., & Lasley, I. (2000).
Strategies for effective teaching. New York: McGraw-Hill Companies.

            Pappas, M. L., & Tepe, A. E. (1997).
Pathways to knowledge (tm): Follett's information skills model (3rd. ed.). McHenry, IL: Follett Software Company. [Online] Available: http://www.pathwaysmodel.com [2000, September 9]

            Senge, P. M. (1990).
The fifth discipline - The arts & practice of the learning organization. New York: Currency Doubleday.

            Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform.
Harvard Educational Review, 57 (1), 1-22.

            Shulman, L. (1986, March-April). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching.
Educational Researcher, 4-14.

            Simon, R. I. (Ed.). (1987). Empowerment as a pedagogy of possibility,
Language Arts, 64 (4), 374, 377.

            Stiggins, R. J. (1997).
Student-centered classroom assessment (2nd ed.). Columbus, Ohio: Merrill Prentice-Hall, Inc.

            Switzer, T. J., Callahan, W. P., & Quinn L. (1999, March).
Technology as facilitator of quality education: An unfinished model. Paper presented at Society of Information Technology and Teacher Education, San Antonio, TX.

            Woolfolk, A. (2001).
Educational psychology. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Appendix A

Technology Critique Guidelines

You are to complete one INTIME technology lesson critique this semester. The purposes of this assignment are to allow you to critically review selected technology lessons and analyze them using the Technology as Facilitator of Quality Education: A Model. 

There are several steps to be completed:
First, your instructor will have you complete a preassessment of your knowledge of the impact of technology on learners and society. The next steps you will complete independently.

  1. Go to the following web site:  www.INTIME.uni.edu
    Preservice Teacher Technology Competencies (Enter your ss# and pin and complete this survey. When finished, logoff.) 
    Deadline: October 5, 2001

  2. Read the article, “Preparing Preservice Teachers to Integrate Technology into Instruction”.

  3. Check out the INTIME CD from the computer lab assistant and view one of the mathematics lessons. As you view the lesson, take notes about how the following ideas from the article are addressed in the lesson:

    1. Students at the Center of Their Learning

    2. Principles of Good Learning

    3. Aspects of Information Processing

    4. Standards from Content Disciplines

    5. Tenets of Effective Citizenship in a Democratic Society

    6. Teacher Knowledge and Behavior

    7. Technology

      Deadline: October 22, 2001

  4. During October 22-28 return to the INTIME web site:www.INTIME.uni.edu and enter the Discussion area (WebCT). 

    1. React to the video you viewed. Consider the following

      1. What were the strengths and weaknesses of the lesson? Justify your selection.

      2. Evaluate the effectiveness of the technology used in the lesson. Explain.

      3. How could the use of technology in this lesson be improved? Explain. 

    2. Post a minimum of one of your ideas from the above questions i-iii in the discussion area, and respond at least once to someone else’s ideas. You may respond to someone’s reaction to your posting or you may react to someone else’s posting.

  5. After Oct. 28, go to the following web site: www.INTIME.uni.edu Preservice Teacher Technology Competencies (Enter your ss# and pin and complete this survey. When finished, logoff.)  Deadline: October 31, 2001

Last, your instructor will have you complete a postassessment of your knowledge of the impact of technology on learners and society and will have you evaluate the usefulness of this learning activity for future classes.

Name:

Section:

Technology Critique Rubric

Criteria

Points earned
(1 pt. Each)

A. Completed Preassessment on time

B. Completed Preservice Teacher Technology Competency (pre) on time

C. Completed Preservice Teacher Technology Competency (post) on time

D. Completed Postassessment and survey on time

Total of A-D

___________/4

Rubric

Elementsto beGraded(0-4)

W
e
i
g
h
t

Excellent
4 points

 

 

Needs Improvement
2 points

 

 

Unsatisfactory
0 points

Points
Earned

Quality ofWebCTPosting

 

 

 

x 2

 

Posting

• is complete

• is clear, specific, and accurate

• shows deepthinking andanalysis

 

Posting

• is partly complete

• is somewhat clear, specific, and accurate

• shows somethinking andself-analysis

 

Posting

• is incomplete

• is not clear,specific,  nor accurate

• shows little or no thinking and self-analysis

 

_____

 

out of

    8

possible

Quality of Response to other WebCT Postings

  

 

 

x 2

 Response

• is complete

• is clear, specific,   and accurate

• shows deep thinking andanalysis

 

Response

• is partly complete

• is somewhat  clear, specific, and accurate

• shows some thinking andanalysis

 

Response

• is incomplete

• is not clear,specific,  and accurate

• shows little or no thinking and analysis

 

____

 

out of

    8

possible

Comments:

Self Earned

Total Points:

_________/20