DOCUMENT RESUME SP 037 577 ED 412 200 Betz, Muhammad AUTHOR Educational Technology Needs and Wants in Rural Oklahoma TITLE Schools. 1997-00-00 PUB DATE NOTE 8p. Research (143) Reports PUB TYPE MF01/PC01 Plus Postage. EDRS PRICE *Administrator Attitudes; *Curriculum Development; DESCRIPTORS Educational Research; *Educational Technology; Elementary Secondary Education; Higher Education; Preservice Teacher Education; *Rural Schools; Surveys; *Teacher Attitudes; *Teacher Education Curriculum *Oklahoma IDENTIFIERS ABSTRACT Two research efforts were conducted by the education faculty at Southeastern Oklahoma State University to determine what inservice teachers felt they needed to know about educational technology in order to be successful teachers in the public schools and then to structure educational technology courses in the teacher education curriculum accordingly. The first component surveyed education technology courses offered by 10 teacher education departments in Oklahoma. Results of the survey revealed that most courses were geared toward traditional audio-visual concepts and practices. The second component surveyed new and veteran teachers and school administrators. Survey findings indicated that only 20 percent of new teachers considered themselves very prepared to use educational technology, 70 percent of administrators considered themselves moderately prepared, and veteran teachers considered themselves least prepared. Nearly 85 percent of administrators and 80 percent of veteran and new teachers felt that university course work in use of educational technology was either very or moderately important. All three groups affirmed that instruction in educational technology should continue to increase in importance. (ND) ******************************************************************************** Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original document. ******************************************************************************** Educational Technology Needs and Wants in Rural Oklahoma Schools Dr. Muhammad Betz Southeastern Oklahoma State University Introduction Teacher educators in the state of Oklahoma have received and are acting upon a new impetus to modify their Teacher Education Programs. HB 1549 requires that a new competency-based teacher preparation system be mandated for any Teacher Education Program in the state to receive accreditation from a specially formed Oklahoma Commission for Teacher Preparation. The new accreditation system requires the following: (1) institutional plans based on the Standards for Oklahoma Accredited Teacher Education Programs; (2) on-site visits to institutions of higher education campuses; (3) analysis of data related to student success rates on structured assessments; (4) analysis of student portfolios; and (5) analysis of student satisfaction data. The designated Institutional Plan is based on the Oklahoma State Department of Education General Competencies for Teacher Licensure and Certification and full subject matter competencies, as well as, the NCATE Curriculum Guidelines and Folios. Judging by the content of both the Oklahoma Commission for Teacher Preparation and NCATE guidelines, there are not any pressing needs with respect to Educational Technology in teacher education curricula. The Commission addresses the issue of educational technology needs of teachers in cursory fashion in Standard 1.D.1, Professional and Pedagogical Studies for Initial Teacher Preparation, which states, "Candidates complete a well-planned sequence of courses and/or experiences in professional studies in which they acquire and learn to apply knowledge about -the impact of technological and societal changes on school; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Office of Educational Research and Improvement While NCATE has recently organized a task force to investigate increased EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTE (ERIC) technology in teacher education programs, NCATE Standards, adopted reproduced as O This document has been received from the person or organization as of May 19, 1994, address educational technology needs of preservice Originating it made to improve O Minor changes have been teachers in Standard 1.C: Content Studies for Initial Teacher Preparation reproduction quality. this docu Points of crew or opinions stated in (Initial), in cursory fashion, represent Whoa ment do not necessarily OERI position or policy "The unit ensures that teacher candidates attain academic competence in the content that they plan to teach. Indicators: PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE ANL DISSEMINATE THIS \ (6) Candidates complete a sequence of courses and/or MATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY experiences to develop an understanding of the structure, skills, core concepts, ideas, values, facts, methods of TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER 2 (ERIC) BEN COPY AVAILABLE inquiry, and uses of technology for the content they plan to teach." The results of such inadequate emphasis on educational technology have curricula of teacher education suffering from a wide disparity of technologies available to preservice educators, with many programs characterized as woefully inadequate (Barksdale, 1996). Not only do teacher education programs lack technology to teach with and about, but they lack the curriculum structure to minimally address the vast potential of technology use in public school teaching. Many researchers suggest that the answer to inadequate preparation of preservice teachers is the development of teaching methods courses which require students to incorporate technology-based methodologies in their respective teaching fields (Vag le & College, 1995; White, 1994; Dugdale, 1994). Other researchers point towards innovative programs which foster faculty development of teacher educators (Kortecamp & Croninger, 1995; White, 1995). One thing is clear: there is no verifiable consensus of what teacher educators should be doing to prepare teachers to use educational technology in their classrooms. Why is there no consensus? A plausible hypothesis suggests that teacher education curricula are subject to a "top-down," hierarchical approach, which is often dictated to them from ivory towers which are taller and more out of reach than the proverbial ivory towers of teacher education faculty. This hypothesis is supported by the above mention of both the Oklahoma Commission for Teacher Preparation and NCATE. The root of the problem does not lie exclusively in the inadequate attention given to educational technology, but also in the fact that the existing, "top-down" guidelines are missing teachers real needs. Total Quality Management, as coined by W. E. Deming, runs exactly counter to the described approach to structuring teacher education curricula (Freeston, 1992). The key to applying TQM principles to education in a successful way lies in regular collaboration between involved parties (Schmoker & Wilson, 1995). With the two agencies, who have drafted the "competencies" and "guidelines" which control teacher education, there is missing collaboration with probably the most important people in the network of customers and clients: classroom teachers and administrators. The following paper details two research efforts conducted by faculty at Southeastern Oklahoma State University to be used as a basis for curriculum development of an educational technology component of the teacher education curriculum. The intention of the curriculum 3 development project has been to determine what inservice teachers feel that they need to know related to educational technology in order to be successful teachers in the public schools and then to structure educational technology courses in the teacher education curriculum accordingly. The results of this research effort tend to show the inadequacies and misdirection of both "competencies" and "guidelines," to which teacher education curricula owe the highest allegiance. An Educational Technology Task Force During the Spring semester of 1993, researchers formed an Educational Technology Task Force in order to begin reconstruction of the mandatory audio-visual component of the undergraduate, teacher education curriculum. Contrary to existing literature and general consensus among teacher education faculty at that time, the researchers felt that educational technology should hold a prominent place in the teacher education curriculum. The Educational Technology Task Force surmised that an accumulation of real data was required to gain impetus for promoting educational technology. Task Force members decided to conduct two investigations: the first of existing educational technology related courses in colleges and universities with teacher education programs; the second of the existing patterns of use and needs of educational technology by public school teachers and administrators. The First Research Component During the Summer and Fall semesters of 1993, the Ed Tech Task Force conducted a survey of educational technology courses offered by teacher education departments in Oklahoma by letter and telephone. Initial response rates to the written survey in the Summer semester of 1993, which simply requested copies of existing course syllabi for educational technology or related courses, were approximately 60%. A follow-up, telephone survey was conducted in the Fall semester of 1993, which served to increase the response rate to approximately 75%. The universities responding include the following: Bartlesville Wesleyan College, Central Oklahoma State University, East Central Oklahoma State Oklahoma Northwestern State Langston University, University, University, Oklahoma City University, Southeastern Oklahoma State University, Southern Nazarene University, Southwestern Oklahoma State University, and the University of Science & Arts of Oklahoma. Results of the First Research Component Based on the content of the course syllabi, the vast majority of Audio- Visual courses were geared to teach basic audio-visual concepts and practices. Most of the courses stressed the theories of using audio-visual equipment stated in the course textbook. The major focus of textbook 4 study was 16mm projectors, videotape recorders, slide projectors, recorders/players, filmstrip overhead tape projectors, projectors, transparency making equipment, 35mm photography equipment, duplication and preservation techniques, and microcomputers. Students were expected to demonstrate a very basic proficiency in the use of most of the above equipment and to produce bulletin boards, transparencies, videotapes, and lettered visuals. While several of the courses require written reviews or summaries of journal articles related to educational incorporated hands-on only use one course technology, of microcomputers. The results of the survey surprised the researchers due to the lack of emphasis placed on the modern components of educational technology. The Second Research Component The second research component was begun during the summer The express purpose of the second study was to semester of 1994. establish a practical rationale for the development of an Educational Technology component of the Teacher Education Curriculum. While program developers knew that computer-based technology should be added to the existing A-V courses, the actual needs of graduates with relation to such technology were conjectural and were certain to face skeptical scrutiny. An existing data base of graduates utilized in the state's Entry Year Mentoring Program allowed access to Southeastern graduates entering their first teaching job. The data base also allowed access to designated Mentor teachers of veteran status and to school-level administrators. A major strength of this component of the research is the validity of the population sample, which allows direct transfer of findings in the most teachers and one for Two surveys, one for practical fashion. administrators, were compiled, based in part on several existing surveys displayed by Scholastic's National Center for Technology Planning at The survey for teachers was Mississippi State University via Internet. further divided to differentiate between new and veteran teachers. The distributed surveys were constructed to address the following objectives: 1. To determine available technology at elementary, middle, and high school levels for both teachers and administrators in the 11-county focus area of service for Southeastern Oklahoma State University. 2. To determine perceived levels of technology usage at elementary, middle, and high school levels for both teachers and administrators in the 11-county focus area of service for Southeastern Oklahoma State University. 3. To determine teacher perceptions of present and future technology needs for their teaching endeavors. 5 To determine administrator perceptions of present and future 4. technology needs for their administrative/managerial endeavors. The surveys were mailed during the Spring and Summer of 1995 to a population consisting of one hundred and twenty-three (123) of each of the following: new teachers, and school veteran teachers, administrators, with a response rate of approximately 45%. Borg and Gall (1993) indicate that response rates of 40% are expected for first run surveys, and the researchers felt that the responses reflected actual trends in the use of educational technology in the region. Some of the addressed were: following areas specifically self-perception of preparation to use educational technology, perceived importance of university courses related to educational technology, perceived need of necessary hours of university instruction in educational technology at both the undergraduate and graduate levels, and perceived importance of educational technology in public school education in the years 1995 and 2005. Results of Second Research Component The results for the second research component were figured in terms of the percentages of respondents for each survey alternative. Due to the instability of survey data, no interpolating statistics were used. The findings were viewed as descriptive of existing trends. of being prepared With respect self-perceptions use to to educational technology there were discrepant findings relative to new teachers, veteran teachers, and administrators. Nearly twenty percent (20%) of new teachers felt themselves to be very prepared to utilize educational technology, while nearly 70% of administrators felt themselves moderately prepared. In general, veteran teachers felt the with prepared, least designating nearly themselves as 20% unprepared. The figures were also very high for the perceived need of university course work as a prerequisite to utilization of educational technology. Nearly 85% of administrators felt course work as either very or moderately important, while 80% of veteran and new teachers felt the same. One of the most interesting set of questions contained on the surveys asked how many undergraduate and graduate hours should be allocated to educational technology courses in teacher education curricula. At the undergraduate level, while no one selected zero hours of course work, about twenty percent (20%) of respondents from all three categories selected from 2-3 hours as their choice. Nearly 50% 6 of all teachers, both new and veteran, selected between 4-6 hours of course work, while 28% opted for 7+ hours. Administrators registered in with approximately 40% selecting from 4-6 hours and a surprising 37% opting for 7+ hours. At the graduate level, veteran teachers had about equal thirds selecting 2-3 hours, 4-6 hours and 7+ hours of university course work in educational technology. New teachers reflected 20% at 2-3 hours, 28% at 4-6 hours, and 36% at 7+ hours. Administrators, however, were more divided, with about 10% suggesting no course work, 16% at 2-3 hours, 42% at 4-6 hours, and 33% at 7+ hours. To the question, "How important is Ed Tech in 1995 and 2005?" respondents consistently affirmed a very important status, with all three groups registering at about 65% for 1995 and 80% for 2005. Discussion The results of these two research efforts indicate that the transition from an A-V to an Ed Teach perspective in teacher education curricula, while in full swing, has still a long way to go. Too many teacher education programs, like the agencies which regulate teacher education, are paying minimal attention to educational technology. It seems that the A-V mindset is still in control of the teacher education curriculum. The resulting educational technology programs are not giving future public school teachers and administrators what they Findings suggest want and need related to educational technology. that most teachers and administrators consider themselves marginally prepared to use educational technology, that they need and want more staff development and university course work related to educational technology, and that they are "hungry" for more educational technology. In this era of Commission and NCATE driven concerns for curriculum development in the area of teacher education, at both the graduate and undergraduate levels, the most striking finding might be the perceived need for a significant increase of course hours in or related to educational technology. Many institutions at this time offer two to three hours of course work at the undergraduate level and the same or no course work at the graduate level. Based on the insights gained from collaboration with real public school teacher and administrators, there should be more courses offered in educational technology. Clearly, misdirected, "top-down," constraints from "ivory towers," are prevailing over the true needs and wants of classroom teachers. References Abbott, J.E. (1995). Managing at the speed of light. T.H.E. Journal, 23(4), 74-77. Borg, Walter R., & Gall, Meredith D. Educational research: (1989). An introduction (5th edition). New York: Longman. Getting started with tqm. Freeston, K. R. Educational (1992). Leadership, 50(3), 10-13. Results: The key to renewal. Schmoker, M., & Wilson, R. (1995). Educational Leadership, 52(7), 62-64. Wise, Arthur. (1995). Raising expectations for technology in teacher education. NCATE Quality Teaching, 5(1), 2-3. Dr. Muhammad Betz is Assistant Professor in the Department of Educational Instructional & Leadership, School of Education & Behavioral Sciences, Southeastern Oklahoma State University, Durant, OK 74701. Voice: 405 924-0121 x2326, fax: 405 920-7473, E-mail: [email protected] 8 ERIC U.S. Department of Education Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI) Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) REPRODUCTION RELEASE (Specific Document) I. DOCUMENT IDENTIFICATION: ecii/ )46),( _)/Leo/s Title: Ecitca*(holi recAn0659 AkdS i 1 ....... ....... Author(s): iele2./L49 ...NO 44. .b Publication Date: Corporate Source: )Ni 0. Gily a klA440014 51:41 Soollte149142r1 II. REPRODUCTION RELEASE: In order to disseminate as widely as possible timely and significant materials of interest to the educational community, documents announced in the monthly abstract journal of the ERIC system, Resources in Education (RIE), are usually made available to users in microfiche, reproduced paper copy, and electronic./optical media, and sold through the ERIC Document Reproduction Service (EDRS) or other ERIC vendors. Credit is given to the source of each document, and, if reproduction release is granted, one of the following notices is affixed to the document. If permission is granted to reproduce and disseminate the identified document, please CHECK ONE of the following two options and sign at the bottom of the page. The sample sticker shown below will be The sample sticker shown below will be affixed to all Level 2 documents affixed to all Level 1 documents PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE AND PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE AND DISSEMINATE THIS DISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL MATERIAL IN OTHER THAN PAPER HAS BEEN GRANTED BY COPY HAS BEEN GRANTED BY Check here Check here \e For Level 2 Release: For Level 1 Release: Permitting reproduction in Permitting reproduction in microfiche (4' x 6' film) or microfiche (4' x 6' film) or TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES other ERIC archival media other ERIC archival media TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC) (e.g., electronic or optical), (e.g., electronic or optical) INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC) but not in paper copy. and paper copy. Level 2 Level 1 If permission Documents will be processed as indicated provided reproduction quality permits. to reproduce is granted, but neither box is checked, documents will be processed at Level 1. 'I hereby grant to the Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) nonexclusive permission to reproduce and disseminate this document as indicated above. Reproduction from the ERIC microfiche or electronic/optical media by persons other than ERIC employees and its system contractors requires permission from the copyright holder. Exception is made for non-profit reproduction by libraries and other service agencies to satisfy information needs of educators in response to discrete inquiries.' Sign Printed Name/Position/Tide: Signature' here-) frofElskr) 55T. please Organization/Address: f4). 6.0 IK rgo 05 cD-M--01),1 )1)0=7133 5-734-1-10rw E-Mail Address: Date: 1:)kfMA(7,0414-101 e412too5v- (over) 4riclu --reSearch reports : evaluations program descriptions think pieces - 'other pertinent bibliographies materials 0- curriculum gUides mm 1 ERIC/CRESS invites you... ...to submit your written materials related to Quick retrieval via compact disks (CDs). the areas of education covered by the ERIC The era of expensive and complicated online Clearinghouse on Rural Education and Small searching is coming to a close. Schools (ERIC/CRESS): Always "in print" because a master micro- fiche collection is maintained at the ERIC American Indians and Document Reproduction Service facility. Alaska natives, Complimentary microfichesent to Mexican Americans, migrants, contributors when their documents are outdoor education, announced in the RIE. rural education, and It's easy. small schools. If your work is substantive, useful, and well It takes two things: (1) two highly legible written (and longer than five pages in length) it copies of your paper and (2) a completed ERIC will probably be selected for inclusion in the reproduction release. A release form appears ERIC database. inside this flyer. Giving ERIC permission to copy and disseminate an item does not affect It has its your copyright. Mail the papers and the com- pleted release form to: advantages. Acquisitions ERIC/CRESS at AEL Wide dissemination through ERIC's P.O. Box 1348 Charleston, WV 25325 Resources in Education (RIE), the abstract journal in which your paper will be an- Be sure to include your name, address, and nounced. telephone number. If you need more reproduc- Free publicity for all papers submitted tion release forms or additional information. write us at the above address or call our toll-free (even those available only from the original number 1/800/624-9120. publisher) .