Preparing Mississippi's Future Teachers to Use Technology
Eric F. Luce
Associate Professor of Curriculum and Instruction
The University of Southern Mississippi
Gulf Coast Division of Education and Psychology
730 East Beach Boulevard
Long Beach, MS 39560
Susan C. Malone
Associate Professor of English
The University of Southern Mississippi
Box 5037
Hattiesburg, MS 39406-5037
Edward C. Mann
Chair and Associate Professor
Technology Education
Box 5036
Hattiesburg, MS 39406-5036
Presented at the Mid-South Instructional Technology Conference
Middle Tennessee State University, Murfreesboro, TN 37132
http://www.mtsu.edu/~itconf
Abstract
The University of Southern Mississippi, the largest producer of
teachers in the State of Mississippi, is implementing an innovative
strategy for infusing technology in and improving the teacher
preparation program at USM. Plans are being developed to assure that
professional Education faculty can model the use of technology to
support teaching and learning. This session will summarize technology
standards for Teacher Education and identify performance outcomes
that correlate with those standards. It will also outline processes
and plans for acting on and, perhaps, even for setting technology
standards for Teacher Education. A progress report will be
provided.
Preparing Mississippi's Future Teachers To Use Technology
The University of Southern Mississippi (USM) is a multi-campus,
comprehensive university that is the single largest producer of
teachers in the state. The University is committed to preparing
professional educators and identifies professional education programs
as one of the defining missions that shapes the University's vision
of its future. The Professional Education Council (PEC), chaired by
the Dean of the College of Education and Psychology, governs the
University's Professional Education Unit. PEC membership includes
representatives from the five colleges offering programs in
professional education, educators from the public schools, and
representatives from the student body.
In the fall of 1998, the PEC led USM's Professional Education
Unit through a successful NCATE accreditation visit. The self-study
preceding that visit laid the groundwork for substantial curricular
reform efforts that are now underway. In a related reform initiative,
the PEC directed an ad hoc committee on technology to determine
competencies for Teacher Education in technology, to suggest options
that departments might adopt for assuring that competencies for
Teacher Education in technology are achieved, and to determine the
manner in which departments are to report this information.
Then, the ad hoc technology committee was directed by the Chair
of the PEC to follow up on its initial report (prepared and submitted
at the August 1998 PEC meeting) by continuing to review technology
standards for Teacher Education and to consider how these standards
applied to the committee's first set of recommendations. The ad hoc
committee was instructed to work in a way that might promote faculty
awareness of technology standards for Teacher Education and for
professional teachers by summarizing current technology standards for
Teacher Education and by identifying performance outcomes related to
teaching and learning that correlated with those standards. After
further review of technology standards for Teacher Education and
discussion about performance outcomes that might relate to "the
standards," the committee arrived at consensus on a number of things
and reported again to the Professional Education Council in February
1999.
Soon after, a plan of action was developed in the form of a
proposal for a $175,000 federal grant to pursue the objective of
improving pre-service teachers' use of technology in the classroom.
In September 1999, USM received a Capacity-Building grant through the
Preparing Tomorrow's Teachers to Use Technology (PT3) program. With
support from the PT3 initiative, the University has been able to lay
a foundation that will support further implementation of the ad hoc
technology committee's recommendations.
Supporting Technology Standards for Teacher Education
Between April of 1998 and March of 1999, the ad hoc Committee on
Technology for Teacher Education at USM went about its work as
instructed. There were six members of this committee with faculty
representation from Teacher Education programs in Elementary
Education, Secondary Education, Special Education and Technology
Education. The committee's first report was shared with the PEC at
its scheduled monthly meeting in August of 1998.
With regard to its first charge, that of determining
competencies for Teacher Education in technology, the committee
agreed that technology competencies for Teacher Education should
build on competencies that the Mississippi State Department of
Education seeks to foster n students at the K-12 level and should be
consistent with Instructional Technology Standards for Professional
Development that the Mississippi State Department of Education had
articulated. These standards were based on NCATE and ISTE guidelines
and standards. The committee also agreed that the building of
technological competence is a matter that is increasingly likely to
precede matriculation at the university, but which also is a core
value in the recommendations on Teaching and Learning from the Report
of the Commission on the Future of the University (USM, April 14,
1998) which would "require a freshman experience course to aid
students to develop critical thinking, research and study skills,
introduce them to the University library and the use of electronic
information systems, and teach other vital skills that will
contribute to the students' success in college and in life." The
report also emphasizes that the university "provide the latest
instructional technology and training in effective use of such
technology."
Given this university wide commitment to supporting student
learning with technology and given the increasing technological
competence that might be expected of students applying for admission
into the Teacher Education programs at the university, the ad hoc
committee recommended that technology skills and competencies should
be evidenced through demonstration by all Teacher Education students
no later than the end of the first semester of the junior year of
undergraduate certification programs.
The PEC's second charge to the ad hoc technology committee was
for it to suggest options that departments may adopt for assuring
that competencies for Teacher Education in technology are achieved.
The committee recommended that progress might be made toward
achieving this goal if all Teacher Education syllabi reflected the
use of technology to support teaching and learning. Where syllabi
might not show such evidence, the committee was willing to concede
that there might be good reasons for this to be the case, but that
such omissions should be justified with strong pedagogical
rationales. The ad hoc committee also suggested that similar
commitment should also be demonstrated in all syllabi (not just those
for Professional Teacher Education programs) in support of the core
curricular value set on integrating the use of technology across the
university.
The committee recommended that each Teacher Education unit of
program develop human performance support systems which might include
hired technology savvy personnel to assist Teacher Education faculty
in modeling technology skills and behaviors. It also recommended that
teaching and learning areas be supported with adequate and
appropriate technologies (hardware and software) so that Teacher
Education student and faculty technology skills and behaviors could
be learned as well as exhibited. Moreover, the ad hoc committee
strongly recommended that Teacher Education faculty be recognized for
their use of technology to support teaching and learning in annual
evaluations and that the evaluation system for professional
performance might be revised so that such efforts and initiative
"count" in teaching evaluations.
For Teacher Education students, the committee recommended that
fundamental technology skills and competencies be documented and
registered by the end of the first semester of the junior year. It
was suggested that this might be accomplished in a number of ways.
Students who opt to take or who are required to satisfactorily
complete a course, such as Technological Literacy for Educators,
might demonstrate minimal levels of competence when this
accomplishment is registered on the student's transcript. The
committee also suggested development of a form or checklist that
might include technology competencies and skills that might be
expected of all Teacher Education students by the end of the first
semester of the junior year and that these competencies might be
"CLEPed" (Credit for Life Experience Proficiencies) before that time
through a variety of methods that the Departments might devise with
the approval of the PEC. These methods could range from an "all or
nothing, high stakes" CLEP Comprehensive Technology Examination to an
incremental model in which competencies and skills are "banked" and
"registered" over time. The Committee encouraged all Teacher
Education programs and supporting academic units to consider building
on these minimal standards and guidelines for Teacher Education
student proficiency in ways that are appropriate for the particular
teaching specialty areas.
While the committee suggested a range of options with
Departments and programs might adopt to address important issues
relating to the use of technology to support teaching and learning by
Teacher Education students, the committee suggested that departmental
reporting mechanisms might best be developed by the departments and
programs with the approval of the PEC and related oversight agencies.
In the absence of departmental or program initiative, the committee
left open questions relating to top down dictation of standards and
reporting practices expected from the grass roots levels of the
Teacher Education programs. However, it was hoped that with
university support to address technology standards across the
curriculum, Teacher Education programs would respond in responsible
and appropriate ways. In this way, the third initial charge that the
committee was instructed to consider (that of determining the manner
in which departments might report on an be accountable for being
attentive and responsive to technology standards for Teacher
Education) was addressed.
Following submission of its initial report to the PEC, the ad
hoc technology committee was directed by the Chair of the PEC to
continue to study technology standards for Teacher Education an to
consider how these standards might apply to recommendations made in
the August 1998 report. They were asked also to work in ways that
might promote faculty awareness of technology standards for teacher
education and for professional teachers. After deliberating
thoroughly, the committee again reported to the PEC in February
1999.
The committed agreed that technology-related curriculum for
pre-service teacher preparation and for in service training of
Teacher Education faculty should be flexible and meet the needs of
individual instructors. A wide range of skills and applications might
be used to embrace student and teacher performance. Also, it agreed
that while technology standards for Teacher Education can be clearly
articulated there is likely to be no single set of proficiencies
appropriate for all k-16 educators. Technical assistance in Teacher
Education should support instructors (pre-service and university
based) with relatively advanced skills and knowledge to explore a
wide variety of applications that they believe to be appropriate, but
it should also allow teachers with little prior knowledge to master basic skills that will build confidence so that skill building will con
tinue through professional development.
The committee suggested that pre-service teacher preparation and
professional development be process oriented. It may be difficult for
teacher preparation and professional development programs to have the
time or the resources to cover the wide range of technological
applications that are available and emerging for both teacher and
student performance. However, by developing process oriented skills
and knowledge (for example, the ability to analyze, select, apply and
evaluate appropriate technologies), pre-service teachers and Teacher
Educators can become more responsible for improving their
technological proficiency and in developing their own plans for
acquiring professional levels of technological literacy suited to
their roles and goals in education.
Also, as members of the Professional Education faculty, the
committee agreed that when we talk about integrating technology use
in the classroom we should strive to keep the technology as
transparent as possible. That is, unless the subject matter focus is
specifically on technology, subject matter should be the focus and
not the computers, video discs, or other media. The committee
believed strongly that faculty should model this integrative behavior
in our work with pre-service teachers if we are to expect them to use
technology in this way in their classrooms.
Given the proliferation of technological proficiencies, the
committee concurred with NCATE, ISTE and other national standards in
suggesting that three levels of proficiency be considered for
technology related training for educators. These are a) basic
computer/technology operations and concepts; b) personal and
professional use of technology; and c) application of technology in
instruction. The committee agreed that pre-service teachers and
Teacher Educators must be provided with time and training to develop
proficiency at all three levels. Performance outcomes related to
these standards for all Teacher Education programs at the university
were too numerous for the committee to elaborate in detail. However,
for Professional Educational Faculty, technology standards might be
benchmarked into performance outcomes according to each of the three
proficiency levels.
In its February 1999 report to the PEC, the committee
recommended that the use of technology should be infused throughout
the university's pre-service teacher preparation programs. It was
noted that some teacher preparation programs at USM have tried to do
this and that some programs have eliminated technology-specific
course requirements. while the committee's preference was that
technology be integrated and infused across the curriculum, it
observed that until most university faculty can demonstrate that they
can effectively model the use of computer technology in the classroom
it may be necessary to require technology based courses to address
certification performance outcomes.
Since resources for using technology to support teaching and
learning are expensive and not always available to address the demand
for their use and the mandate that they be used which the technology
standards for Teacher Education outline, it was suggested that the
unit explore the formation of partnership with k-12 public schools,
businesses, industry, and state agencies to jointly pursue approaches
supporting technology development. Partnerships might provide cost
savings for preparing pre-service and in service teachers. Sharing
equipment, labs, instructors and expertise might offer not only
financial advantages, but also the possibility of developing new
models and approaches to meet the demand for technology-rich
classrooms. Such collaboratives might also help to address technology
training needs of pre-service teachers as well as professional
development needs of k-12 educators and of Professional Education
Faculty. The committee concluded by emphasizing its belief that
without adequate on-going support in the form ofhardware, software
and technical assistance to support Teacher Education for students
and the work of professional education faculty on their behalf, the
integration/infusion model that it preferred for employing technology
to support teaching and learning will not likely be successful.
Building Capacity for Innovative Transformations of Teacher
Education Through Technology
Between March and June of 1999, an interdisciplinary team of
faculty from across the university developed a plan to try to assure
that Professional Education Faculty might have skills needed to model
the use of technology in a transparent manner when they teach, to
design standards and curriculum to efficiently use technology to
enhance learning, to improve access of education faculty and students
to technologies needed to enhance teaching skills and to model the
effective use of technology as teaching tools, and to develop and
improve collaboration among academic departments, area school
systems, community colleges and others that provide technology
training to effectively integrate the use of technology as learning
tools. That plan was embedded in a proposal for a $175,000 federal
grant to pursue the objective of improving pre-service teachers' use
of technology in the classroom.
These efforts were rewarded in the form of a capacity-building
grant to lay the groundwork for program development. With support
from the Preparing New Teachers to Teach with Technology initiative,
Professional Education Faculty have had time to learn and to consider
not only the possibility, but also the benefits of changing the ways
that they teach. One unusual aspect of the USM program is that
education faculty who receive special technology training have been
partnered with public school teachers and these Professional
Education Faculty members then go out to work with school children in
the field to investigate what technology tools are effective.
Partnering with seven school districts, six two-year colleges, two
education consortia, and the Mississippi Department of Education, the
university has been undertaking on-going efforts that are laying the
groundwork for extensive technology infusion that complements overall
curriculum reform efforts already underway. Also, community college
and school partners have participated actively in helping to
determine what entry-level standards should or might be expected of
Teacher Education candidates at the university.
Subsequent to the reports of the ad hoc technology committee,
four broad goals for insuring the infusion of instructional
technology into all professional education programs have been
endorsed by the PEC, the governing body of professional education
programs at USM. These goals are that: 1) Professional Education
Faculty will have the skills needed to model the use of teaching with
technology in a transparent manner; 2) The standards and curriculum
of the professional education program will be designed to efficiently
use technology to enhance learning; 3) Professional Education Faculty
and students will have access to appropriate technology to enhance
teaching skills and to model the effective use of technology as a
teaching tool; and 4) Collaborations will be developed and
strengthened among university departments, with k12 Local Education
Agencies (LEAs), area community colleges, and with existing consortia
that provide technology training and support to area schools to
effectively integrate the use of technology as learning tools
throughout the education system.
Along with these goals, four objectives with related activities
have been identified to build capacity for supporting teaching and
learning with technology to allow USM to pursue an innovative teacher
preparation program improvement strategy. The first objective is to
develop a system of insuring basic technology literacy for in-coming
professional education students. USM is working to identify basic
technology literacy competencies to address this objective by
conducting an extensive literature review, by incorporating
previously established basic technology competencies (i.e., NETS
Standards, ISTE Category I Standards, Mississippi Department of
Education Computer Competencies), and by forming and collaborating
with an Educational Technology Standards Committee with membership
consisting of representatives from the community college and LEA
members of the consortium, as wells as representation from the
Mississippi Department of Education.
Specific courses from the University and local community
colleges are being identified that, upon successful completion (a
grade of C or better)), would satisfy basic technology literacy
requirements. In addition, a means of determining technology literacy
through a "challenge" test might soon be documented in the
professional education student's file and be required for admission
to candidacy in Teacher Education. Already, the Educational
Technology Standards Committee has reached consensus on a list of
basic competencies that are consistent with ISTE's Basic Educational
Technology Literacy standards, has agreed on the development of a
performance-based test for incoming students, and is currently
working towards articulation agreements between USM and its feeder
two-year colleges that will identify existing courses that can serve
as transcript evidence of meeting the entry level standards.
Capacity Building Objective Two is to develop and pilot
professional development activities for Professional Education
faculty. With support from the PT3 Capacity Building initiative, USM
has conducted professional development activities for University
faculty, focusing first on faculty who teach professional education
core courses as well as on those who teach in three program areas:
Elementary Education, Secondary English Education and Secondary
Science and Mathematics Education. An assessment of training needs
for these faculty who are PT3 project participants ( 7 in the fall
semester of 1999, 8 in the spring semester of year 2000, and 8 in the
summer semester of year 2000) indicated an interest in training
related to three broad areas: web page development, distance learning
technologies, and authoring tools, such as Hyperstudio and
PowerPoint.
These participating faculty commit to pursue individual
professional development plans. Project faculty work with them to
provide direct support through training sessions organized for PT3
cohort participants and also direct them to existing training
opportunities at USM. Faculty involvement in the project has included
visits to schools in partner districts for observation of existing
technology infusion activities and to join in on-site training
sessions that are provided by cooperating school technology
coordinators.
Additionally, PT3 project faculty have been partnering with
public school teachers for at least one semester. These two-member
teams (a USM faculty member and a public school teacher) identify
project goals and work together in the teachers' classrooms and
schools t develop and engage in technology-supported learning
activities. Reports form university faculty and from school partners
indicate that these collaborative experiences have been the most
beneficial aspect of the project activities for them and that this
partnering has been highly effective for the teams' professional
development as they learn ways to infuse technology in their
teaching.
As Professional Education Faculty have collaborated with
classroom teachers from partner school districts to develop and test
course materials and lessons infused with the available technology,
their presence in classroom and school settings has also provided
support for the regular teachers to implement plans for employing
some of the technologies in which they had already received school
district and state training. This training has afforded occasional
release time for teachers to explore an integrate technology to
address curriculum objectives without undermining the quality of
instruction for k-12 students. USM faculty have also benefited by
participating in field experiences in which they gain opportunities
to test their new knowledge and experiences that they can draw on as
they shape their course revisions.
Capacity Building Objective Three involves developing and
piloting a systematic model of curricular reform for technology
infusion in Teacher Education programs at USM. Using NCATE 2000
standards and standards from the relevant learned societies (ACEI,
IRA, NCTE and NSTA), the current curriculum for each pilot program
and for the targeted core courses are being reviewed for evidence
(frequency and appropriateness) of technology infusion. Program
curriculum committees are charged with determining the competencies
and applications necessary for successful teaching and learning in
their disciplines. A logical sequence of multiple learning
experiences with technology will be designed and keyed to appropriate
courses (for technology modeling behaviors by instructors and for
student assignments that require the use of digital resources) to
insure consistency within an individual program and across all
professional education programs.
Also, documentation requirements and guidelines are being
developed for all Teacher Education programs. All of the Teacher
Education programs will be expected to document and to demonstrate
effectiveness in technology infusion to support teaching and learning
during regularly scheduled program reviews by the PEC's program
review committee. A model of curricular reform relating to technology
objectives will be available for programs to guide them in the
extension of reform to all professional education courses and
programs during the implementation phase of this work.
Capacity Building Objective Four involves proposing necessary
enhancements to the current technology infrastructure at USM. A
number of activities are now well underway to address this challenge.
An assessment of dedicated Teacher Education facilities is being
conducted. Through an extensive review of the literature, surveys of
available current and emerging technologies at other institutions,
and input from the Professional Education Faculty, USM is attempting
to identify and establish facility requirements to promote technology
infusion. After recommended facility requirements are determined,
work will move forward to document limitations of our current
infrastructure and to propose needed enhancements of facilities to
assure the existence of Teacher Education student learning
environments commensurate not only with PEF proposed facility
requirements, but also consistent with exemplary school district and
community college educational and instructional technology
environments that are essential parts of the k-16 pre-service teacher
preparation programs to which USM is strongly committed.
Program Evaluation:
An Evaluation plan for the PT3 Capacity Building Grant was
designed to monitor progress toward meeting project goals and
objectives and to establish benchmark data for use in ongoing
"implementation" work. The purpose of current program evaluation work
is primarily formative, relying on a variety of quantitative data
gathered from surveys and observations. Evaluation activities have
been conducted throughout the Capacity Building year and a portfolio
containing the collected data and ongoing analysis of the
effectiveness of the project activities is being developed. The
portfolio includes baseline data collected at the beginning of each
major activity, observable data demonstrating that the project is
underway, evidence of participants' judgments about the project, and
a variety of outcome indicators. Earlier in this report, summaries
illustrating the extent and impact of program activities to date have
been shared.
The entire range of professional development activities is being
assessed and appraised with formative evaluation strategies in order
to refine them for use with the remaining Professional Education
Faculty during the implementation work that will follow this Capacity
Building year. A Technology Demonstration Conference was held at the
end of the Fall Semester (and will be held at the end of each
semester of training) during which PEF and their partner teachers
shared products and lessons that they developed during their time
together. Also, technology seminars will be conducted for all PEF at
the beginning of the next school year in which PEF who participated
in the PT3 project will share conference-quality papers on best
practices and lessons learned about teaching, learning and
technology.
During this capacity building year, syllabi for professional
education courses have been reviewed to gather baseline data on
technology infusion. The review of 154 syllabi has indicated that
word processing (44.2%) was the application most frequently required
of students, followed by the use of Web browsers (29.9%), e-mail
(17.5%), and databases (16.9%). Fifty-eight of the syllabi (37.7%)
provided no evidence of required use of any technology tools by
students.
Evaluation of the syllabi for evidence of technology use being
modeled by instructors yielded similar data: word processing is
evident in all but one of the syllabi (99.4%), e-mail us in 46.1%,
Web browser use in 28.6%, and database use in 20.1%. An earlier needs
assessment also indicated that word processing, e-mail, and Web
browsers were the technologies most frequently used by faculty, with
scanners, digitizers, CD-ROM production, Web page development
software, presentation software, and Web-based courseware as the
technologies used least by faculty.
Another aspect of capacity-building efforts that can support
future implementation efforts is the initial development of two
databases. With the help of partner school district contacts and of
educational consortia directors, mentor teachers in the schools have
been identified who are already using technology to support their
students' learning in exemplary ways. Information has also been
gathered about technology access available in the classrooms in which
USM student teachers are consistently placed. Reports on 53 of the
classrooms housing student teachers during the first placement for
spring semester indicate that 51 (96%) have at least one computer.
The majority (32/60%) have 2-4. Thirty-four classrooms (64%) are
connected to the internet and 23 responses indicated that all
computers in school classrooms have internet access. Gathering of
this data will continue throughout the Spring semester 2000 in an
effort to develop a clearer understanding about the technological
realities of classrooms to which our student teachers and graduates
go.
Conclusion
The program review and reform process, as well as the PT3
Capacity Building initiative at USM, has been built on a strong
partnership base with support from and active involvement of a broad
group of stakeholders in the preparation of future teachers in
Mississippi. Activities that a PT3 Capacity Building grant has made
possible are strengthening these relationships and accelerating
support for significant processes of reform for this professional
education program that produces 32% of the state of Mississippi'
teachers.
Ultimately, the goal of this initiative is not simply to promote
the transparent infusion of technology into the pre-service teachers'
education or even into their instruction in their future classrooms.
It is to insure that these future teachers are confident that they
will be able to devise ways to use all the tools available to them at
the university and in the field, including the powerful learning
tools of technology, to improve student learning, to help their
students to reach high standards, and to provide all of
Mississippi's students with equitable access to the knowledge and
skills they will need for responsible citizenship and productive
employment in the 21st century.
REFERENCES
Hirumi, Atsuit and Isidro Grau IV A Review of Computer-Related State
Standards, Textbooks, and Journal Articles: Implications for
Preservice Teacher Education and Professional Development, Journal of
Computing in Teacher Education, Volume 12 Number 4, 1996
Northrup, Pamela Taylor and Little, Wesley Establishing
Instructional Technology Benchmarks for Teacher Preparation Programs,
Journal of Teacher Education, Volume 47 Number 3, May-June 1996.
National Standards for Technology in Teacher Preparation, ISTE
Accreditation and Standards Committee,
http://www.iste.org/specproj/standards/intro.htm
Technology and the New Professional Teacher: 21st Century Classrooms,
National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education,
http:/www.ncate.org
Technology Standards for Teachers, Southeast Regional Education
Board: Atlanta, GA, http://www.sreb.org