Preparing Tomorrow's Teachers to use Technology Grant 
(Funded by the U.S. Department of Education)

In general, the results of the activities associated with Phase II of the Technology Infusion Project (TIP) are positive. Both participants and the project’s principal investigator (PI), however, believe that the project’s overall efficacy can be improved.  Of the 11 participants interviewed, 91 percent express favorable comments about the quality of the project’s management and instruction. The negative comments address issues ranging from the instructor’s “rigid approach” regarding the expectations and standards set for the course, to limited access to properly working equipment during non-workshop hours.

There is unanimous agreement regarding the overall merit of TIP. Some participants in the course alignment workshop indicate that the material could be applied immediately to their courses, and thereby made the overall benefits of the workshop accessible to them and to their students in real time. This is also said of the multi-media workshop. Unfortunately, limited access to wired classrooms and related equipment within the University severely restricts participants from applying their newly acquired or updated skills. Furthermore, participants in the multimedia workshop report that without ongoing access to reliable equipment, their skills would gradually diminish. It is recommended that future multimedia workshops include a follow-up component that allows and encourages participants to maintain their proficiency by taking mini-refresher courses.

Problems, both administrative and operational, associated with the University’s infrastructure resurfaces throughout the interviews. A few of these problems include: a malfunction in e-mail access for students which lasted several weeks; unpaid or tardy stipends; an inoperable desktop computer in a participant’s office; and limited access to some software outside of the workshop lab/classroom.

Several participants cite the magnitude and intensity level of their TIP workloads as being problematic. These individuals suggest that time-consuming workshops, such as TIP, should adjust their content and expectations to accommodate participants’ schedules, teaching loads and related responsibilities. Indeed, the five participants who had not completed the requirements for their respective workshop, mention “time constraints” or “competing demands” as the primary reasons.

All interviewees strongly agree that TIP, at least in some form, should be continued. They are pleased with the quality of instruction and the willingness of instructors to assist them with their assignments both during and after normal business hours. Even individuals who believe that the workload is unreasonable express favorable opinions about the project’s director and principal investigator.

Finally, six major themes emerge from the interviews: 1) The University’s technological infrastructure (as measured by the equipment provided to professors in their offices and in the classrooms) is a limiting factor in the Technology Infusion Project’s efforts to infuse instructional technology at the University; 2) The primary reasons for taking the workshops are “skill development” and “knowledge acquisition”; 3) Participants’ view the workload (expectations) as demanding; 4) Participants are either unsure of or doubtful about the level of support for the TIP initiative from the University’s most senior administrators; 5) The development of new networks, both interdisciplinary and with the teaching and learning center, are a worthwhile outcome of the workshops; and 6) The quality and accessibility of technical assistance (support) are significant factors in participants’ skills and knowledge acquisition.

INTRODUCTION

Despite investments and commitments from federal, state, and local agencies totaling billions of dollars to support purchases of equipment and modern communications networks for the nation’s school, roughly a third of the current 2.5 million public school teachers feel comfortable using technologies in their classrooms (National Center for Educational Statistics, 2000). 

To address the issue of teachers’ technological literacy and proficiency, the U. S. Department of Education awarded grants “that are working to transform teacher preparation programs.” (http://www.pt3.org/about/index.html). The overall goal of the Winston-Salem State University (WSSU) Preparing Tomorrow’s Teachers to Use Technology (PT3) Project is to build and sustain significant improvements in its teacher education program. Success is measured, in part, by students’ ability to demonstrate a high level of proficiency in integrating content knowledge, basic and advanced technologies and constructivist pedagogies to improve teaching and learning across the K-12 curriculum. To achieve this goal, the primary focus at WSSU is on faculty development (Winston-Salem State University, PT3 Proposal, 2000).

Therefore, the WSSU PT3 Project provides members of the faculty with an opportunity to participate in one or both workshops designed to meet the project’s objective of improving teacher education.  The two workshops are; “The Use of Multimedia Technology” and “Course Alignment.” The project’s leaders are concerned about conducting a rigorous assessment of various activities early in the process in order to make real-time adjustments as a means to improve the efficacy of the project.  To this end, the project includes a component that addresses both formative and summative evaluation issues.  In the spring of 2001, Dr. Willie Pearson, Jr. was contracted to conduct an external evaluation of the PT3 Project. This report presents the findings of a formative evaluation of activities implemented in Phase II of the project. The report is organized into three major sections: (1) methodology, (2) findings, and (3) recommendations.

METHODOLOGY

Data are derived from personal interviews conducted with 11 of the 12 participants in the Technology Infusion Project (92 percent response rate) and with the project’s principal investigator and director. With the interviewees’ permission, each interview was tape recorded (except where a respondent chose to speak off the record).  Taped interviews were transcribed and sanitized of any information that would identify any interviewee.  All interviewees signed a consent form. The interviews were held on the campus of WSSU between March 26 and April 20, 2002. In terms of demographic characteristics of the Phase II participants, slightly more than four-fifths are women and two-thirds are U.S.-born minorities. Only one-fifth of the participants are tenured. Roughly one-half of the participants are Assistant Professors and Adjuncts. However, the largest portion (slightly more than two-fifths) of the participants consists of Associate Professors.  Not surprisingly, the vast majority (three-fourths) of participants are from the Division of Education.

FINDINGS

The findings from the interviews may be categorized into the following major themes: 1) university infrastructure; 2) incentives for taking the workshops; 3) perceptions of the workload; 4) perceptions about the level of support from the University’s central administration; 5) networking; and 6) the quality and availability of technical support for participants.

University Infrastructure

Hardware and Software:  The computer equipment and software associated with the TIP project receive passing ratings from the participants in the workshops, with the software receiving, on average, higher marks. Thirty-six percent of respondents, however, report problems with the computer equipment.  Two participants prefer to use computers either in other departments on campus or off campus.  One of these persons believes that were it not for access to a secondary computer facility, the workshop’s learning outcomes would  be almost impossible to acquire. After encountering repeated problems with an office desktop computer, one respondent resorted to using the computer in another office in order to complete assignments.  Another respondent reports that “there were times when I had access to a computer but it wouldn’t work.  Other times, I couldn’t connect to the system.” One respondent reflects the consensus of colleagues: “It is very frustrating to be very committed to acquiring the technological skills and knowledge when you know that the University’s infrastructure is inadequate.”

Problems involving the University’s infrastructure are not confined to the equipment used by participants in the workshops. One individual recalls an incident involving a student whose University-assigned e-mail address had not functioned properly most of the spring semester. Another respondent relates this incident:

…students complain that they don’t have enough access to labs...

A lot of the students want to use labs in the evening and

there’s only one lab on campus open in the evening…

The lab downstairs closes at 5:00 p.m. because the University

does not provide adequate resources to staff it.

One respondent alleges that a lab was closed because the students are not tidy. Another comment further supports the difficulties encountered on the campus involving the University’s technological infrastructure:

[Some] of the systems communications such as the one

on which the students’ e-mail system operates, have been ill all year. I

think it died this spring.  I think it’s been resurrected again.  For some

faculty, there’s no lab where they can actually use all the features in

their teaching.  They must carry a projector and a laptop to the classrooms.

Unfortunately, sometimes the technical supports in the classroom don’t work.

Approximately 36 percent of interviewees suggest that there are fewer problems with the software used in TIP than with the University’s. Nonetheless, some participants question whether the project utilized the latest, most robust and user-friendly software available. For example, some participants recommended to the PI and PD that the University acquire Lectora software for course alignment.  The project leaders responded favorably to this request by inviting a representative from Lectora to make a presentation to them.  As a result, Lectora and TIP have become partners.

University operations: facilities management.

Some concern is expressed regarding the physical environs in which the workshop was held.  The conditions are described as  less than inviting, with a poor ventilation system.  This made classroom conditions distracting and unpleasant, and factors into the participant’s preference to use computer facilities off campus.

Administrative operations.  Two of the eight individuals who completed Phase I of TIP are disappointed that it took the University’s business office several

weeks-- long after they had completed the requirements for the workshop(s)-- to process their stipends. One respondent explains: “We had to track down purchase requests because they lost people’s payment stubs…They are not very efficient.”

Incentives for taking the workshop

Skill development/ knowledge acquisition. Only two of the participants consider the stipend “very important” as a factor in their decision to participate in the workshop.  Of the remaining participants, most consider the stipend marginally important or not important at all.  Indeed, most of the respondents in the workshops indicate that they would complete “all PT3 requirements without a stipend.”

All of the participants in the workshop regard “knowledge acquisition as “very important” or “most important”.  One participant remarks: “I am intrinsically motivated...Don’t get me wrong, I need the money but I want the knowledge more than anything.”  Furthermore, the participants believe their “new skills” are absolutely mandatory to compete in a more technologically sophisticated world.  In the words of one respondent: “I am going to be a constant learner when it comes to technology.”  Another adds: “I want to know my technology as well as I know my subject.”

The stipend is not regarded as the “most important” factor in participants’ decision-making process to sign up for the workshops. Several of them expressed delight that they would be receiving a personal digital assistant (PDA) at the end of the project.  For some individuals, the PDA represents more of an incentive than money particularly because the PDA package includes a mini workshop on “How to Use It,” and they believe that the PDA will be yet another tool that will enhance their productivity.

Program design / Workload

Time constraints.  Six of the interviewees indicate that they have completed the requirements for the workshops.  Of the five who responded that they have not completed the workshop(s), all cited “time constraints” as the principal reason for failing to satisfy the requirements of the program.  Imbedded in these time constraints are heavy teaching loads (e.g., 15 hours per semester), multiple campus responsibilities, supervisory obligations, or misjudgments of the time demands of the project. All of the individuals in this category, however, intend to complete the requirements, and are working toward this end with either the PI or with the PD. Both the PI and the PD are aware of these concerns as one of them stated, “…we expected a lot – it was very demanding for the participants.”  However, the project leaders point out that non-completers have finished about 70-85 percent of the final projects

Notwithstanding the workload demands, 55 percent of the respondents mentioned that they prefer to have additional time for discussions in the workshops or in the labs to use the equipment.  The PI and PD concur that additional time for these purposes would have been ideal but also indicate that the infrastructure issues cited above they  contribute to the frustration participants express in terms of their “lack of time.”

Timing.  In general, respondents agree that conducting the workshop during the summer months, when their teaching and related responsibilities are less demanding, probably would have eliminated at least some of the time pressures.

Instructional support.  Ten of the respondents spoke in glowing terms about the quality and availability of support from the project’s principal investigator and director.  Their willingness to provide individual assistance for extended periods of time (beyond normal business hours), according to some participants, contribute to the program’s overall success.

Nonetheless, three respondents believe that it would be beneficial to pre-assess participants before the workshops so that they could be assigned to a comparable peer group for some topics.  One respondent put it in this context: “Some times when groups got together and helped each other, we were able to really learn a lot.”  Another points out: “I was overwhelmed by the number of assignments...because I work at a much slower pace than most of my peers.” However, another participant says: “I need structure because I am not very disciplined.”

Support from the central administration

Some 64 percent of the participants are either unsure of the commitment for the project from the University’s chancellor and vice chancellor for academic affairs or believe that they are “not committed.”  Depending upon the validity of these perceptions, the program’s broader buy-in and acceptance throughout the campus could be either bolstered or reduced.

Networking

Collaboration among and between participants and the project’s PI and PD are important outcomes.  The collaboration took several forms – with some being primarily internal and others being external.  For example: 1) participants meeting among themselves (often within the same department or discipline) to discuss course development, course revisions, or team teaching; 2) participants inviting input from colleagues in other departments.  In these instances, individuals often share or solicit advice or comments from other professors regarding their course syllabus and rubrics; and 4) the PI and / or PD being contacted by professional colleagues outside the University who became aware of the PT3 project and are interested in learning more about its overall structure and impact.  As one of the project leaders explains:

I’m on the ...Committee...At the last meeting, someone

was asking about a particular idea and they asked me

to send them some information.  So I sent

them a copy of my homepage and now they’ve circulated the

idea of using the rubrics and alignments to all the teacher

education faculty.  Well, that wasn’t a planned activity.

That wasn’t any systematic effort.  It’s just of a function of

how the system of education interacts.

In addition, respondents believe collaborating and working together are valuable learning tools for achieving the intended outcomes from the workshops.  One respondent asserts; “when opportunities are created, we really can work more effectively with one another.”  Another adds; “If we work together, students will get the same message re-enforced.”

RECOMMENDATIONS

Workshop Content and Structure

The project leaders should review the instructional materials to determine the merits of grouping participants by level of proficiency. Likewise, the timing (during the academic year or during the summer) and duration of the workshop should be reassessed in view of the feedback from participants.  To insure the efficient coverage of certain topics in the appropriate timeframe, the PD and PI should re-examine the mix of individual and group assignments.

The project leader may wish to vary the structure of the workshop so that some demonstrations are presented to mixed ability groups and other topics to groups based on skill level.  Also, more supervised practice time should be implemented.  However, the project leaders should make certain that there is sufficient, properly working equipment available for practice; and that hours for assessing this equipment are appropriate within the context of participants’ schedules.  Some participants recommend that project leaders incorporate a discussion that focuses on the appropriate technology for various types of courses.  As was the case in the Phase I evaluation, several respondents call for more attention to different learning styles.  For example, some individuals report that they are more comfortable working alone rather than in a group, while others prefer study guides with examples or models.  Still, others prefer a much slower pace, with more individual attention.  One respondent cite difficulty multi-tasking (e.g., listening to the lecture, taking notes and following the demonstrations).

University Infrastructure

Interviewees suggest that there are mounting costs (e.g., opportunity, reputational, and out-of-pocket) associated with the University’s inefficient equipment and outdated software. Although this facet of the project may fall outside the goals and objectives, it will demand the attention and resources of the central administration to resolve.  Moreover, building and sustaining a high-quality teacher-preparation program will necessarily require: (a) an assessment of the University’s hardware and software capabilities; and (b) a plan that addresses any deficiencies this assessment uncovers such as necessary upgrades in its equipment and faculties.  Without a comprehensive technology strategy for the University that includes these upgrades, the project’s overall goals and objectives will be achieved at a much slower rate.  According to the project leaders, the University’s strategic plan includes a technology component.  However, implementation seems to be a challenge.  It is also possible that, as the results from TIP become more widely disseminated (i.e., published), the University’s senior administrators will begin to take notice of its overall importance and implications for the entire University community, and lend their voices in support of the goals of TIP.

Community Building

The overarching themes of collaboration and the pressures that ensue from severe time constraints provide a unique opportunity for the project leaders to use technology to promote continued collaboration and communication among participants.  Mini-workshops, presentations, informal discussions, chat rooms, and information dissemination are among the tools for helping to keep the participants fresh and to expand the number of technology users on WSSU’s campus.

Several participants indicate that they plan to co-present or present parts or all of their projects at professional meetings.  The project leaders should encourage this practice as well as track it in their database.  A number of respondents pointed out how proud they are of their accomplishments.  Many encourage peers and others to visit their websites.  The project leaders should consider holding a campus-wide forum, inviting school system personnel and faculty from local colleges, especially HBCUs, to share the results of their projects.  Additionally, a similar information dissemination process can occur at professional meetings.  Some of the top projects could undergo a rigorous external review for publication as an edited volume or a special journal issue.

Participants consistently pointed out that most of WSSU’s students are first generation college enrollees.  Consequently, participants believe that technology should be presented as only one of many tools to deliver instruction.  The concern is that technology not be perceived as a substitute for motivation, proactive learning and hard work.  One respondent expresses concern that some students are not as proactive in the learning process because of the dependence (last minute) on the web-based lectures.  The leaders will be well advised to consider holding a forum of the participants this summer or fall to discuss lessons learned.

Finally, interviews conducted with the PI and PD reveal that they have incorporated a number of the recommendations from the evaluation Phase I.  Moreover, they have done an excellent job of listening to the participants and making changes along the way in Phase II.  Unfortunately, as is the case for many states this year, revenues are down in North Carolina.  Obviously, this negatively impacts higher education institutions such as WSSU.  As a result, some of the important components of TIP are not supported.  These are external factors over which the PI and PD have no control.  Nevertheless, the project leaders should carefully examine the recommendations offered here and determine which will advance the project.  The project leaders should take comfort in the comments of one respondent who asserts: “I can’t think of anything that was required that I didn’t use or that didn’t help me.”

NOTES

            National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education. Teacher Use of the Internet in Public Schools., 2000.

            Preparing Tomorrow’s Teachers to Use Technology. http://www.pt3.org/about/index.html

            Winston-Salem State    University, 2000. “PT3 Proposal.” Technology Infusion Project, Unpublished Proposal, Winston-Salem, NC: Author.