Aligning Nets*t Standards With Technology Integration For Kosrae Teachers

International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning, 4(4), pp. 96-112. August 2008

Aligning NETS*T Standards with Technology Integration for Kosrae Teachers Jacquelyn D. Cyrus ([email protected]) University of Guam, Guam This article has been anonymously peer-reviewed and accepted for publication in the International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning, an international, peer-reviewed journal that focuses on issues and trends in pedagogies and learning in national and international contexts. ISSN 1833-4105. © Copyright of articles is retained by authors. As this is an open access journal, articles are free to use, with proper attribution, in educational and other non-commercial settings.

Abstract This article describes teachers’ comfort levels in using various technology tools in a technology integration course for in-service teachers in the northern Pacific region known as Micronesia. The resultant gain scores at the end of the course measured the pre-class and post-class differences in technology comfort levels. The online Technology Questionnaire was used to inquire about 10 separate technology areas before and after instruction. Participants reported increased comfort within these 10 areas at the conclusion of the class, with significance greater than <.05 in all categories. Course curricula that included the National Educational Technology Standards for Teachers (NETS*T) and the ASSURE model (Smaldino, Russell, Heinich & Molenda, 2007) for creating lesson plans were used as a framework for structuring the course.

Introduction Digital technology has become ubiquitous in educational settings and, in the United States, educators and researchers take it for granted that pre-service teachers, (also known as teacher candidates), will have the requisite skills with which to use these technology tools in the classroom curricula. Micronesian educators have often looked to British, Australian and American models for curricula planning and to Korean and Japanese sources for technical support. These Micronesian in-service teachers, returning to colleges and universities for teacher certifications, have enrolled in American institutions, such as the University of Guam. Administrators and curricula designers in Micronesia have had little research to guide them concerning whether this subset of students in education classes, these in-service teachers taking courses for certification, have the requisite technology skills with which to complete these certification courses. This article looks at the technology comfort levels of one group of Micronesian in-service teachers, on the island-state of Kosrae, taking a required technology integration course to satisfy certification requirements, to ascertain how technology standards can be incorporated into the education curricula.

Background Kosrae is one of the four states within the Federated States of Micronesia (FSM), a political jurisdiction framed through long years of negotiations between leaders from

96

International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning, 4(4), pp. 96-112. August 2008

the U.S. federal government and Micronesia. The other three states are: Yap, Chuuk, and Pohnpei. Kosrae appears on a world map as a dot at 6 degrees north latitude and 163 degrees east longitude. A very small volcanic island of approximately 42 square miles, this remote area is inhabited by approximately 8,000 people. Kosraean is the language of home, politics, commerce, and school, at least until students transition into English in grade 3 (Low, Clarence & William, 2002). The only institutions of higher education in the region are the Northern Marianas Islands College, (NMI), which offers the only WASC-accredited undergraduate degree program (Heine, 2006, p. 11) and the College of Micronesia – Federated States of Micronesia, (COM-FSM), which was originated in 1963 as a regional teacher training institution and created to serve the development needs in Micronesian education. COM-FSM, a fully accredited institution by the Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC), maintains one national (Palikir, Pohnpei) and four campus sites in all four the FSM states. COM-FSM trains pre-service teachers in its program in Associate of Arts in Elementary Education and in its third-year Certificate in Education Program. Students elect to continue in a fourth-year program in conjunction with the University of Guam leading to a Bachelor of Arts in Education (Wilson-Duffy, 1999). While education students are required to complete a technology course prior to graduation, scarce research had been conducted to ascertain the technology skills of these entering teachers, nor what standards were used to design the curricula used to implement the technology assignments. The PT3 grant, “Bridging the Micronesian Islands with Technologically-Trained Teachers,” was utilized for “(P)re-service teachers, COM-FSM Education Faculty, and PDOE TDS personnel … to develop a technology portfolio which demonstrates their technology and content knowledge in Math, Science, Social Studies, and Language Arts or other areas of specialization. The workshops will include: word processing, spreadsheets, database, desktop publishing, multi-media presentations, lab maintenance, evaluation of tutorial, application, and multi-media creation software, WWW: Internet research, Web Page creation, ICQ, and Email” (Wilson-Duffy, 1999). Even though few FSM teachers had previously received training in the use of technology, the “1998 needs assessment of Pohnpei State school administrators identified getting up-to-date knowledge of the latest educational technology as the second greatest staff development need of teachers in the school system” (WilsonDuffy, 1999). Although grant coordinators expected to evaluate the CAI (computerassisted instruction) skill development “through a quantitative analysis of their grades, number of course credits, survey data, and resulting GPAs in the courses used to deliver CAI training” a subsequent statement concluded that they “do not have any completed portfolios at this time, as there are no students who have fully completed all benchmark training” (Wilson-Duffy, 1999). In order to construct viable, technology-infused curricula for the FSM education program, additional data is required.

97

International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning, 4(4), pp. 96-112. August 2008

Literature Review Most colleges and universities offer courses that introduce learners to digital technology, usually in the form of an introductory course that commonly satisfies general education requirements for graduation. Students learn how to use word processors with which to submit homework and projects; they become familiar with slide software in order to make classroom presentations. General education technology courses can provide the pre-service and in-service teachers with skills that they did not previously possess. A review of the literature indicates that technology coursework can change teachers’ attitudes toward and confidence with technology (Abbott & Faris, 2001; Molebash & Milman, 2000; Rizza, 2000). However, many “classroom teachers practicing today were not educated in classrooms with technology, and those who were probably did not see technology used in meaningful ways to engage learners. Studies during the past decade show that technology integration in the curriculum improves students’ learning processes and outcomes. When teachers were introduced to computers as problem-solving tools, it changed the way they perceived teaching” (Zhiting & Hanbing, 2001). They observed that instruction can change from a behavioral approach to a more constructivist approach (Beyerbach, Walsh & Vannatta, 2001). When pre-service teachers become engaged in their own learning, they perceive that their own students can become engaged in their learning using these powerful digital tools (Culp, Keisch, Light, Martin & Nudell, 2003). Teachers new to the use of technology tools for classroom activities, therefore, need to experience becoming proficient with integrating technology into their content areas not only for personal gain but because digital technology integration promotes project-based learning styles which engage students in their own learning processes. In this kind of educational setting, students can acquire and use higher-order thinking, analysis, and problem solving, and they take responsibility for their own learning outcomes. Teachers can become a guide and facilitator, e.g., “a guide from the side,” rather than “a sage from the stage” (King, 1993). Digital technology lends itself as the multidimensional tool that assists this learning process; and when teachers learn how to integrate digital technology into their content areas, they assist in helping the learners acquire these higher-order thinking skills, whereby the learners become constructors of their own knowledge (Yost, McMillan-Culp, Bullock & Kuni, 2003). By the end of the twentieth century, many institutions began to integrate technology skills along with methods courses, institutions such as Vanderbilt, the University of Virginia and Arizona State University (Glazewski, Brush, Ku & Igoe, 2002). Researchers discovered that with the intervention of a technology integration course, pre-service teachers’ attitudes about technology use changed (Pepper, 1999; Yildirim, 1999), comfort and confidence levels with technology improved over time after technology instruction (Christensen, 1997; Ropp, 1999), and that pre-service teachers had more positive perceptions of the effectiveness of technology resources in improving education (Huang & Padron, 1999). Results from international researchers discovered similar results in instructional settings as disparate as Canada (Doiron, 1999; Hannaford, 1999; Ross, Hogaboam-Gray & Hannay, 1999), Spain (Hidalgo, Lu & Miller, 2000), Guam (Wang, 2000), and China (Zhiting & Hanbing, 2001). There seems to be ample evidence and little doubt that education program administrators and pre-service teachers believe that “technology is a necessary and beneficial component in higher education programs, or that students can learn better if technology is used effectively” (Cassady & Pavlechko, 2000). 98

International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning, 4(4), pp. 96-112. August 2008

Historically, U.S. federal legislations have had great impact on the direction of education in the Pacific Island region which includes Hawai‘i, the U.S.-affiliated Pacific island territories of American Samoa and Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI), the Federated States of Micronesia (FSM: Chuuk, Kosrae, Pohnpei, and Yap), the Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI), and the Republic of Palau (ROP) (Heine, 2006, p 1). In providing resources for certification of teachers in the Pacific Island region, some gaps still exist. “Teacher preparation programs endeavor to ensure prospective Pacific Island teachers are instructed to have various skills” (Iding & Skoug, p. 16) but no technology skills are included in the list. Yet, digital technology, if it is integrated into the curriculum, revolutionizes the learning process (Gray, 2001). So the issue facing researchers is not how and what technology to teach pre-service teachers; it is how to educate teachers to integrate technology into the curricula. The purpose of this study was to acquire a view of the technology use of these Pacific Island in-service teachers and to introduce a baseline for comparison in future teaching and research agendas for the Federated States of Micronesia (FSM) education curricula. The instrument used for this survey was also used in a previous study in 2005 with US mainland pre-service teachers in a similarly-constructed, required education class with the same purpose of creating a baseline of technology skills (Cyrus, 2008). This article reports the results of a study in 2006 that examined the technology comfort level of in-service teachers on the Micronesian island of Kosrae as they completed a required class for teacher certification. By examining this area of research about the technology integration perceptions of in-service teachers, faculty and administrators of education programs, especially methods course faculty, can prepare prospective teachers better for the integration of technology into the content areas. The results of this study are important primarily because knowledge about the perceptions of in-service teachers will provide educational technologists and education administrators with information about how to design curricula appropriate for the digital technology incorporation needed for modern K-12 classroom instructors.

Learning Frameworks Two learning frameworks were used to support the development of the technology curriculum – the National Educational Technology Standards for Teachers (NETS*T) and the ASSURE Lesson Plan Templates. The National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) governs teacher preparation programs. Technology application instructions within these programs for teachers are guided by standards suggested by the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE). The standards, National Education Technology Standards for Teachers (NETS*T), with the support of NCATE, define a template for teacher education, and by doing so, define the fundamental concepts, knowledge, skills, and attitudes for applying technology in educational settings (NCATE, 2000, 2002, 2003). These standards suggest that all candidates seeking certification or endorsements in teacher preparation should meet these educational technology standards (NCATE, 2003). The six standards are: (1) technology operations and concepts; (2) planning and designing learning environments and experiences; (3) teaching, learning, and the curriculum; (4)

99

International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning, 4(4), pp. 96-112. August 2008

assessment and evaluation; (5) productivity and professional practice; and (6) social, ethical, legal, and human issues. The six standards areas are designed to be general enough to be customized to fit state, university, or district guidelines and yet specific enough to define the scope of the topic within schools and colleges of education (http://cnets.iste.org/ncate/). The ASSURE model of instructional delivery (Smaldino, Russell, Heinich & Molenda, 2007) offers a systematic plan for effective incorporation of media and technology into lesson activities (Smaldino et al., 2007, p. 49). The ASSURE model puts a heavy emphasis on active student engagement in the planned learning activities. ASSURE is an acronym for the six steps of the planning model, described as follows: Analyze learners, State the objectives, Select methods, media, and materials, Utilize media and materials, Require learner participation, and Evaluate and revise. The course curriculum was designed using these two frameworks. The overall projection and hope was for more positive student attitudes toward computers and less anxiety after completion of the Web-enhanced course (Gunter, 2001).

Methodology The three-week technology applications course served as an intervention to see if this instruction would affect their comfort level with technology within the classroom. Participants were asked to complete a Technology Questionnaire (http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.asp?u=36661222982) on the first day of class and on the last day of this course. Statements on the Technology Questionnaire ask the participants to rate their comfort level using ten different kinds of technology tools. The original paper Technology Questionnaire was constructed and piloted by the researcher in 1998 for use in a southwestern university with students enrolled in a first-year composition class taught in a Macintosh computer lab. Data was collected from 169 students with 6 different instructors during the academic year of 1998-99. In 2002, the paper questionnaire was administered to approximately 90 pre-service secondary teachers in another southwestern university with some slight modifications, such as eliminating listservs, newsgroups and bulletin boards as choices (Cyrus, 2008). The questionnaire has now been put online with additional small modifications, such as the addition of the data management and communications categories, and subsequently piloted with another 133 participants in the Pacific Island region. This online version of the Technology Questionnaire also contains a demographic section for gathering information regarding participants’ gender, primary or first language, age, major, and whether or not they have had other computer instruction. Chronbach's alpha was used to measure the internal consistency of the survey instruments and it was calculated to be .89, suggesting that the instrument was moderately reliable. The Technology Questionnaire was used to collect data on how the teachers rated their comfort levels with specific technology tools (see Figure 1 below). They were asked to respond to the statement in each of 10 categories, e.g., “Please use this scale to indicate how well you can use the following tools” (see Figure 2 below). The ten categories of technology areas were: Operating System, Technology Tools, Word Processor, Communications, Online Resources, Presentation/Imaging, Manage Data, Desktop Publishing, Webpage Design, and Multimedia Projects. The rating scales

100

International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning, 4(4), pp. 96-112. August 2008

were Likert-like scales, calibrated from 0 (No Knowledge) to 5 (Very Knowledgeable).

Figure 1 Technology Questionnaire: Introduction

Figure 2 Technology Questionnaire: Technology tools

Research questions With the online Technology Questionnaire, what were the self-reported skills of the teachers and would there be a difference in these self-efficacy skills at the conclusion of the course? These research questions guided this study: 1. With what perceived digital technical skills did the Kosrae teachers begin the technology integration course? 2. What were the changes in their perceived digital technical comfort levels at the end of the course?

101

International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning, 4(4), pp. 96-112. August 2008

Participants The required technology class began with 22 in-service teachers on the campus of COM-FSM on Kosrae during the Intersession semester, December 19, 2006 through January 12, 2007. All students were working towards their education certification to be conferred by the University of Guam. All class sessions were held in the campus computer lab, which contained 25 computers using the Window XP software and connected to the Internet via the main campus on Pohnpei. There were 14 males and 8 females; 2 males self selected to drop the class within a few days because they had no computer or keyboarding skills. All instruction was conducted in English by the monolingual researcher. All participants were bilingual with Kosraen as the native language, except one male who was monolingual in English. One female teacher was trilingual with Pohnpeian. Method All students were asked to complete the online Technology Questionnaire on the first day of class and again on the last day of class prior to their final, individual ePortfolio presentations. The students used an online course management system, MOODLE, with which to access and upload their assignments, read teacher feedback, and monitor their grades. Assignments consisted of 8 artifacts with which they linked to one of the NETS*T standards on their final assignment, the ePortfolio: 1 ASSURE lesson plan and 1 reflection paper using MS Word; 1 ASSURE lesson plan completed on their own web sites, 1 reflection paper completed on their own BLOG, 1 WebQuest created on their own web site, 1 group project evaluating an online educational game, 1 group discussion summary using discussion forums and MOODLE chats, 1 technology tool assessment using their own BLOG, and their final ePortfolio constructed on their own webpage using the NETS*T standards as a framework or table of contents. Each of the 10 technology areas on the Technology Questionnaire contained multiple subsections. Therefore, each of the 10 technology areas was summed; then a mean and standard deviation was determined for the pre-score (first day of class) and postscore (last day of class). The pre-score was subtracted from the post-score to produce the mean gain score.

Data Analysis and Results The technology content areas and abbreviations are as follows: OS: Operating System; TT: Technology Tools; WP: Word Processing; CC: Communications; OR: Online Resources; PI: Presentation/Imaging; MD: Managing Data; DP: Desktop Publishing; WD: Webpage Design; and MM: Multimedia Projects. Research Question 1 All of the participating students reported a moderately high level (3.80) of comfort using word processing tools. In addition, the means for OS (Operating System) at 3.71 and OR (Online Resources) at 3.15 were above the midpoint of 2.50. Webpage Design (WD at 1.57) and Multimedia Projects (MP at 1.50) were at the lowest mean comfort levels at the beginning of the class (see Table 1).

102

International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning, 4(4), pp. 96-112. August 2008

Table 1 Means for the Pre-Class Scores of the Technology Questionnaire OS Comfort 3.71 Level

TT 2.75

WP 3.80

CC 2.69

OR 3.15

P/I 2.64

MD 2.70

DP 1.92

WD 1.57

MP 1.50

Legend: OS (Operating System), TT (Technology Tools), WP (Word Processing), CA (Communications), OR (Online Resources), P/I (Presentation/Imaging), MD (Managing Data), DP (Desktop Publishing), WD (Webpage Design), MP (Multimedia Projects)

Research Question 2 All of the mean gain scores were significant at the <.05 level. Four of the mean gain scores might be of particular interest. The scores for TT (Technology Tools) was the lowest mean gain and the highest correlation, which was also significant at <.01 level. OR (Online Resources) had the highest mean gain score of all the technology content areas (See Table 2 below).

Table 2 Means, Standard Deviations and Correlations for the Gain Scores of the Technology Questionnaire Means Standard Signif Correlations Signif Gain Deviations OS 1.46 1.16 .000 .494 .027 TT .66 .97 .007 .819 .000 WP 1.82 1.37 .000 .488 .029 CC 1.23 1.50 .002 .451 .046 OR 2.89 1.85 .000 .113 .636 PI 1.29 1.68 .003 .465 .039 MD 1.66 1.69 .000 .493 .027 DP 1.30 1.70 .003 .524 .018 WD 2.40 2.49 .000 -.439 .053 MM 2.00 2.25 .001 .064 .790

The standard deviation for WD (Webpage Design) was unexpectedly large – 2.49. In addition, the mean gain score was 2.40 and the correlation was a negative: -439 with significance at <.05. MM (Multimedia Project) had a large mean gain score at the significance level of <.001; however there was no significance in the correlations between the pre-scores and the post-scores. The most noticeable mean gain score was for TT (Technology Tools) (see Figure 3 below).

103

International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning, 4(4), pp. 96-112. August 2008

3.00 2.50 2.00 1.50

WD MD

1.00

OR

0.50

WP OS

0.00

OS TT WP CC OR PI MD DP WD MM

1 Figure 4 Mean gain scores for all 10 technology content areas of the Technology Questionnaire

Discussion Technology integration and comfort levels The mean gain score was calculated by subtracting the pre-test means (scores calculated from the first day of class) from the post-test means (scores calculated from the last day of class). There was a positive mean gain score for all 10 areas with a significance level <.01. The teachers responded that they were more comfortable with all of the technology areas after completing the required technology integration class. One explanation is that all 10 of the technology areas were integrated into the curriculum. For example, use of an email account was required for access to their MOODLE accounts in order to submit assignments and monitor their own grades. The mean gain score for CC (Communications) was 2.69. One of the technology tools (TT) that the teachers used on a daily basis was a thumb drive on which they kept all of their assignments. The mean gain score for TT is the lowest and has the a correlation of .82 with significance level of <.00. This technology area had a high pre-class mean, 2.75, which suggests that the teachers were already very comfortable using some of the technology tools. The 2 largest mean gain scores were for OR (Online Resources) at 2.89 and Webpage Design (WD) at 2.40. The mean gain score for OR was the highest score possibly because 5 of the 8 assignments required accessing and using online resources as well as creating a webpage with which to submit their final project, an ePortfolio. They practiced using various search engines, learned how to evaluate web pages, and searched for free, online educational games. The comfort level of using these tools was demonstrated with a statistically significant mean gain level of <.00. 104

International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning, 4(4), pp. 96-112. August 2008

The negative correlation for WD (webpage design), -4.4 and significance at <.05, might be a fault with the Technology Questionnaire or with the perception of the participants, possibly recording more comfort than actually existed initially and then confirming that comfort level after creating and using several web pages. The item deserves another review by the researcher. The mean gain score for MM (multimedia projects), 2.00, might be due to the rush to complete projects as the deadline for the ePortfolio approached. Although the ePortfolio assignment could have been used to create multimedia artifacts, few students did more than insert photos. Using NETS*T standards and the ASSURE lesson plan template Three multimedia lesson plans were required, one using a spreadsheet tool, one using multimedia tools, and one creating a WebQuest in which student activities involved using the World-wide Web to complete the lesson activities. With the first 2 lesson plans, a related assignment of writing a reflection paper was required. From their comments in their reflection papers, most of the participants did not create lesson plans and a few confessed that they did not really know how. Adopting one lesson plan format for the entire class to use allowed for a systematic approach to the six components of the ASSURE model lesson plan. Selecting and utilizing the media and materials encouraged the participants to be creative with their lesson plans and to think differently about the lesson activities. Infusing technology into a curriculum is less likely to make an impact on students’ learning if technology is not considered as a component of instruction. If technology is not be treated as a separate entity, then it can be viewed from a wider perspective and considered as an integral part of instructional delivery (Okojie, Olinzock & Okojie-Boulder, 2006). Using NETS*T as a framework for the final project, the teachers created an ePortfolio on their newly-created web sites. The teachers linked one assignment to each of the 6 NETS*T standards in an effort to demonstrate their comfort as technology proficient professionals. With 8 assignments, the teachers made the choices of which assignments to link to which of the NETS*T standards. The ePortfolio focused the effort on improving technology integration and teaching quality using technology in the hope that the teachers would be able to integrate technology effectively into their instructional practice (Clausen, 2007). While the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) “identified essential conditions for teacher education and the school context, use of the ePortfolio linked with the NETS*T standards encouraged teachers to use technology effectively. These conditions include; a shared vision, access, skilled educators, professional development, technical assistance, content standards and curriculum resources, student-centered teaching, assessment, community support, and supportive policies” (Strudler & Wetzel, 1999, pp. 246-247). Additionally, incorporating the NETS*T standards approved by ISTE into the curriculum can aid administrators, technology coordinators, and curriculum designers to identify those essential conditions and integrate them into the technology curricula. For example, an assignment for the first NETS*T standard, Technology Operations and Concepts, can be an assessment of a technology tool or evaluation of an online educational game. By utilizing the data from the Technology Questionnaire, the curriculum designer or technology coordinator can ascertain what the comfort levels for the learners are and design an assignment for the teachers to demonstrate a sound understanding of technology operations and concepts (see Appendices 1-6).

105

International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning, 4(4), pp. 96-112. August 2008

Limitations There were access limitations to this island, including a storm that disconnected access to the Internet main server on the island of Pohnpei. Economic limitations frequently preclude access to computers; for instance, several students had computers, but not access to the Internet because of its prohibitive initial and maintenance cost. “Financial expenditures related to technology are complicated by additional and frequently unforeseen costs of technology maintenance in areas where it is difficult to obtain replacement parts and where heat and humidity may be ‘unfriendly’ to optimal equipment maintenance” (Iding & Skouge, 2005, p. 15).

Conclusion The study reported in this article provides a baseline data for in-service teachers completing the technology integration requirements for certification. The data on the comfort level of technology use offers an instrument for easy insertion into the activities of the first and last days of class to ascertain the starting point of technology use and a final mean gain score to analyze curriculum and standards of technology use for summative and formative evaluations. Knowing the comfort level of using technology tools can afford faculty, educational designers, and technology coordinators great latitude in designing curriculum for integrating technology. Becker and Riel (2000) say, “We found that the more extensively involved teachers were in professional activities, the more likely they were to (1) have teaching philosophies compatible with constructivist learning theory, (2) teach in ways consistent with a constructivist philosophy, and (3) use computers more and in exemplary ways”. Yet, digital technology, if it is integrated into the curriculum, revolutionizes the learning process (Gray, 2001). Specific technology tools change and improve with time; however, it is the comfort with their use that can span the teachers’ professional involvement with education. The digital technologies of today bring the tools of empowerment into the hands and minds of those who can demonstrate some facility with them. These Pacific Islanders offered a glimpse into the kinds of technology tools that professional educators can access and use proficiently. Participants in this study enrolled in a course for technology integration into the curricula, successfully completed the course, and gained comfort using a variety of technology tools incorporated into activities that they could immediately use in their content areas. Despite the challenges of a 21-day course and the frustrations of slow Internet access, the participants remained engaged with the curriculum and emerged with technology skills, including an ePortfolio demonstrating their proficiencies in the six NETS*T standards.

References Abbott, J. A., & Faris, S. E. (2001). Integrating technology into preservice literacy instruction: A survey of elementary education students' attitudes toward computers. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 33(2), 149-161. Becker, H. J., & Riel, M. M. (2000). Teacher professional engagement and constructivist-compatible computer use. (Teaching, Learning, and Computing:

106

International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning, 4(4), pp. 96-112. August 2008

1998 National Survey, Report #7). Center for Research on Information Technology and Organizations. University of California, Irvine and University of Minnesota. Beyerbach, B. A., Walsh, C., & Vannatta, R. A. (2001). From teaching technology to using technology to enhance student learning: Preservice teachers' changing perceptions of technology infusion. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 105-127. Cassady, J. C., & Pavlechko, G. (2000, March). Does technology make a difference in pre-service teacher education? Paper presented at the International Conference on Learning with Technology, Temple University Philadelphia, PA. Christensen, R. (1997). Effect of technology integration education on the attitudes of teachers and their students. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 34(4), 411-433. Clausen, J. M. (2007). Beginning teachers’ technology use: First-year teacher development and the institutional context’s affect on new teachers’ instructional technology use with students. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 39(3), 245-261. Culp, K. M., Keisch, D., Light, D., Martin, W., & Nudell, H. (2003). Formative evaluation of the INTEL Teach to the Future preservice program. New York: Education Development Center, Center for Children & Technology. Cyrus, J. (2008). Pre-service teachers’ perceptions for integrating technology in content areas. Saarbrücken, Germany: VDMVerlag. Doiron, R. (1999, November). University/school library collaborations to integrate information technology into resource-based learning activities. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the International Association of School Librarianship (IASL), Birmingham, AL. Glazewski, K., Brush, T., Ku, H.-Y., & Igoe, A. (2001, April). The current state of technology integration in preservice teacher education. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA. Gray, K. C. (2001). Teachers’ perceptions of innovation adoption. Action in Teacher Education, 23(2), 30-35. Gunter, G. A. (2001). Making a difference: Using emerging technologies and teaching strategies to restructure an undergraduate technology course for pre-service teachers. Educational Media International, 38(1), 13-20. Hannaford, M. (1999, April). Developing innovative information technology projects. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. Heine, H. (2006). Teacher certification systems. Honolulu, HI: Pacific Resources for Education and Learning (PREL). Hidalgo, J. F., Lu, M.-Y., & Miller, M. T. (2000, August). Confronting difficulties associated with pre-service teacher preparation technology apprehension: A case study. Paper presented at the Annual Association of Teacher EducationEurope Conference, Barcelona, Spain. Huang, S., & Padron, Y. (1999). Preservice teachers’ perceived effectiveness of technology resources: A cross-national study. In J. Price et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference 1999 (pp. 1356-1361). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Iding, M., & Skouge, J. (2005). Educational technology and the World Wide Web in the Pacific Islands. TechTrends: Linking Research & Practice to Improve Learning, 49(1), 14-18.

107

International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning, 4(4), pp. 96-112. August 2008

King, A. (1993). From sage on the stage to guide on the side. College Teaching, 41(1), 30-36. Low, M., Clarence, W., & William, K. (2002). Early Literacy Assessment for Learning: Anecdotes from a School in Kosrae. Honolulu, HI: Pacific Resources for Education and Learning. Molebash, P., & Milman, N. (2000, February). Technology in teaching: Just how confident are preservice teachers? Paper presented at the Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, San Diego, CA. National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (2000, 2002, 2003). Retrieved February 1, 2008, from http://www.ncate.org/standard/m_stds.htm Okojie, M., Olinzock, A., & Okojie-Boulder, T. (2006). The pedagogy of technology integration. Journal of Technology Studies, 32(2), 66-71. Pepper, K. (1999, November). A comparison of attitudes toward computer use of preservice and inservice teachers. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association, Point Clear, AL. Rizza, M. G. (2000). Perspectives on preservice teachers' attitudes toward technology. The Teacher Educator, 36(2), 132-147. Ropp, M. M. (1999). Exploring individual characteristics associated with learning to use computers in preservice teacher preparation. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 31(4), 402-424. Ross, J. A., Hogaboam-Gray, & Hannay, L. (1999). Predictors of teachers' confidence in their ability to implement computer-based instruction. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 21(1), 75-97. Smaldino, S. E., Russell, J. D., Heinich, R., & Molenda, M. (2007). Instructional technology and media for learning. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall. Strudler, N., & Wetzel, K. (1999). Lessons from exemplary colleges of education: Factors affecting technology integration in preservice programs. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(4), 63-81. Wang, Y.-M. (2002). From teacher-centredness to student-centredness: Are preservice teachers making the conceptual shift when teaching in information age classrooms? Educational Media International, 39(3/4), 257-265. Wilson-Duffy, C. (1999). Preparing tomorrow’s teachers to use Technology Capacity Building Grant. U.S. Department of Education. Yildirim, S. (1999, February). Are educational computing courses effective? Teachers are talking. Paper presented at the Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education, San Antonio, TX. Yost, J., McMillan-Culp, K., Bullock, D., & Kuni, P. (2003). Intel(R) Teach to the Future: A worldwide teacher professional development program combining inquiry-based education with technology integration. Tracks to the Future: Integrating technology into today’s schools. New Mexico Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Zhiting, Z., & Hanbing, Y. (2001, December). ICT and pre-service teacher education: Towards an integrated approach. Paper presented at the Seventh Annual UNESCO-ACEID International Conference on Education: Using ICT for Quality Teaching, Learning and Effective Management., Bangkok, Thailand.

108

International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning, 4(4), pp. 96-112. August 2008

Appendix A: NETS*T Standard #1 – Learning Objectives aligned with Artifacts for Assessment Learning Objectives

NET* S

Artifacts for Assessment

A. demonstrate introductory knowledge, skills, and understanding of concepts related to technology.

1A

Presentations, lesson plans, evaluate online educational games

B. demonstrate continual growth in technology knowledge and skills to stay abreast of current and emerging technologies.

1B

Presentations, lesson plans, group projects, summary papers, web quests, ePortfolio

I. Technology Operations and Concepts Teachers demonstrate a sound understanding of technology operations and concepts. Teachers

Appendix B: NETS*T Standard #2 – Learning Objectives aligned with University of Guam Conceptual Frameworks and Artifacts for Assessment Learning Objectives

NET* S

Artifacts for Assessment

2A

Presentations, lesson plans, summary papers, group projects, web quests, ePortfolio

2B

Presentations, lesson plans, summary papers, web quests

2C

Presentations, lesson plans, summary papers, in-class discussions

2D

Presentations, lesson plans, web quests

2E

Presentations, class discussions, lesson plans, web quests

II. Planning and Designing Learning Environments and Experiences Teachers plan and design effective learning environments and experiences supported by technology. Teachers: A. design developmentally appropriate learning opportunities that apply technology-enhanced instructional strategies to support the diverse needs of learners. B. apply current research on teaching and learning with technology when planning learning environments and experiences. C. identify and locate technology resources and evaluate them for accuracy and suitability.

D. plan for the management of technology resources within the context of learning activities. E. plan strategies to manage student learning in a technologyenhanced environment

109

International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning, 4(4), pp. 96-112. August 2008

Appendix C: NETS*T Standard #3 – Learning Objectives aligned with University of Guam Conceptual Frameworks and Artifacts for Assessment Learning Objectives

NET* S

Artifacts for Assessment

III. Teaching, Learning, and the Curriculum Teachers implement curriculum plans that include methods and strategies for applying technology to maximize student learning. Teachers: 3A

Reflection papers, online group discussions, summary papers, in-class discussions

B. use technology to support learner-centered strategies that address the diverse needs of students.

3B

Lesson plans, summary papers, group projects, web quests

C. apply technology to develop students’ higher order skills and creativity.

3C

Presentations, web quests, lesson plans

D. manage student learning activities in a technologyenhanced environment.

3D

Online group discussions, in-class discussions, web quest

A. facilitate technology-enhanced experiences that address content standards and student technology standards.

Appendix D: NETS*T Standard #4 – Learning Objectives aligned with University of Guam Conceptual Frameworks and Artifacts for Assessment Learning Objectives

NET* S

Artifacts for Assessment

IV. Assessment and Evaluation Teachers implement curriculum plans that include methods and strategies for applying technology to maximize student learning. Teachers: A. apply technology in assessing student learning of subject matter using a variety of assessment techniques. B. use technology resources to collect and analyze data, interpet results, and communicate findings to improve instructional practice and maximize student learning. C. apply multiple methods of evaluation to determine students’ appropriate use of technology resources for learning, communication, and productivity.

110

4A

Lesson plans, summary papers, web quests

4B

Online group discussions, evaluate online educational games, web quests

4C

Presentations, summary papers, web quests

International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning, 4(4), pp. 96-112. August 2008

Appendix E: NETS*T Standard #5 – Learning Objectives aligned with University of Guam Conceptual Frameworks and Artifacts for Assessment Learning Objectives

NET* S

Artifacts for Assessment

V. Productivity and Professional Practice Teachers use technology to enhance their productivity and professional practice. Teachers: A. use technology resources to engage in ongoing professional development and lifelong learning.

5A

Presentations, summary papers, online group discussions

B. continually evaluate and reflect on professional practice to make informed decisions regarding the use of technology in support of student learning.

5B

Online group discussions, summary papers, reflection papers

C. apply technology to increase productivity.

5C

Web site creation, ePortfolio

D. use technology to communicate and collaborate with peers, parents, and the larger community in order to nurture student learning.

5D

Presentations, lesson plans, summary papers, web quests, ePortfolio

Appendix F: NETS*T Standard #6 – Learning Objectives aligned with University of Guam Conceptual Frameworks and Artifacts for Assessment Learning Objectives

NET* S

Artifacts for Assessment

6A

Lesson plans, online group discussions, summary papers

6B

Lesson plans, web quests, ePortfolio

6C

Presentations, lesson plans, online group discussions, class discussions

VI. Social Ethical, Legal and Human Issues Teachers understand the social, ethical, legal, and human issues surrounding the use of technology in PK—12 schools and apply that understanding in practice. Teachers: A. model and teach legal and ethical practice related to technology use.

B. apply technology resources to enable and empower learners with diverse backgrounds, characteristics, and abilities. C. identify and use technology resources that affirm diversity.

D. promote the safe and healthy use of technology resources. E. facilitate equitable access to technology resources for all students.

6D

Presentations, lesson plans, web quests, Presentations, lesson plans,

111

International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning, 4(4), pp. 96-112. August 2008

Learning Objectives

NET* S 6E

112

Artifacts for Assessment online group discussions, in-class discussions, web quests, ePortfolio