You are here:

Technology in Elementary Teacher Preparation Programs: Traditional vs. Integrated Models
PROCEEDINGS

, ePals, Inc., United States

Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, in Las Vegas, Nevada, USA ISBN 978-1-880094-64-8 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Chesapeake, VA

Full Text

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to investigate variations of two technology integration formats in elementary teacher preparation programs. Two program designs were identified in the research literature: 1) an integrated program design that infused technology across the program, and 2) a non-integrated program design. The following research question was explored. Is a teacher preparation program that is characterized by a more technology integrated environment, associated with: an increase in readiness and expertise to use technology for complex student projects, an increase in teacher proficiency with using technology, more student-centered instructional practices, an increased ability to locate resources and/or assistance for using technology, and a decreased perception of obstacles to technology use?

Citation

Stubbs, K. (2008). Technology in Elementary Teacher Preparation Programs: Traditional vs. Integrated Models. In K. McFerrin, R. Weber, R. Carlsen & D. Willis (Eds.), Proceedings of SITE 2008--Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 3952-3959). Las Vegas, Nevada, USA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved December 12, 2019 from .

Keywords

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. Apple Classrooms of Tomorrow (2006). ACOT History Retrieved February 17, 2006, from http://www.apple.com/education/k-12/leadership/acot/history.html
  2. Aust, R., Newberry, B., O'Brien, J., & Thomas, J. (2005). Learning Generation: Fostering innovation with tomorrow's teachers and technology. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13(2), 167-195.
  3. Becker, H.J., & Ravitz, J.L. (2001). Computer Use by Teachers: Are Cuban’s Predictions Correct? Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association. From http://www.crito.uci.edu/tlc/findings/conferences-pdf/aera_2001.pdf.
  4. Bielefeldt, T. (2001). Technology in Teacher Education: A Closer Look. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 17(4), 4-15.
  5. Evans, J., & Spero, I. (2005). Visions 2020.2: Student Views on Transforming Education and Training Through Advanced Technologies: U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Department of Education, NetDay.
  6. Hargrave, C., & Hsu, Y.-S. (2000). Survey of Instructional Technology Courses for Preservice Teachers. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 8(4), 303-314.
  7. Hofer, M. (2005). Technology and Teacher Preparation in Exemplary Institutions: 1994 to 2003. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 22(1), 5-11.
  8. Moersch, C. (1995). Levels of Technology Implementation (LoTi): A Framework for Measuring Classroom Technology Use. Learning and Leading with Technology(November), 40-42.
  9. Moersch, C. (2004). National LoTi Technology Use Profile. Retrieved December 1, 2005, from http://www.learning-quest.com/software/2003-04NationalProfile.pdf
  10. Parasuraman, A. (2000). Technology Readiness Index (TRI): A Multiple-Item Scale to Measure Readiness to Embrace New Technologies. Journal of Service Research, 2(4), 307-320.
  11. Roberts, S., & Hsu, Y.-S. (2000). The Tools of Teacher Education: Preservice Teachers' Use of Technology To Create Instructional Materials. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 8(2), 133-152.
  12. Stoltzfus, J. (2005). Construct Validation of the Level of Technology Implementation (LoTi) Survey, Inservice Teacher Version: A Preliminary Analysis. Unpublished Construct Validation. Mid-Atlantic Regional Technology In Education Consortium, Temple University Center for Research in Human Development and Education.
  13. 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.
  14. Vannatta, R.A., & Fordham, N. (2004). Teacher Dispositions as Predictors of Classroom Technology Use. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 36(3), 253-271.
  15. Waxman, H.C., Lin, M., & Michko, G.M. (2003). A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of teaching and learning with technology on student outcomes. Retrieved February 25, 2006, from http://www.ncrel.org/tech/effects2/
  16. Wegerif, R. (2002). Literature Review in Thinking Skills, Technology, and Learning: Report 2. UK: National Endowment for Science, Technology, and the Arts.
  17. Wenglinsky, H. (1998). Does it Compute? The Relationship Between Educational Technology and Student Achievement in Mathematics. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
  18. Zeichner, K., Liston, D., Mahlios, M., & Gomez, M. (1988). The Structure and Goals of a Student Teaching Program and the Character and Quality of Supervisory Discourse. Teaching and Teacher Education, 4(4), 349-362.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.

Suggest Corrections to References

Also Read

Related Collections