{"id":1599,"date":"2002-01-01T01:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-01-01T01:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/localhost:8888\/cite\/2016\/02\/09\/article2-html-3\/"},"modified":"2018-10-09T00:01:50","modified_gmt":"2018-10-09T00:01:50","slug":"incorporating-computer-based-learning-into-preservice-education-courses","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/citejournal.org\/volume-2\/issue-1-02\/current-practice\/incorporating-computer-based-learning-into-preservice-education-courses","title":{"rendered":"Incorporating Computer-Based Learning Into Preservice Education Courses"},"content":{"rendered":"
Most teachers graduate from teacher education institutions with limited knowledge of the ways technology can be used in their professional practice (Wetzel & Chisholm, 1996). Few preservice teachers have any instruction in actually using technology in the classroom (Vagle, 1995), and yet, being able to effectively apply technology is high on the list of what beginning teachers should know and be able to do in today’s classroom (Kortecamp & Croninger, 1995). Transferring technology skills from teacher preparation to classroom practice has been limited and has been identified as the “weakest link of most educational programs” (Browne & Ritchie, 1991, p. 28). Integrating technology in teacher education programs is a necessity so preservice teachers are able to see the importance of developing and using computer-based lessons in their own teaching (Wiburg, 1991).<\/p>\n
Including technology modeling in field experience is one possibility for helping preservice teachers to see the importance of integrating technology into their teaching (Hunt, 1995; McGraw & Meyer, 1995). However, studies have found that student teachers tend to make limited use of computers in their school-based practicum experiences (Robinson, 1995; Sunal, Smith, Sunay, & Britt, 1998). Another possibility is through the course work that preservice teachers take as a part of their teacher education programs. Most teacher education programs offer a course or two focused on learning to use computer-based tools (Drazdowski, 1993; Greene, Robbins, Riley, & Barnes, 1995; White, 1995). However, these computer courses are not always effective in preparing preservice teachers to use computers in their teaching for a number of reasons. Students enter teacher education programs with different computer backgrounds and attitudes and yet these differences are rarely acknowledged in these computer courses. As well, because the focus of these courses tends to be quite narrow, preservice teachers do not learn enough about computers to be able to integrate them into their own classrooms (Vagle, 1995). Furthermore, preservice teachers learn to use the computer in isolation from classroom practice (Howard & Howard, 1993). They are left to figure out how to integrate their knowledge of technology with the methods for teaching the various subject areas on their own (Rose & Winterfeldt, 1998). Even though much of the computer use in schools is subject-area specific, preservice teachers are not being provided with specific models for instructional use in those subject areas (Reed, Ervin, & Oughton, 1995; Wetzel & Chisholm, 1996).<\/p>\n
While teacher educators are beginning to use technology in their teaching, this is occurring far too slowly (Barron & Goldman, 1994; Maddux, Johnson & Harlow, 1995) resulting in “spotty inclusion” (Marx, 1995). Teacher educators must be prepared to integrate computers into their courses in all subject areas in order to model the appropriate use of computers throughout the curriculum (Drazdowski, 1993; Greene et al., 1995; Ouyang, 1995; Overbaugh & Reed, 1994\/95; Reed, Ervin & Oughton, 1995; Vagle, 1995). All teacher educators need to figure out how to teach so that their students will be able to integrate computer technology into their own classrooms.<\/p>\n
This article reports on my experiences as a teacher educator with trying to integrate the use of computer technologies into teaching of a preservice social studies curriculum and instruction course.<\/p>\n
DESCRIPTION OF THE SOCIAL STUDIES CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTION COURSE<\/p>\n
I have been teaching an elementary social studies curriculum and instruction course (EDEL 435) to undergraduate education students for the past 12 years. This course is a required course for students majoring in elementary social studies. Two central goals of the course have been to assist preservice students in setting their own personal teaching goals and to prepare them to make sound decisions about how and what to teach in social studies. (A prerequisite social studies course focuses on learning about the provincial social studies curriculum requirements and the intricacies of lesson and unit planning.)<\/p>\n
Until recently, this course was taught through a school partnership that engaged the students directly with small groups of elementary children and their teachers as they experienced social studies. Over time, these school-based experiences became increasingly more complicated to arrange with the complexity of the students’ programs and the limited flexibility in timetable scheduling both at the university and the school. As well, the last live school-based partnership that had been arranged raised another important issue. The students began to complain about the differences in the types of experiences they were being exposed to in their respective elementary classrooms. At that point, I began to realize just how little control I had over what the students engaged in while working in the various teachers’ classrooms. Barron and Goldman (1994) concurred that “when preservice teachers observe in real classes the teacher education program often has no control over the type of teaching they see” (p. 99). Furthermore, they found that “when [preservice] teachers observe real classes, they misinterpret or fail to notice many of the features and clues experienced teachers use to make sense of the classroom environment” (Barron & Goldman, 1994, p. 98). Both this lack of control and the lack of sufficient time to provide for maximum learning in the school were catalysts for the interest in designing some form of virtual school-based experience as a component of the undergraduate curriculum and instruction course. According to Ephratt (1995), the “computer is better than the real life situation because [with the aid of the computer] the situation is controlled, [and the instructor] can isolate and control one separate situation at a time” (p. 110).<\/p>\n
WHY A VIRTUAL FIELD TRIP?<\/p>\n
To most authentically capture the real-life experience of the school visits, I decided to create a virtual field trip to the school where I had previously conducted the live visits. Through the use of WebCTTM software and interactive multimedia combinations of video, text, sound, and computer graphics, the virtual field trip was designed to allow the students to experience teachers talking about and demonstrating their practice and children sharing their experiences and their understandings about social studies. It also would provide web-links to useful social studies sites for teaching ideas, materials, resources, and curriculum documents, as well as opportunities to discuss issues related to the teaching of social studies with experts in the field of social studies across the country. Additionally, the computer conferencing tool in WebCTTM would allow the students opportunities to interact with and learn from others via electronic means. The virtual field trip would also provide greater flexibility for students by making the site’s learning resources available outside of class time and from diverse locations.<\/p>\n
I also believed that using the virtual field trip to teach the curriculum and instruction course would help to enhance students’ confidence and competence in using and applying computer technology to the teaching and learning of social studies. This was important because a government-initiated curriculum directed at technology integration in schools had recently been mandated for teachers (Alberta Learning, 2000). Students needed to be better prepared to implement computer technologies into their teaching to address the technology learning outcomes articulated in this document. I was hoping to contribute to my students’ knowledge of, and skill with, computers and assist them in understanding how to use computers to enhance their teaching of social studies both through the use of the virtual field trip and by having them create social studies specific, computer-based projects.<\/p>\n
HOW WAS THE VIRTUAL FIELD TRIP DESIGNED?<\/p>\n
The approach to the design of the virtual field trip was based on a vision of learners as constructors of their own meaning (Brooks & Brooks, 1993). Cameron White (1995) stated, “A constructivist, process orientation to teacher education is essential if we are to encourage students to develop problem solving and critical thinking skills and to apply, analyze, synthesize and evaluate knowledge, skills and attitudes” (p. 290). David Jonassen (1996), an expert in the area of constructivist uses of computer technologies, argued that such uses of technology require learning opportunities based on authentic tasks and environments and must include opportunities for exploring and doing, as well as for feedback and reflection. I felt that using the technology in this way would support meaningful learning with technology for the students by making use of the cognitive tools that I wanted to encourage them to use with their future students.<\/p>\n
Because the constructivist orientation holds that adult learners need opportunities to learn from real-life authentic problems and practice, I wanted my students to be able to see teachers and children in action and to listen to them talk abut their experiences as they worked with social studies (Brooks & Brooks, 1993). Consequently, in the virtual field trip, videoclips of teachers and children in their classrooms engaging in social studies were included, as were samples of lesson, unit, and yearly plans; school newsletters and assessment rubrics; and audio clips of one-on-one interviews with children, teachers and the principal. Second, because adult learners learn from opportunities to reflect, there needed to be built-in checkpoints to engage participants in reflection. Third, because adult learners make meaning through collaboration, I wanted my students to become a community of learners in which they interacted regularly, both in person and virtually, with me, with their peers, and with outside experts in the field of social studies. Both through e-mail and computer-based conferencing the students would have the opportunity to converse with others and with me outside of class time. Weekly face-to-face seminars would be used to supplement the virtual conversations and to debrief the virtual field trip experiences.<\/p>\n
The course content was organized around authentic problems related to teaching practice. Using significant questions or problems as organizers can assist in the development of higher order thinking skills and interpretive learning experiences (Koschmann, Kelson, Feltovich, & Barrows, 1996; Parmley, Hutchinson, Hower, Morris, & Parmley, 1995). As well, introducing problems for student investigation using computer technologies can be effective for “allowing students to experience a shared context in which they engage in sustained thinking about complex problems” (Barron & Goldman, 1994, p. 84). The five key problems used to organize the content of the virtual field trip and the course in general were (a) why is social studies taught in elementary schools, (b) how do you choose content and plan for instruction in social studies, (c) what resources are available to support your teaching of social studies, (d) what approaches to social studies teaching would best help you to meet your goals, and, (e) how do you assess children’s learning in social studies? These questions were typical of those generated by my students at the beginning of previous versions of the course when they were asked what they felt they needed to know about teaching social studies. To enhance their understanding of the problem as it applies to their own teaching, students were encouraged to examine each of the five problems through a number of different lenses. Included in these lenses were the views of teachers, children, curriculum, other student teachers (peers), and social studies experts. A sampler of the virtual field trip may be viewed at http:\/\/www.atl.ualberta.ca\/project\/hatsoff.cfm<\/a> under Faculty of Education Instruction in Elementary Social Studies. Click on Course Content on the virtual field trip homepage to examine Problem 2.<\/p>\n The curriculum and instruction course was taught over 13 weeks and the class met bi-weekly for 80 minutes each time. Each of the five problems was examined individually for a two-week period. A similar pattern was followed to examine each of the five key problems. One class each week was spent in the computer lab working with the virtual field trip website; the other class was held in a regular classroom that was more conducive to discussion. After investigating the problem in the lab using the virtual field trip, my students and I discussed their findings in small group and large group sessions in the classroom. During this time, students shared their interpretations of what they saw and heard through the five lenses. Selected readings related to the problem under investigation were also discussed. As a culmination to the two-week study of the problem, students wrote a reflective paper on the ways in which their thinking about the particular problem had been clarified or changed as a result of their web and seminar experiences. I was looking for sound understanding of the issues raised in the readings and the in-class and virtual experiences and evidence that the students were thinking about the implications of their learning for their future social studies teaching.<\/p>\n A final assignment for the course offered interested students the opportunity to design a learner-centered, computer-based project that supported constructivist learning theory and was specific to a particular grade and social studies topic from the curriculum. Students had a variety of format possibilities. Some of the choices included a Hyperstudio multimedia project, an Internet-based topic hotlist, a web quest, a web activity page, a virtual field trip, an Internet treasure hunt, or an idea of the student’s choosing. These projects could either be something they would have their future students design as a way of representing their learning for a particular topic of study or something they might use themselves as an instructional tool. The majority of the students had limited computer skills and tended to be very anxious about having to use computers generally. They were encouraged to work in pairs or small groups in order to capitalize on each other’s computer experience. A lab assistant offered further assistance and extra lab time was booked outside of class time to allow students to practice newly acquired skills. Weblinks to tool training sites were provided for the students to do some learning on their own about the particular web format they chose for their project.<\/p>\n HOW AND OVER WHAT PERIOD WERE THE RESULTS ASSESSED?<\/p>\n In the Fall of 1999, a independent researcher was contracted to conduct and study students’ experiences in the curriculum and instruction course with a focus on the virtual field trip. The purpose of the study was to document students’ learnings about teaching social studies and about integrating computers into their teaching from their experiences in the virtual environment. Upon obtaining students’ written consent to collect data, the researcher designed, conducted, and analyzed the results of an initial and exiting questionnaire. The initial questionnaire was administered on the first day of class (n<\/em>=18) and contained a series of open-ended questions (see Appendix A<\/a>). This provided data related to the class participants’ entering ideas on teaching and learning social studies. In addition, various questions probed students’ views on the use of technology in their future classrooms.<\/p>\n During the last week of classes, a summative questionnaire was administered to the entire class (n<\/em>=18). This final questionnaire contained questions related to the five central problems used as content organizers, as well as social studies pedagogical issues and technology issues (see Appendix B<\/a>). The questionnaire responses were used to determine ways in which the students’ ideas about teaching and learning social studies and the use of computers had been shaped or changed by their virtual field trip experiences.<\/p>\n WHAT EVIDENCE WAS THERE THAT STUDENTS LEARNED WHAT WAS INTENDED?<\/p>\n The findings from the initial and summative questionnaires have been presented here using selected questions specific to my course goals as stated earlier in the article. Questionnaire responses from the beginning and the end of the course have been compared, with a focus on growth and\/or change in responses related to teaching and learning social studies and the use of computers as teaching and learning tools.<\/p>\n In response to the question, “How comfortable do you currently feel towards teaching social studies curricula?” the majority of students felt more comfortable towards teaching social studies curricula after taking this course. Prior to taking the course, the majority of students indicated that their comfort level with teaching social studies varied from not comfortable at all to somewhat comfortable (see Table 1<\/a>). Over half of the students increased their feelings of comfort towards teaching social studies compared to the initial questionnaire response. No students decreased their comfort and some students experienced no change in their level of comfort.<\/p>\n <\/a><\/p>\n