Challenges to Intern Use of Technology in Teaching and...
Transcript of Challenges to Intern Use of Technology in Teaching and...
Dr. Robert Smith,University of North Carolina, Wilmington
Dr. Dennis Kubasko,University of Norh Carolina, Wilmington
DRAFTMentoring Interns in Using Technology
DRAFT
Mentoring Interns in Using Technology
The incorporation of new technologies in P-12 teaching has received widespread
interest and support at the state and federal level. Some states require that preservice
teachers meet state technology standards for teacher licensure and several states also have
technology standards for teachers. The National Educational Technology Standards for
Teachers (NETS-T) proposed by the International Society for Technology in Education
(ISTE) provides six standards for inclusion of technology in all teacher education
programs. The overall goal, as described in Standard 3, is that teachers use methods and
strategies for applying technology to maximize student learning.
Preservice teachers’ level of comfort and skill in using technology has been seen
as leading to an increased use of computers in instruction (US Department of Education,
2000) and thus, as a possible catalyst for changing instruction (Pedretti, Smith-Mayer, &
Woodrow, 1999). However, others have argued that future teachers need to have more
experience with technology and receive more guidance in the use of technology (Lemke
& Coughlin, 1999).
The provision of an experienced and knowledgeable mentor/partnership teacher,
serving to model, guide and continuously evaluate a mentee’s teaching would appear to
be as important in learning to use technology as it is in other aspects of learning to teach.
The NETS-T standards call for all interns to be “supervised by a mentor or master teacher
on a consistent basis” to enable them to become proficient and technologically literate
(ISTE, 2003). In a recent study of student teachers, 30% indicated that instructional
support for technology at their student teaching site was “fair” to “poor,” and when asked
2
whether their cooperating teacher used and modeled technology integration in their
teaching, most responded “strongly disagree” (Dexter & Reidel, 2003).
While the use of technology has been embraced by some teachers, others have
been less enthusiastic to change practice. Various explanations have been provided for
why teachers do not use emerged or emerging technology.1 These include: lack of
teaching experience with new technology; lack of on-site support; lack of help
supervising children; lack of specialist technology teachers; lack of computer availability;
lack of time and lack of financial support (Mumtaz, 2000). In addition to these
“external” obstacles, Robertson et al (1996) identify various types of teacher resistance to
computer use.
This study examines secondary interns’ use of technology in teaching and
learning and particularly the mentoring provided by their partnership teacher. The study
sought to answer the following questions:
1. How and why are interns using technology in teaching and learning?
2. What mentoring does the partnership teacher provide to the intern in their use of technology?
3. How does the mentoring affect the interns’ use of technology?
The use of technology in teaching and learning would appear to be a complex
outcome influenced by 1) technology specific factors and 2) discipline specific content
pedagogy. In regard to the latter, discipline specific content pedagogy may shape how
technology is used to support teaching and learning.
1 In this paper emerged and emerging technologies refer to the following types of technology: PowerPoint, electronic grade book, computer lab., Webquests, probe ware and streaming video.
3
1) Technology specific factors: The use of technology can be seen as affected by: 1) the
larger societal context of national and state standards and policies relating to technology;
2) the local or school context, including the school district and individual school and
policies relating to technology use, access and support, and 3) the individual teacher’s
knowledge, skills and interest in technology. Thus, even with a larger common context
of national and state technology standards, differences in priorities of school districts,
resources at individual schools and teachers’ receptiveness to change may all affect how
and whether teachers use technology. In recognizing the complexity of factors affecting
technology use, Zhao and Frank (2003) propose a model of technology use from an
ecological perspective (Figure 1). They argue, “ If we accept the ecological metaphor, it
becomes clear that innovations cannot be implemented without regard to the internal
social structures of schools or other pressures that schools face (p. 833).
Insert Figure 1 here:
The importance of within-school factors in influencing the use of technology is
supported by Means (2003) observation that, “teachers have considerable latitude . . . in
interpreting and implementing policies developed at higher levels of the education
system” (p. 159). Means suggests a view of teachers as mediators of instruction and thus
mediators of technology use.
The significance of the local context in technology use in “filtering external
resources, opinions and innovations” (Zhao & Frank, 2003 p. 831) would in part appear
to be related to the view of the teaching profession as based more on craft knowledge
than “research knowledge” (Burney, 2004). Burney argues that, even though there is a
body of research knowledge, it is shared only haphazardly among teachers. Furthermore,
4
craft knowledge is “largely hidden because there are no institutional arrangements for
codifying, legitimating and sharing it” (p. 527). Consequently, “each teacher is left to
invent his or her own knowledge base – unexamined, untested, idiosyncratic, and
potentially at odds with the knowledge from which other teachers may be operating” (p.
528). The importance of the local context in shaping technology use, together with a
view of the teaching profession as based on craft knowledge, would appear to offer
insights in understanding technology mentoring. Specifically, these ideas would suggest
1) variation in the use of technology from school to school and within schools and 2)
mentoring in technology based on personal knowledge and skill of individual teachers.
Insert Figure 2 here
2) Discipline specific content pedagogy: There are differing views on the potential for
technology to bring about significant changes in teaching and learning. Some educators,
such as Cuban, Kirkpatrick and Peck (2001) argue that fundamental changes would need
to be made in how schools are structured. They argue:
Without such major changes, only modest peripheral modifications will occur in schooling, teaching and learning. Teachers will adapt innovations to the contours of the self-contained classroom. New technologies will paradoxically sustain old practices (p. 830).
Social studies content pedagogy. Within the discipline of social studies there
are also varying views on how technology is currently being used and the potential for
technology to change teaching practices. In a review of technology use in the social
studies, Berson (2004) states, “over the past decade the conceptualization of technology
in the social studies has evolved from an atheoretical integration of a collection of tools
to a constructivist orientation for advocating the integration of technology” (p. 142). He
5
cites examples of Web-based instruction, the facilitation of multicultural awareness
through telecommunications, and the importance of the internet in social studies for
developing and involving citizens in an information age. In particular technology has
been seen as useful in “actively engaging students in learning with the opportunity for
instruction that is multidisciplinary, inquiry oriented, student centered and multisensory”
(Berson, p.142). Similarly Manchester (2001) states, “many faculty today are seeking
ways to promote active learning by designing problem- and/or project – based learning
activities that provide increased opportunities for students to explore their interests and to
develop their skills” (p. 108).
While there are examples of social studies teachers using technology to support a
more constructivist approach, others argue that these approaches are still few in number.
In relation to historical inquiry, Hartzler-Miller (2001) states, “As compelling as this
“natural affinity” may be, historical inquiry is seldom practiced in US classrooms” (p.
673). From a case study of four accomplished high school social studies teachers who
used technology in teaching, Dewitt (2005) concluded:
They used computers to improve on traditional instructional strategies by incorporating more visual materials, increasing instructional variety, and increasing efficiency, but there is no evidence among these long-term computer users that their core beliefs about teaching changed as a result of computer use (p. 208).
He described the practices of these four teachers as “Technology-Enhanced
Traditionalism” and concluded that the study provided little support for the position of
computer advocates asserting that computers serve as catalysts for constructivist
pedagogy (p. 208). Finally, Hicks, Doolittle and Lee (2004) argue,
6
If integrating technology means nothing more than enhancing the traditional delivery system of social studies content, where laptops replace notebooks, where PowerPoint slides replace handwritten overheads, where e-textbooks replace hard copy textbooks, then we will be no closer to the NCSS’s vision of transformative, powerful social studies teaching and learning (p. 75).
Methods
This is the third year in our study of our secondary interns’ use of technology
during the internship. The internship is frequently cited by interns as being the most
valuable part of their preparation with the cooperating teacher playing an important role.
Mentoring in the use of technology was conceptualized in three ways: the partnership
teacher 1) modeled the use of emerged or emerging technology; 2) provided general
feedback/support to the intern on their use of technology and, 3) provided specific
guidance on their use of technology. Technology use was also conceptualized in two
ways. First, technology is used by the teacher or intern in planning and teaching, and
second, technology is used by students as directed by the teacher.
Eighty-one secondary interns, enrolled in a 2004-2005 secondary teacher
education program at a medium size university in the Southeast, participated in the study.
The interns were surveyed at the end of the internship about their use of technology. The
following three areas were examined: (1) interns’ level of comfort and skill in using
technology, (2) the types of technologies interns used, and (3) interns’ beliefs about the
effects of technology on student motivation and achievement. Other topics included the
role of the partnership teacher and university supervisor in their use of technology.
In addition to surveying all interns, three social studies interns and their
partnership teachers were selected for more detailed study of the mentoring relationship.2
Individual interviews were conducted with each intern and partnership teacher at the
2 Social studies was selected as this represented the areas of expertise of the authors.
7
beginning and end of the internship. Interns also completed a weekly log at two points
during the internship describing their use of technology and recording any conversations
with their partnership teacher about their use of technology. Each intern was also
observed four times by one of the authors teaching a ninety minute lesson.
The three social studies interns were selected to illustrate a range of mentoring
relationships with regard to the interns’ use of technology. The interviews with the social
studies interns and partnership teachers allowed a more in-depth understanding of how
interns used and thought about technology as well as the mentoring they received.
Interview questions to interns and mentors included their use of technology, their beliefs
about technology, the overall quality of the mentoring relationship, and mentoring in the
use of technology.
Findings:
Twenty-four percent of interns described their skills with using technology in
teaching and learning as intermediate, one percent novice, 70% advanced and 5% expert.
In terms of their uses of technology, 100% indicated they used word processing and
email, 96% used internet searches, 83% used presentation software, 50% developed a
teacher web page and 48% reported using an LCD projector. On the other hand, only
15% reported using handheld computers. Interns responded to several questions about
their beliefs relating to technology. On a four point Likert scale, interns responded with a
mean score of 3.7 to the item “I support the use of technology in the classroom,” 3.2 for
“student motivation increases when technology is integrated into the curriculum,” and 2.8
in relation to “there is enough time to incorporate technology into the curriculum”.
8
Interns were asked several questions about mentoring and technology. While
interns (n=81) agreed that their partnership teacher played a significant role in their
overall experience (mean score of 3.4), in relation to their teacher’s use and modeling of
technology, the mean score (2.6) was lower. In response to the item “my partnership
teacher provided guidance on technology” the mean score was 2.5. While 35% of interns
indicated that their partnership teacher was the main source of support for technology
integration, 65% indicated other main sources (26% other interns, 25% university
supervisor, 9% other teachers and 6% school technology coordinator).
Mentoring in the Use of Technology in Social Studies: The three social studies
mentors all taught at the same high school. The school, which was located in a rural area,
had 700 students, with about 40% of students on free and reduced lunch. The social
studies department consisted of six teachers. Nick the department chair had taught social
studies for twenty nine years. Mandy had taught for three years and Allen, who had just
been hired at this school, had taught for seven years. The three teachers varied in the
types and uses of technology. Both Mandy and Nick, with Amber and Sandra
respectively as their interns, used technology for instruction and planning with each using
PowerPoint on a frequent basis and the internet to access resources. Nick’s teaching
approach was lecture and discussion. He described his teaching:
Well, normally speaking, I do a lot of discussion. So I’ll use a PowerPoint to provide some information. Sometimes I put questions within the PowerPoint that we’ll use as basis for discussion. Other times I just stop the PowerPoint and slide to the kids and talk about it.
As department chair, Nick had purchased a SmartBoard for his classroom, which he used
to help students with comprehension of the text. While Mandy’s teaching style involved
lecture using PowerPoint, she usually had students apply the information to assignments
9
often involving various types of student creativity. In addition, she had tried to use a
classroom set of laptops but without success. She also took students to the computer lab
She stated:
I do have the kids go out to the computer lab quite a lot or to the computer lab. in the library and have them actually hands-on use the equipment. They learn how to surf the web, how to research certain documents, data bases, things like that and then using the new CPS system when it’s up and running.
Allen, the mentor teacher for George, used little technology other than an occasional
video. He described his use of technology as very limited. He explained that this was
partly due to having spent six years in third world countries after college.
The three interns varied in the degree to which they modeled the pedagogy and
technology use of their mentors. Of the three interns, Amber and her mentor, Mandy,
were the most similar in pedagogy and in their use of technology. Amber described how
she worked with her mentor:
We sat down together and pretty much did our presentations together. We really worked together and made sure that we presented the same knowledge to both of our classes so they would be on the same page. We both used the same test. And, so we would work together to use the technology. We showed a lot of the same movies, used a lot of the same music, so we did a lot of the same things as far as using technology in the classroom.
Sandra and her mentor Nick both used technology to enhance instruction. Sandra
described the way they worked together: “If he had a PowerPoint, he would let me look
at it to see if there was anything I was forgetting or anything I could incorporate with the
SmartBoard.” However, while Nick relied heavily on lecture, Sandra differed in her
approach. She stated, “He is an awesome lecturer, not lecturer, he doesn’t stand back
10
there, but he gets the class involved by talking to them, getting them involved. He likes
worksheets a lot, and I can’t lecture for an hour and thirty minutes, I just can’t do it.” She
described her style as involving “more hands on activities and group work.” Although
both Sandra and her mentor used technology for teacher presentation, Sandra also took
students to the computer lab. She stated, “but the computer lab, I kind of did on my
own. He wasn’t a big computer lab person.” She said by the end of the internship that
they got to use the computer lab a lot. She stated: “First I was taking them to the library
computer lab but that was just too distracting. So the computer lab, we went to a lot and
they did their own research, their own graphics, they typed it out, and they had all sorts of
technology.”
Finally, George and his mentor Allen were very similar in their general approach
to pedagogy. They both used lecture and worksheets. However, unlike his mentor
George used PowerPoint to present the information. He described other areas in which
their approach differed. He stated, “We discussed problems with behavior. I think I
would change some things, my style is different from him. I think he understood it and let
me do my thing there, too. He didn’t even interfere with that. When I tried to tighten up
certain rules in the class, he didn’t get in the way at all.” In relation to technology use,
Allen rarely used technology other than to show a video. George commented on this in
his final interview: “That’s probably the biggest weakness in my internship. He didn’t use
it [technology]. I don’t think it was because he didn’t want to use it. I don’t think he was
really familiar with the resources that were available to him.”
In relation to teacher use of technology, both Amber and Sandra described receiving good
mentoring from their partnership teacher. Amber described her mentor: “She [Mandy]
11
modeled and supported my use of technology. She is a digital goddess.” Sandra
described the role played by her partnership teacher. “He [Nick] had to teach me how to
do everything. He provided guidance with PowerPoint. He would say ‘This is good and
make sure you put this on your PowerPoint so students understand this. This is a good
website.’” For both interns, their teachers modeled, supported and gave them guidance in
teacher use of technology. George, however, received only minimal mentoring from his
partnership teacher in relation to technology. He described him as, “not even a model of
support. Well, he was supportive, he didn’t say don’t use them. But, he didn’t say use
them. It is something I picked up on my own. The only thing he told me was how to book
the computer lab. That was the extent of his help.”
In relation to teacher directed student use of technology, Amber received some
modeling and guidance from her mentor. However, neither George nor Sandra’s
partnership teacher had students use technology. Sandra described using the computer
lab on her own. She recognized that her style of teaching was different from her mentor
and stated, “He knew when my teaching was way too different from his teaching that I
might want to get someone else’s opinion.” While George’s mentor was supportive of
him taking the students to the computer lab, he received little guidance. George stated,
“The only thing he told me was how to book the computer lab.”
The three social studies cases reveal a wide range in the mentoring provided by
partnership teachers to the interns in the use of technology. Based on the cases, three
models of mentoring between partnership teacher and intern are described. The models
represent three cases out of a variety of possible mentoring relationships in both general
pedagogy use and technology use. Moreover, while the models show a variety of
12
mentoring and uses of technology, they are not seen as representing the full range of
options.
In Model 1, which depicts the relationship of Amber and her mentor Mandy, the
intern models the partnership teacher’s general pedagogy and use of technology.
Model 1: Intern models Mentor’s full teaching practice Mentor Intern
General Pedagogy:Lecture with use of guided practice including creative assignments
Intern models mentor’s practice
Same
Technology Use:Mainly teacher use but with some student use
Intern models mentor’s use of technology
Same
In Model 2, which depicts the relationship of Sandra and her mentor Tim, the
intern partly models the partnership teacher’s general pedagogy. The intern models
teacher use of technology but introduces student use of technology.
Model 2: Intern modifies Mentor’s practice Mentor Intern
General Pedagogy:Lecture, with ppt, discussion and work sheets
Intern uses lecture but includes creative assignments for student application and reinforcement of learning
Lecture with ppt plus creative student assignments
Technology Use:Teacher use only: Ppt and Smartboard
Intern models mentor’s use of technology. Intern has students use technology
Primarily teacher use but with some in class student use
In Model 3, which depicts the relationship of George and his mentor Allen, the
intern models the parternship teacher’s general pedagogy but receives no modeling or
guidance in emerged or emerging technology.
Model 3: Intern models Mentor’s general pedagogy
13
Mentor InternGeneral Pedagogy:
Lecture with use of worksheets
Intern models mentor’s practice
Same
Technology Use:No use of emerged or emerging technology
No modeling or guidance Intern uses ppt for instructional presentation
Discussion:
The study raises important issues about how technology is being used in teaching
and learning and the mentoring provided to interns. The perspective emphasizing the
local context in shaping technology use, together with a view of the teaching profession
as based on craft knowledge, offers insights in understanding technology use in this
study as well as intern mentoring. The picture presented by this research is of wide
variation in the use of technology even in classrooms in the same school. Intern
mentoring in the use of technology likewise shows significant variation with some interns
provided with modeling and guidance and others left to guide themselves. In addition, as
partnership teachers were only identified by 35% of interns as the main source of support
for technology integration, several other groups are playing an important role in interns
use of technology. The number of groups identified as supporting interns use of
technology could be viewed as a positive sign of a broad basis of support, or as the
resourcefulness of interns in finding help. On the other hand, the large percentage
identifying other soursces of support beside their partnership teacher raises questions
about the quality of mentoring as well as the lack of adequate mentoring from the
partnership teachers.
14
Given the dominant paradigm in social studies of teacher centered classrooms, it
is not surprising that technology is primarily being used for teacher use in instruction and
planning. There are only limited examples of teacher directed student use of technology.
15
The wide variation in the use of technology by the three social studies teachers
particularly given that they were at the same school, supports Burney’s observation of
teaching guided more by craft knowledge than by a sense of shared ideas or knowledge
base about effective use of technology. This lack of a shared knowledge base would
appear to be particularly troubling in terms of the mentoring of interns in the use of
technology.
16
Figure 1: Model of school ecosystem – Zaho and Frank, 2003
President Nation Legislature
Institutions Resources
17
Governor State Legislature
School Board District Community
Administrators School Other Teachers
ClassroomExistingBeliefs
Teachers
Teaching Practices
Students ExistingTechnology
NewTechnology
Figure 2: Model of Intern Mentoring in Technology – Adapted from Zhao & Frank, 2003
President Nation Legislature
Institutions Resources
Institutions Resources
18
Governor State Legislature
School Board District Community
Administrators School Other Teachers
Classroom
Influences on Intern’s Use of Technology
MentorDiscipline specific
Pedagogy Use of Technology
Other TeachersOther InternsUniversity SupervisorSchool Technology Coord.
Traditional Technology
InternDiscipline Specific
PedagogyUse of Technology
Emerged and Emerging Technology
References
Berson, M.J., Balyta, P. (2004). Technological thinking and practice in the social studies:
transcending the tumultuous adolescence of reform. International Society for
Technology in Education, 20(4), 141-150.
Burney, D. (2004). Craft knowledge: The road to transforming schools. Phi Delta
Kappan 85 (7), 526-531.
Cuban, L., Kirkpatrick, H., Peck, C. (2001). High access and low use of technologies in
high school classrooms: explaining an apparent paradox. American
Educational Research Journal, 38(3), 813-834.
Dewitt, S.W. (2005). Computer use in high school social studies classrooms: a
comparative case study within social class context. (Doctorial dissertation,
University at Buffalo, 2005).
Dexter, S., & Riedel, E. (2003). Why improving preservice teacher educational
technology preparation must go beyond the college’s walls. Journal of Teacher
Education 54 (4), 334-346.
Hicks, D., Doolittle, P., & Lee, J. K. (2004). Social studies teachers’ use of classroom-
based and web-based historical primary sources. Theory and Research in Social
Education, 32(2), 213-247.
International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE), The National Educational
Technology Standards for Teachers (NETS-T), 2003 [On-line]. Available:
http://cnets.iste.org/teachers/t_profile-stu.html
19
Lemke, C. & Coughlin, E. (1998). Technology in American Schools: Seven Dimensions
for Gauging Progress. California: Milken Exchange on Education Technology.
[On-line]. Available: http://www.mff.org/publications/publications.taf?page=158
Manchester, M.M. (2001). History.edu. In D.A. Tinkle & S.A. Merriman (Ed.), “Doing
history” evaluating technologies that promote active learning in the history
classroom (pp. 108-116). New York: M.E. Sharpe, Inc.
Means, B., Roschelle, J., Penuel, W., Sabelli, N. & Haertel, G. (2003). Technology’s
contribution to teaching and policy: Efficiency, standardization, or
transformation? In R. Floden (Ed.), Review of research in education (pp.159-
182). Washington, DC: AERA.
Mumtaz, S. (2000). Factors affecting teacher’s use of information and communications
technology: a review of the literature, Journal of Information Technology for
Teacher Education, 9(3) pp. 319-341.
Pedretti, E., Smith-Mayer, J. & Woodrow, J. (1999). Teaming technology enhanced
instruction in the science classroom and teacher professional development,
Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 7, pp. 131-143.
Robertson, S. I., Calder, J., Fung, P., Jones, A., O’Shea, T. & Lambrechts, G. (1996).
Pupils, teachers and palmtop computers, Journal of Computer Assisted Learning,
12, pp. 194-204.
Russell, M., Bebell, D., O’Dwyer, L., & O’Connor, K. (2003). Examining teacher
technology use: Implications of preservice and inservice teacher preparation.
Journal of Teacher Education 54 (4), 297-310.
20
U.S. Department of Education Retrieved 4/5/2004 from the Department of Education
Website: http://www.ed.gov/programs/teachtech/index.html?exp=0
Veen, W. (1993). How teacher use computers in instructional practice: four case studies
in a Dutch secondary school, Computers and Education, 21(1/2) pp. 1-8.
Zhao.Y., & Frank, K.A. (2003). Factors affecting technology uses in schools: an
ecological
perspective. American Educational Research Journal, 40(4), 807-840.
21