webb - jurica, national forum of educational administration and supervision journal - - national...

7/28/2019 Webb - Jurica, National FORUM of Educational Administration and Supervision Journal - www.nationalforum.com - …

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/webb-jurica-national-forum-of-educational-administration-and-supervision 1/11

NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL

VOLUME 30, NUMBER 3, 2013

58

TECHNOLOGY & NEW TEACHERS:

WHAT DO SCHOOL DISTRICTS EXPECT

FROM THEIR NEW HIRES?

Lorrie Webb, Ph.D.

James Jurica, Ph.D.

Texas A&M University-San Antonio

ABSTRACT

This article is an exploratory examination of data collected from 96 school

districts regarding the technology skills that future teachers should be taught in

public schools. Several suggestions are made by study respondents regarding

the changing needs of technology skills expected of new teachers with

implications for instruction in university educator preparation programs.

Future analysis of data from this preliminary study could be useful for future

policy recommendations for school administrators in terms of hiring

expectations and considerations for evaluating and hiring prospective teachers

for public school classrooms.

Introduction

Today‟s educators are pressured to meet the needs of thestudents they serve (Williams, Foulger, & Wetzel, 2009). The

Consortium for School Networking (2004) discovered that the internet

was rarely implemented effectively in classrooms, even though 99 percent of elementary and secondary schools have access to the

resource. Universities are struggling to prepare future educators with

the skills needed today, as well as for future technologies. Onechallenge is in determining the specific skills these educators will need

(Albee, 2003). “As future students enter their college programs with

more previous exposure to technology, the specific skill development



WEBB & JURICA 59

needed during their college tenure may look increasingly different(Collier, Weinburgh, & Rivera, 2004). Donovan and Green (2009)

stated that technology will eventually become as integral as classroom

management in teacher education programs. In order to attain this

goal, research is needed on the expectations that school districts haveon teacher graduates. This study attempted to discover these

expectations in one metropolis area.

Literature Review

Two primary areas of research related to this research project:

characteristics of “digital native” students and preparing teachers to

address these characteristics in their future students. The term “digital

native” has been coined to represent those who have grown up in the

digital age – not having experienced a world without digital media(Prensky, 2001). According to Small and Vorgan (2008), these

students‟ brains were conditioned differently due to the frequent use of digital media such as email, video games, VOIP, and texting. Students

were no longer passive viewers but active participants. They were

motivated by the desire to be busy and stay connected throughmultitasking (Sprenger, 2009).

Tapscott (2009) found that the average 8 to 18 year old spends

approximately 6 hours a day connected to some digital communication

device – sometimes several simultaneously. Lewin (2010) discoveredthat an average young American spent at least three hours a day on a

mobile device: one half of an hour talking, two hours consumingmedia, and one hour receiving and sending over 500 texts. They wereable to interact with 11 hours of media in only seven and a half hours

due to multitasking. Oblinger and Oblinger (2005) characterized

digital natives as highly social and quick reactors who craved

immediacy and expected the same from others. They are “morevisually literate than previous generations… able to weave together

images, text, and sound in a natural way” (Oblinger & Oblinger, 2005,

p. 2.5). These students also preferred team-based learning in order tostay connected with others.



60 NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL

Today‟s students are “in danger of experiencing their educationas irrelevant to their wired lives” (Kitsis, 2010, p. 50). Current teacher

preparation programs need to be able to address the needs of these

digital natives, who will eventually be students in their classrooms.

Technology has normally been addressed in one of two ways inteacher education programs: a single course or two devoted to teaching

with technology or an integration approach weaving technologythroughout methods courses. Both approaches have their problems. No

single technology course effectively addresses all issues (Brown &

Warschauer, 2006); yet, integration programs do not seem to model

technology within methods courses adequately (Adamy & Boulmetis,2006). Since the digital native students in the future classrooms could

very well know more about the technologies available, a shift in

teacher education programs is beginning to occur. Instead of

continuing to teach about new technologies, programs should prepare

teachers to learn about new technologies on their own and toimplement them in meaningful ways (Williams, Foulger, & Wetzel,

2009). However, in order to feel confident in learning newtechnologies, preservice teachers need foundational technology skills.

Several studies attempted to determine technology skills of preservice

teachers, as well as specific skills needed.In Northwestern Pennsylvania, education majors completed a

survey based on perceptions of their computer skills (Fleming,

Motamedi, & May, 2007). The study determined that the preservice

teachers perceived their computer skills as less than average in 14areas. Ninety-six percent of the students surveyed owned their own

computer and used it at least three to five hours each week, yet feltinadequately prepared to use technology (Fleming, Motamedi, & May,2007). Benson, Farnsworth, Bahr, Lewis, and Shaha (2004) assessed

preservice teachers‟ technology skills during their first year in the

teacher education program, followed by mid-program and post-

program surveys, and an exit interview. The results of the initialsurvey showed knowledge and skills to be minimal with the

exceptions of word processing and the Internet. After taking the

required technology course, the students‟ skill levels showedstatistically significant increases in all areas. The post-program survey



WEBB & JURICA 61

showed a slight decrease in technology proficiency levels, however.The exit interview resulted in some positive outcomes. According to

the preservice teachers the two most important aspects gained included

knowledge of software programs and preparedness to use technology

in their future classrooms (Benson et al., 2004). The studydemonstrated how coursework can positively impact students‟

technology skills. “However, without continual reinforcement of theuse of technology, skill level will not be maintained” (Benson et al.,

2004, p. 659).

Schaffhauser (2009) addressed the Technological, Pedagogical,

Content, Knowledge (TPACK) instruction in teacher preparation atIowa State. Teacher candidates were allowed to check out equipment

such as iPods, computers, digital cameras, etc. in lots of 10 to use

during their field work in the schools. This alleviated the inequity

issue of technologies they were taught to integrate in their coursework

and the actual equipment available to them in their field work. Mouzaand Wong (2009) hypothesized that case development could help

teachers develop TPACK. They conducted a four-stage studyinvolving students enrolled in a specific course. During stage one,

teachers identified a pedagogical problem. In stage two, they

developed a technology plan to address the problem. Then the teachersenacted the technology plan in field-based classroom assignments and

recorded the activities. Finally, the teachers wrote an educative case

during stage four. Mouza and Wong collected data from written cases,

online discussions, and in-depth interviews. The authors proved their hypothesis; an increased growth in the teachers‟ TPACK occurred, and

teachers engaged in effective reflective practice (Mouza & Wong,2009).

“Numerous courses in teacher education are not preparing

preservice teachers to use technology because specific technology skill

needs have not been identified, and there is a lack of technology

integration modeled by professors in teacher education courses”(Albee, 2003, p. 54). Albee (2003) attempted to find solutions to this

problem in a triangulated study. An analysis of administrators‟

expectations of new teachers, preservice teachers‟ perceptions of preparedness, and coursework technology requirements was evaluated.




The results confirmed the need for increased technology skill preparedness. Students conveyed a high level of discrepancy between

expectations of technology use while student teaching and self-

assessed proficiency levels. Results from surveys regarding

technology requirements in program courses revealed a lack of consistency (Albee, 2003). The expectations of district administrators

can assist teacher preparation programs in determining technologyskills that need to be addressed. The study presented here attempted to

determine the needs of districts in one metropolis area.

Methodology

The purpose of this study was to collect data on technologies

(both hardware and software) available to and used by teachers in

North Texas public school districts. Specifically, the study attemptedto answer the following questions:

1. What software technologies will be available for use by new

teachers?

2. What hardware technologies will be available for use by newteachers?

3. What do school districts expect from new teachers regarding

technology integration into their teaching?

4. What do school districts expect from new teachers regardingtechnology utilization in their job responsibilities?

5. What can universities do to improve their teacher education program in the areas of technology?

Participants consisted of technology administrators from 98

North Texas districts (from Tarrant County, Dallas County, and all

bordering counties). An email was sent requesting input in the form of an electronic survey concerning current technologies used in each

district. A follow-up email was sent to those who did not respond

within 2 weeks.



WEBB & JURICA 63

An electronic survey consisting of quantitative and qualitativequestions was used to gather data. The survey developed by the

researchers included items related to technologies available to

elementary and secondary students and teachers, as well as district

demographics. Qualitative data came from a semi-structuredconversational approach. Qualitative data concerning opinions of

what new teachers needed in areas of technology utilization andintegration and opinions on what universities could do to improve

teacher education programs in these areas was analyzed for key

word/phrase commonalities. Some secondary data, of district

demographics, was collected as well. While statistical and qualitativedata are being analyzed for future studies, the findings reported below

provide some preliminary insights informing the issue of technology

skills expected of 21st

Century teachers.

Preliminary Findings Open-ended questions developed by the researchers sought to

answer what training and skills are needed by new teachers in the area

of technology and how universities could assist in that endeavor. Thefollowing are representative quotes from participants for each of the

open-ended questions.

1. What area(s) of technology do your teachers need moretraining/skills? Integration of technology versus teaching

technology was a consistent theme.a. “They need to see how to enhance their curriculum and

not add more to the curriculum.”

b. “#1 need is to create the understanding that technology

should be seamless in its instructional use in the

classroom. It should not be separate instruction.”c. “Seamless integration of technology into their daily

lessons. They use technology as a personal tool but not

a tool with the students to enhance learning and make itmore relative to our 21st century learners.”




d. “Technology integration into the curriculum, usingtechnology as a SUPPORTING TOOL rather than the

focus in a lesson.”

2. How can universities better prepare new teachers for integrating technology? Answers centered on modeling

technology integration.a. “All university classes need to be modeling technology

integration. Online, problem-based/project-based and

robust technology skills should be demonstrated as well

as expected from the students. Do not teach thetechnology as skill-based, isolated courses. They do not

know how to link to the curriculum unless they have

had practice. Use and understand the Texas Essential

Knowledge and Skills standards. Allow teachers to

practice their content by developing their integrationskills.”

b. “Deliver instruction to you university students in thesame ideal manner that they will (should) be delivering

content to their students. Engaging, collaborative, 24/7

access to content and resources should be encouraged.”c. “They need to include technology integration in every

course as an integral part of the course and not a

separate unit.”

d. “By example with hands on use and integration into projects, lesson planning, etc.”

3. Other comments/suggestions on how universities can improvetheir teacher preparation program pertaining to technology.

a. “The focus on 21st Century skills needs to begin with

the university professors and staff. They need to model,

model, model. Teachers should not be taking copiousnotes from an overhead or data projector and expect to

produce a different outcome. The need for a tighter

linkage between K-12 and higher education needs to begin with higher ed. learning, understanding, and



WEBB & JURICA 65

teaching teachers according to their content and not justa broad stroke of content with technology as an add-on.

Allow practitioners to use the technology to

collaborate, monitor, produce, and create learning

communities with their education plan.” b. “In the last few years, I have seen improvement in new

college grads with respect to some fundamentalcomputer uses. They seem able to handle the basics or

essentials that their job requires - email, word

processing, using clip art, Power Point, posting on web

pages. I suspect that is just an societal effect from Web2.0 and the enthusiasm that young adults have for

Facebook, YouTube, etc. Many still lack the

fundamentals that make them technology literate vs.

competent. Model, model, model the use of technology

in your own classrooms. Require the use of technologyin everything that your students do. Make sure you

have all the modern tools - data projectors, documentcameras, electronic whiteboards, clickers, etc. If there's

a way to fit it into your program somehow, take them to

TCEA, area conferences, vendor fairs, etc. You mighteven ask vendors to come into your classes and

demonstrate their products. Give them a look at what

might be waiting out there for them to utilize in their

own classrooms. You might help them know what tolook for in a school district when they take that first

job. If there's one thing I wish our existing teacherscould do, it would be to spend time observing teachersand students in a technology infused environment so

they could see the difference that it makes with the

students.”

Conclusions

“All teachers should engage students in effective technology




learning experiences that challenge them to think in-depth aboutrelevant technology content and processes in a learning environment

that is founded in contemporary pedagogical practices” (Ginns,

Norton, McRobbie, & Davis, 2007, p. 198). Oblinger and Oblinger

(2005) have determined four critical questions university faculty andadministrators should ask themselves:

Who are the learners?

How are they different from the educators?

What learning activities are most engaging?

Are there ways to use technology to make learning more

successful?

These questions are just as valid for new teachers in elementary and

secondary settings. More technology is not necessarily the answer;

interactive technology, however, engages digital natives‟ quest for

experiential learning.



WEBB & JURICA 67

References

Albee, J. J. (2003). A study of preservice elementary teachers‟

technology skill preparedness and examples of how it can be

increased. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 11 (1), 53-71.

Benson, L. F., Farnsworth, B. J., Bahr, D. L., Lewis, V. K., & Shaha,S. H. (2004). The impact of training in technology assisted

instruction on skills and attitudes of pre-service teachers.

Education, 124(4), 649-663.

Brown, D., & Warschauer, M. (2006). From the university to theelementary classroom: Students‟ experiences in learning to

integrate technology in instruction. Journal of Technology and

Teacher Education, 14(3), 599-621.

Collier, S., Weinburgh, M. H., & Rivera, M. (2004). Infusing

technology skills into a teacher education program: Change instudents‟ knowledge about and use of technology. Journal of

Technology and Teacher Education, 12(3), 447-468.Consortium of School Networking. (2004). Digital divide leadership.

Retrieved from

http://www.cosn.org/resources/grunwald/digital_leadership_divide.pdf

Donovan, L., & Green, T. (2009). Two-way mirror: Technology-rich

K-8 and teacher education programs. Action in Teacher

Education, 30(4), 45-55.Fleming, L., Motamedi, V., & May, L. (2007). Predicting preservice

teacher competence in computer technology: Modeling andapplication in training environments. Journal of Technologyand Teacher Education, 15(2), 207-231.

Ginns, I. S., Norton, S. J., McRobbie, C. J., & Davis, R. S. (2007).

Can twenty years of technology education assist „grass roots‟

syllabus implementation? International Journal of Technologyand Design Education, 17 , 197-215.

Kitsis, S. (2010). The virtual circle. Educational Leadership, 68(1),

50-54.




Lewin, T. (2010). If your kids are awake, they‟re probably online. The New York Times. Retrieved from

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/20/education/20wired.html

Mouza, C., & Wong, W. (2009). Studying classroom practice: Case

development for professional learning in technologyintegration. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 17

(2), 175-202.Oblinger, D. G., & Oblinger, J. L. (Eds). (2005). Is it age or IT: First

steps toward understanding the net generation. Educating the

Net Generation. Retrieved from

http://www.educause.edu/educatingthenetgenPrensky, M. (2001,October). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On

the Horizon, 9(5), 1-6. Retrieved from

http://www.marcprensky.com/writing

Schaffhauser, D. (2009). Which came first – the technology or the

pedagogy? THE Journal, 36 (8), 27-32.Small, G., & Vorgan, G. (2008). iBrain. New York, NY: Collins

Living.Sprenger, M. (2009). Focusing the digital brain. Educational

Leadership, 67 (1), 34-49.

Tapscott, D. (2009). Growing up digital . New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Williams, M. K., Foulger, T. S., & Wetzel, K. (2009). Preparing

preservice teachers for 21st

century classrooms: Transforming

attitudes and behaviors about innovative technology. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 17 (3), 393-418.

webb - jurica, national forum of educational administration and supervision journal - - national...

Documents