“Side-by-Side”: A Technology Education Model for Preservice and Inservice Teachers

In editing the Electronic Classroom department of Reading Online for the past two years, I have attempted to provide a forum for a variety of perspectives and types of articles, with the common purpose of enhancing our knowledge about the integration of technology into classroom literacy instruction. This month’s article continues that effort. The authors describe work that is less classroom based but that offers classroom teachers insights about a possible inservice program with several benefits over more traditional professional development approaches; it also offers preservice teachers ideas about training that provides both knowledge and field experiences in a communal learning process.
I have chosen to include this article in the Electronic Classroom in the hope that it will encourage practicing and future teachers to make their voices heard to their principals and to teacher educators, to advocate for professional development programs that include the following features:
Pairing inservice and preservice teachers to learn together about integrating technology into literacy instruction
Incorporating a field experience that includes classroom uses of technology
Providing a training program that incorporates district staff as well as university personnel
Providing follow-up assessments to judge the training program’s effectiveness
It’s my hope that increasing the effectiveness of training programs for practicing as well as future teachers will result in more effective technology integration in the classroom. I encourage you to consider the authors’ recommendations for doing so.
Chuck Kinzer
Department Editor
“Side-by-Side”: A Technology Education Model for Preservice and Inservice Teachers
Diane H. TraceyMelissa HeathJodi Truss
 
Abstract
This article informs teachers and teacher educators about “Side-by-Side,” an innovative program designed to promote technology learning for pre- and inservice teachers. First, we describe how the project examined future and practicing teachers’ attitudes toward educational technology before and after participation in the Side-by-Side program. We next compare the use of technology in field placements by preservice teachers who participated in the project and those who did not, and we show how Side-by-Side can be useful in teacher education programs that seek to enhance teachers’ knowledge and use of technology in the classroom.
 Related Postings from the ArchivesCybermentoring by Paula Boxie and Gerald Maring
School-University Partnerships Through Online Pattern Books by Gerald Maring et al.
A Constructivist Stretch by John Bauer and Rebecca Anderson
 
For a printer-ready version of this article, click here.
Preparing Teachers to Use Technology | Our Approach | Determining Effectiveness | Statistical Analyses | Conclusions | References
 
The Need to Prepare Teachers to Use Technology
Educators are increasingly aware of the tremendous importance of developing technology proficiency in students and, as a result, many colleges of education now include an emphasis on preparing preservice teachers to use technology effectively in the classroom. It appears, however, that reaching this goal is a formidable task (Reinking, McKenna, Labbo, & Kieffer, 1998). Courses that typically target such technology use often focus on the operation of computer hardware and software, rather than on the application of technology to enhance the teaching and learning process (Leu, 2000). Further, college and university faculty members are often underprepared to instruct their own students in this area (Kamil, Intrator, & Kim, 2000). The extent of the importance of, and problems regarding, preservice teachers’ preparedness for infusing technology into the curriculum are underscored in the United States by the launch of the federal Department of Education’s massive initiative, Preparing Tomorrow’s Teachers to Use Technology.
Concerns about the use of technology to enhance teaching and learning are similarly salient for inservice educators. As schools continue to obtain more and better hardware and software, the benefit to students will depend heavily on teachers’ use of these new tools. Unfortunately, many inservice professional development programs suffer from the same drawbacks as do preservice efforts: they address only how to use hardware and software, rather than how to integrate technology into the education process (Leu, 2000). Furthermore, many inservice programs do not appear to be designed with the philosophy of promoting communal knowledge building. The result is that educators lose both content area knowledge in this realm, as well as an opportunity for learning from peers in a social-constructivist context (Vygotsky, 1962).
The social-constructivist perspective would predict that preservice and inservice teachers working together on technology-based educational problems would scaffold each other’s learning as they built knowledge together, reinforcing or even extending the learning initiated by the classroom instructor. Of course, if the instructor does not focus on the integration of technology into the teaching-learning process, neither content acquisition nor socially mediated learning can occur in this area.
In short, the adequate training of educators in the use of technology to facilitate student learning is an issue that challenges us at the preservice, inservice, and higher education levels and pervades all areas of content learning. It appears that current initiatives in pre- and inservice technology instruction could benefit from a focus on the integration of technology into the teaching-learning process (Leu, 2000). Furthermore, the adoption in professional development programs of a teaching approach that targets socially mediated learning, as well as providing for the technology instructor’s direct instruction, may be fruitful.
Back to menu
Our Approach
Our program differed from many current initiatives in three ways. First, pre- and inservice teacher training occurred simultaneously, in a paired format (hence the name “Side-by-Side”), allowing for the extensive use of socially mediated learning. Second, the primary focus of the training program was the use of technology to enhance classroom practices, rather than the use of hardware and software. Third, the eight-week workshop program was followed by a three-week field placement in which preservice teachers worked in the classrooms of the inservice teachers with whom they had been paired for technology training.
Eight preservice and eight inservice teachers (the intervention group) participated in Side-by-Side. The program was offered as optional for the preservice teachers. Eight additional pre- and inservice teacher pairs participated as a non-workshop control group. The preservice teachers in this group completed a standard field experience program that did not include a technology-enriched component.
All preservice teachers were in their third year of an undergraduate teacher-education program at Kean University, an urban university in the northeastern region of the United States the serves a diverse student population. All inservice teachers were employed by an inner city public school district adjacent to the university campus, where the majority of students come from economically disadvantaged homes (77% qualify for a program the supplies free or reduced-price lunches). The Side-by-Side group included two second-grade classrooms, three third-grade classrooms, one fourth-grade classroom, one fifth-grade classroom, and one sixth-grade classroom. The control group included one kindergarten classroom, two first-grade classrooms, two second-grade classrooms, two fourth-grade classrooms, and one fifth-grade classroom. The Side-by-Side program was taught by Jeanette Parham, an award-winning technology instructor employed by the school district. Preservice teachers received college credit for their participation; inservice teachers, the technology instructor, and the lab assistant received stipends supported by a federally funded grant.
The school district’s computer lab, fully equipped with 15 workstations, was used for the technology training workshop sessions. The instructor used a laptop computer and LCD projector for all of her lessons. All computers were connected to the Internet and were equipped with Microsoft Office software products and the Microsoft encyclopedia, Encarta. For the preservice teachers in the intervention group, the Side-by-Side program entailed attending eight Saturday morning technology workshops during the spring university semester, and subsequently completing a corresponding field placement. The course syllabus focused on using the Internet and Microsoft Word, Excel, and PowerPoint for classroom application. The instructor employed a problems-based teaching methodology that required program participants to collaborate in using specific technology applications. For example, the pre- and inservice teacher pairs worked to create a thematic unit involving Excel lessons, and present it to the group using PowerPoint. All assignments were designed specifically to be applicable to the inservice teachers’ classrooms in which the preservice teachers would eventually work.
Following completion of the paired training, a three-week, full-time field placement took place during the university’s summer session (May-June). As stated earlier, preservice teachers completed the field work in the classrooms of the teachers with whom they had been paired for training. In addition to their regular responsibilities, the preservice teachers kept a log documenting the type and frequency of computer use in their classrooms; they received a small honorarium for this task. Eight additional preservice teachers who had not participated in the workshops also agreed to collect the same data in their fieldwork classrooms; they received the same honorarium.
Back to menu
Determining the Program’s Effectiveness
Four sources of data were collected during this project:
Preprogram interviews from the pre- and inservice teachers who participated in Side-by-Side
Workshop evaluation forms completed by the Side-by-Side participants after the eight training sessions
Field notes taken during the classroom placements by preservice teachers from both the Side-by-Side and control groups
Interviews with the Side-by-Side pre- and in-service teachers
Data from the interviews regarding pre- and inservice teachers’ thoughts and feelings about the Side-by-Side program were analyzed for categories and trends in responses. Data gained from the program evaluations were analyzed with descriptive statistics. Data from field notes regarding classroom use of technology were analyzed using descriptive statistics (the Mann-Whitney U Test for small, nonparametric independent samples, and Pearson’s Correlation Coefficient).
On a 10-question workshop evaluation form, based on a 5-point scale with 5 being the most desirable score, the average score for each question ranged from 4.8 to 5.0. However, we wanted to see if the workshop influenced participants’ use of technology with children in class. To do so, we first looked at the number of computers available for use in participants’ classrooms: The Side-by-Side classrooms had an average of 3.1 computers, while the control classrooms averaged 3.4. However, even though the control group classrooms had more computers available, the computers in the Side-by-Side group classrooms were used more frequently by teachers and students -- an average of 75.5 minutes per day, compared to 26.2 minutes per day in the control classrooms. An average of 13.6 students in the Side-by-Side group used a computer daily, while 4.9 students in the control group did so. Students in the Side-by-Side classrooms used five different types of technology tools: educational games, Internet activities, and Microsoft Word, Encarta, and PowerPoint. Students in the control group used three technology tools: educational games, the Internet, and Microsoft Word. The data regarding computer access and application by the two groups are reported in Table 1.
Table 1
Computer Access and Use of Applications
 
 Intervention (Side-by-Side) Classrooms (N=8)Control Classrooms (N=8)
AccessMean no. of computers per classroom3.13.4
Mean no. of students using computers daily13.64.9
Mean total time of daily computer use75.5 min./day
(range, 12.0 - 141.5)26.2 min./day
(range, 11.5 - 51.5)
Mean Daily Use of ApplicationsEducational games28.7 min. (SD 47.6)22.8 min. (SD 11.9)
Internet activities24.6 min. (SD 26.3)0.6 min. (SD 1.1)
Microsoft Word6.4 min. (SD 8.1)2.9 min. (SD 4.1)
Microsoft Encarta12.3 min. (SD 19.4)not used
Microsoft PowerPoint3.5 min. (SD 6.5)not used
Total75.5 min. (SD 50.9)26.2 min. (SD 13.3)
 
There were statistically significant differences between the intervention and control groups in three areas: total time using technology in the classroom, Internet use in the classroom, and use of Encarta in the classroom. In all cases, greater use of technology was associated with the Side-by-Side program. (A more detailed discussion of the statistical analyses appears here.)
Additional, important data about the effectiveness of the Side-by-Side program comes from postprogram interviews, in which all participating pre- and inservice teachers indicated that the program had had a positive effect on their ability to use technology in the classroom and on their relationships with their teaching partners. All teachers said that they would recommend the program to other educators.
Back to menu
Conclusions, Limitations, and Future Directions
To respond to the need to improve teacher education in the area of technology, an innovative program was designed, implemented, and evaluated. Program participants recognized this need. Comments made in preliminary interviews with the Side-by-Side pre- and inservice teachers indicated their primary reason for participation in the program was a desire to receive technology training specific to classroom teaching. In addition, the majority of preservice teachers said that they hoped to build a positive relationship with their partner teacher. Most pre- and inservice teachers reported feeling competent in using technology for their own purposes, but less confident in integrating technology into their teaching.
While our results indicate that the Side-by-Side program is effective, two limitations of the present study should be considered. First, the results are confounded by a grade-level effect that allows for doubt regarding whether the increase in technology use was due to the intervention or to grade-level differences between the groups, since the Side-by-Side teachers worked in classrooms with children who were somewhat older than those in the control classrooms. The next investigation of the Side-by-Side program will use a matched, paired design, thus controling for grade-level differences. A second limitation of the work is that the current research design compares the Side-by-Side program to a “non-workshop” control group, rather than to a traditional technology training initiative. This design limitation will also be addressed in a subsequent program evaluation. Further strengthening of future research on this model will stem from improved and multiple recording mechanisms of technology use in the classroom.
Despite these limitations, however, the results of our evaluation indicate that both pre- and inservice teachers felt a high level of satisfaction with the training program. Furthermore, the Side-by-Side preservice teachers reported significantly greater time spent using computers in their classrooms, a greater variety of computer applications use, and more students using classroom computers than did the nonintervention preservice teachers. The increased time spent using computers was also positively correlated with higher grade levels.
The practical success of the Side-by-Side program suggests that the training model is useful for both pre- and in-service teachers. Preservice teachers reported being extremely pleased to have had the opportunity to learn alongside their cooperating teachers in a nonthreatening environment in which all participants were viewed as equal. Similarly, the inservice teachers were extremely pleased to have had the encouragement and support of the preservice teachers in their classrooms as they tried new technology applications with their students. Thus, it appears that both groups benefited from the paired learning format.
The model also has financial benefits in that both groups of educators were trained for the same cost as would have been incurred in training a single group. This aspect of the model should be appealing to anyone engaged in the design and implementation of technology training initiatives.
The results reported here regarding the Side-by-Side program are promising, but preliminary. While additional study is warranted to explore more fully the implications of this training approach, we hope that educators will use and investigate the model for the many practical effects that it offers.
Back to menu
References
Kamil, M.L., Intrator, S.M., & Kim, H.S. (2000). The effects of other technologies on literacy and literacy learning. In M.L. Kamil, P.B. Mosenthal, P.D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 3, pp.771-791). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Back
Leu, D.J. (2000). Literacy and technology: Deictic consequences for literacy education in an information age. In M.L. Kamil, P.B. Mosenthal, P.D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 3, pp. 743-771). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Back
Reinking, D., McKenna, M., Labbo, L., & Kieffer, R. (1998). Handbook of literacy and technology: Transformations in a post-typographic world.Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Back
Vygotsky, L.S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Back
About the Authors
Diane Tracey is an associate professor of education at Kean University (1000 Morris Ave., Department of Communication Sciences, Union, New Jersey 07083, USA), where she teaches graduate and undergraduate courses in literacy education. Her writing has focused primarily on technology in literacy education and on family literacy. She was recently awarded a federally funded grant, Preparing Tomorrow’s Teachers to Use Technology, which partially supported the research described in this article. She may be contacted by e-mail at dhtracey@aol.com.
Melissa Heath is an elementary classroom teacher in South Brunswick Township, New Jersey, and a master’s degree candidate and research assistant at Kean University in the area of reading specialization. She may be contacted at melissa23@earthlink.net.
Jodi Truss is a research assistant at Kean University, where she specializes in interviewing techniques. Her previous work has been in the areas of medical social work and adolescent and hospice care. Contact her by e-mail at dtruss@scienceregistry.com.
Back to top
For a printer-ready version of this article, click here.
Citation: Tracey, D.H., Heath, M., & Truss, J. (2002, September). “Side-by-Side”: A technology education model for preservice and inservice teachers. Reading Online, 6(2). Available: http://www.readingonline.org/electronic/elec_index.asp?HREF=tracey/index.html
Reading Online, www.readingonline.org
Posted September 2002
© 2002 International Reading Association, Inc.   ISSN 1096-1232