The Teacher as Web Site Developer program describes the desired outcome of the most recent (2003-2007) form of an introductory technology lab required of all undergraduate education majors at Boston University (BU).\u00a0 The goal is to produce teachers who can develop their own instructional Web sites that effectively support their teaching.\u00a0 The Teacher as Web Site Developer program (T as WD) is the “most recent form” because it is descended from earlier forms of the lab based on HyperCard and HyperStudio (1998-2002), which preceded widespread penetration of the Web.\u00a0 As such, it is part of a more generic structure known as the Teacher as Software Developer, which refers to teachers who are capable of producing all kinds of instructional software, not only Web sites (Whittier, 2005).\u00a0 In either form, the objective is for preservice teachers who successfully complete the introduction to technology lab to be well on their way to becoming teachers who can produce instructional software customized to their own classroom, that is, teachers as “software” developers.\u00a0 The program does not refer to teachers writing code or systems level programming.\u00a0 It refers to teachers capable of developing their own instructional Web sites and other multimedia resources using authoring instruments such as Dreamweaver, PowerPoint, and iMovie and who are comfortable with their students doing the same.<\/p>\n
The program addresses weaknesses in the design of educational software prepared by nonteachers identified in historical studies such as Saettler (1990) and Cuban (1986, 2001).\u00a0 It also works toward integrating technology into preservice field experiences, thus improving the ability of new teachers to use technology in their first classroom position, a weakness in teacher preparation identified by Strudler, McKinney, Jones, and Quinn (1999).<\/p>\n
Although the main thrust of this program is to improve teacher preparation to use technology in the classroom, anecdotal evidence over the years suggests that the impact of the program was not limited to the preservice teachers. It affected the cooperating teacher as well.\u00a0 Although improving the cooperating teacher\u2019s competence in using technology in teaching is not an objective of the program, I wanted to begin learning more about the validity of these anecdotal reports.\u00a0 This paper reports the results of a pilot study of the impact of the preservice teachers\u2019 work as instructional Web site developer on the technology competency of the cooperating teacher.<\/p>\n
The Teacher as Web Site Developer Program<\/p>\n
The T as WD program begins with a prepracticum placement in which the university assigns undergraduate education students to a public school classroom one full day a week. The program links coursework in the introductory technology lab and the field experience by requiring that the assignments completed by the education students in the lab serve the prepracticum classroom. In the lab, students learn basic technology and curriculum integration skills in conjunction with basic lesson planning. They then apply this introductory knowledge to producing resources for use in their field placement classroom.\u00a0 Based on a simple agreement between the preservice teacher and the supervising classroom teacher, the design builds on the premises of project-based learning (Moursund, 1999).\u00a0 However, a number of obstacles exist \u00a0to securing the involvement of a large majority of the cooperating teachers so that the program becomes a systemic innovation.<\/p>\n
To get started producing their Web sites, the preservice students are instructed to think of their supervising teachers as their “clients” for the lesson and the Web site they must produce as a requirement of the lab. Working through a doctoral student who teaches the lab, I ask the supervising classroom teachers to direct the preservice teacher to authentic curriculum objectives that will serve as the subject of the lesson and Web site and that will occur at the appropriate time, approximately 9-12 weeks into the semester.\u00a0 This gives the preservice teachers enough time to write a lesson plan, learn what they need to know about Dreamweaver, and complete an instructional Web site project in the university-required technology lab.\u00a0 It also requires the cooperating teacher to plan far enough ahead in the context of the mentoring relationship for the prepracticum student, a task some report as difficult.<\/p>\n
The Teacher as Web Site Developer program aims to begin preparing teachers to produce technology-based resources that support instruction before <\/i>they have responsibility for a classroom.\u00a0 It also works toward preparing future teachers to work in partnership with instructional technology specialists (ITS), although in this case, the preservice teacher\u2019s role is more of an ITS than a classroom teacher. However, some cooperating teachers reported in casual conversations that the program gave them an opportunity to learn about deploying customized computer-based resources through supervising the development of resources that they would never have the time to create themselves.<\/p>\n
I theorized that this occurred through providing the cooperating classroom teachers opportunities for experience in designing and using a Web site based on their mentoring relationship with the preservice teacher placed in their classroom.\u00a0 The theory is that through selecting the content and learning objectives for the preservice teacher produced Web site and through guiding the preservice teachers\u2019 implementation of that Web site in the classroom, the cooperating teachers would have the opportunity to improve their own conceptual and practical understanding of how to enhance learning with technology.<\/p>\n
The present study identified substantial obstacles to this program.\u00a0 For one, data from both education students and cooperating teachers participating in this program consistently report on the lack of sufficient technology and infrastructure to support reliable use of technology in the classroom when it is needed, despite gains in Internet access and the reliability of computers.\u00a0 Second, the reality of cooperating teacher support and willingness to participate in the program varies considerably.\u00a0 Having enough time to mentor the preservice teacher, especially when standardized testing drives much of the teacher\u2019s agenda, is a frequently cited obstacle.<\/p>\n
Despite these obstacles, however, results from surveys of the cooperating teachers demonstrated that those who made the time to help the preservice teachers design and implement their instructional Web sites reported many examples of the sites\u2019 effectiveness.\u00a0 For example, cooperating teacher comments included statements that the Web sites “worked great,” were “really helpful,” were “very user-friendly,” and were an “excellent reinforcement” to what they were teaching.\u00a0 Others reported that the Web site produced by their preservice teacher “finds sources I\u2019ve not had,” was a “nice supplement,” and “meets my instructional needs.”<\/p>\n
The cooperating teachers\u2019 comments reinforced the observation that they valued the customized instructional Web sites produced for them by the preservice teachers. This, in turn, supported thinking that the overarching organizational scheme of the T as WD showed promise for improving teacher preparation to use technology. \u00a0If the preservice teachers could produce instructional Web sites as students that were judged effective by their cooperating teachers, then is it not more likely they will be better prepared to do so as teachers?<\/p>\n
An important dimension of the T as WD program is that the cooperating teachers gain the assistance of energetic undergraduates who bring the supportive environment of the university-based instructional technology lab to the design and production of the educational software, in this case a Web site. To the extent that the preservice teachers are able to generate opportunities for supervising teachers to improve their competency in technology-enhanced teaching, the program represents another approach to improving the outcomes of the mentoring relationship.<\/p>\n
Whereas Grove, Strudler, and Odell (2005) emphasized developing the cooperating teacher as the strategy for improving the use of technology in field experiences, the T as WD program organizes a project-based learning experience where the work of the student teacher may stimulate growth in the cooperating teacher.\u00a0 Of course, these methods are not exclusive and may even provide more of the pressure and support needed for change that Fullan (1991) identified.<\/p>\n
Readers may view examples of the preservice teacher produced Web sites at the Boston University ED101 Educational Technology Lab Resources Web site: http:\/\/ed101.bu.edu\/halloffame.html<\/a>.<\/p>\n Methodology<\/p>\n To begin learning how the program was affecting cooperating teachers, the researcher and a doctoral student who was teaching the technology lab prepared a 20-item questionnaire with both open comment and closed, Likert-type or yes\/no questions.\u00a0 Through the questionnaire, we asked teachers to respond to questions about their experiences with and evaluation of their preservice teacher\u2019s Web site and to describe and\/or rate the effectiveness of the Web site in their classroom.\u00a0 Although this method suffers from the weaknesses of all self-reported data and no funding was available for interviews or onsite observations, it provided a start toward learning what the cooperating teachers thought about the program and the resulting technology-based resources.<\/p>\n This paper reports results of two questionnaires administered to cooperating teachers.\u00a0 The first collected data at the end of the fall 2005 semester.\u00a0 The second was a follow-up survey in spring 2006 after adjusting the program based on data from the first survey.\u00a0 Because this pilot study emphasized the effect of the program on cooperating teachers, there is little discussion on its effect on the preservice teachers.\u00a0 An earlier paper is devoted to the effect of the program on our preservice teachers and how it improved their self-reported knowledge of teaching with technology (Whittier, 2005).<\/p>\n Background on the Teacher as Web Site Developer Program<\/p>\n Although preservice teachers benefit from the T as WD arrangement, the technology lab has presented many structural challenges consistent with reports of insufficient preparation to teach with technology from other studies (Moursund & Bielefeldt, 1999; Strudler, Archambault, Bendixen, Anderson, & Weiss, 2003, Web-Based Education Commission, 2000).\u00a0 For example, from its inception in 1989 to fall 2003, the introductory technology lab was required of all students seeking a state teacher\u2019s license but it carried zero credit.\u00a0 The administration\u2019s position was, and is, that the existing requirements for an education major\u2019s undergraduate degree occupy 100% of the credits needed to graduate, and any additional credit requirements would necessitate their paying an extra fee above full-time tuition.\u00a0 Costing students more money was unacceptable but because the state had some very general requirements for the use of technology (Massachusetts Department of Education, n. d.), the school opted for a required, no credit lab.<\/p>\n This structure set up the potential for an unhealthy psychological situation, requiring work for no credit, and always led to some disgruntled students.\u00a0 Most, however, accepted that the lab required work even though it offered no credit, and they found their rewards in the work itself.\u00a0 Beginning in the fall of 2003, the instructor of the main course, the six-credit ED-100, agreed to count the lab as 10% of a student\u2019s grade, likely resulting in part from his participation in the BU-PT3 faculty development program (http:\/\/emt.bu.edu\/bupt3\/htdocs\/fac_dev.htm<\/a>).<\/p>\n Although 10% of a six-credit course is still less grade value than the level of work required in a lab that meets 1 hour per week for the entire semester, this was an improvement over the zero credit status it carried before the fall of 2003.<\/p>\n The technology resources taught in the lab have changed over the years as technology has evolved.\u00a0 The lab began in 1989 with preservice teachers producing overhead transparencies and various video and photographic resources, quickly moved to HyperCard, then HyperStudio. Beginning in 2000, the instructors assigned the preservice students to produce an instructional Web site, first using Claris Home Page, then switching to Dreamweaver in fall 2002.\u00a0 Since the spring semester 2005, I asked the instructors to assign a Web site with both instructional and assessment components.\u00a0 I first asked the instructors to link the technology lab to the prepracticum field placement in 1998, in the context of a Massachusetts Department of Education Technology Literacy Challenge grant program conducted in conjunction with the Alcott School in Concord, Massachusetts.\u00a0 This grant allowed piloting the program at the Alcott School, one of approximately 10 different schools where preservice teachers have their first field placement.\u00a0 It provided funds to ensure that the cooperating teachers were involved in mentoring the preservice teacher\u2019s technology project, and the results were outstanding. Until that time, the work in the lab was not well grounded in classroom practicality.<\/p>\n Even though the instructor assigned educational projects, the students did not have enough experience to know what was realistic.\u00a0 Without a classroom context, the projects were too abstract and lacked a sense of process.\u00a0 With the grounding of the Teacher as Software Developer program, the preservice teacher\u2019s lab projects immediately became far more authentic to the classroom learning experience because the classroom teacher and mentor directed them to realistic learning objectives and the process was evident in the classroom.<\/p>\n In the current form of the lab, the lab instructor requires the preservice students to ask their cooperating teacher at the beginning of the field placement what content and learning objectives they would like their lesson and Web site to address.\u00a0 The theory is that if supervising teachers take seriously the task of directing the preservice teacher to appropriate curriculum objectives, then they will have the opportunity to gain experience in using Web sites tailored for their classroom as part of their instruction.\u00a0 There is the potential for a payback to the cooperating teacher in that they get to have a custom designed Web site to use with their students.\u00a0 Additionally, feedback from the cooperating teachers has strongly suggested their interest in continuing to use the Web sites in subsequent semesters.\u00a0 After consulting with the cooperating teacher, the preservice teacher completes a simple lesson plan describing the topic and learning objectives for the lesson and ways in which the Web site will address these objectives.<\/p>\n Helping teachers design and apply software to use in their own classrooms forms a theoretical framework for the program as a whole. Historical analyses of many failed attempts to include technology in classrooms shows that technology materials designed by nonteachers overly emphasize products providing generalized content transmission and ignore the process of learning and efforts at individualization that normally occur in the classroom (Saettler, 1990).\u00a0 These “products” typically ignore the emphasis on technology-enhanced instructional design that has emerged as so crucial to effectiveness in using technology in the classroom (Roblyer, 2005).<\/p>\n Research and historical accounts have strongly suggested that the consequences of emphasizing products without regard to educational processes results ultimately in the low productivity of technology in the classroom (Cuban 1986, 2001; Dockterman 1988).\u00a0 This program aims to make teachers the principal architects of the software they use in their classrooms,\u00a0 resulting in software that is responsive to educational processes, thus avoiding the pitfall of putting products over process. \u00a0The aim is to put teachers in charge of ensuring that the software complements their teaching style, is carefully adapted to the needs of their particular students, is focused on the goals of their curriculum, and is carefully integrated into the flow of learning activities in their particular classroom.<\/p>\n Questionnaire Objectives and Rationale<\/p>\n The survey of cooperating teachers collected data on a variety of topics related to the effect of the program, though two objectives were most important.\u00a0 One was to determine if the program is improving the cooperating teachers\u2019 sense of competence in using technology effectively in support of classroom learning.\u00a0 This outcome would be desirable not only for their improved ability to use technology in support of teaching and learning, but also for improving their performance as supervisors and mentors for the preservice teachers placed in their classrooms \u2013 at least with regard to the use of technology.\u00a0 This need is clearly identified in previous research (Moursund & Bielefeldt, 1999; Strudler et al., 2003).\u00a0 Another objective was to learn more about how the cooperating teachers rated the effectiveness of the Web sites.<\/p>\n Part of the rationale for the questionnaire was to learn if the program could reinforce itself.\u00a0 That is, if the program can improve the supervising teachers\u2019 ability to use technology, then it also might improve their guidance to the preservice teacher and, hence, the Web resources they produce.\u00a0 I also wanted to learn more about the possibility that some teachers would want to reuse the Web resources produced by the preservice teachers after they had completed their prepracticum.\u00a0 If so, then these resources could represent a substantial way for the teacher preparation program to give back to cooperating teachers.\u00a0 The connection between the preservice teacher preparation program and the in-service community could also be strengthened.\u00a0 The program could serve as a method of organizing essential field experience and mentoring, and it could begin to leverage technology to strengthen the community of practice around teaching and using technology to improve education.<\/p>\n This paper, then, reports on a pilot investigation into the effect of the program on the supervising or cooperating classroom teacher in the following areas:<\/p>\n Assessments of the Web Site\u2019s Effectiveness<\/p>\n Cooperating teachers were asked to rate the effectiveness of the Web site produced by the preservice teachers placed in their classrooms on a 1 to 5 point scale, where 5 was extremely effective <\/i>and 1 was not effective<\/i> at all.\u00a0 At the end of the fall 2005 semester, the lab instructor, a doctoral candidate in the program in educational media and technology, distributed the questionnaire to 64 teachers and 28 (44%) returned it.\u00a0 He attributed the relatively low return rate to the timing of the administration of the survey, citing that “the distribution was close to Christmas break.\u00a0 People were too busy and then gone.”<\/p>\n Twenty-eight cooperating teachers returned the survey. Thirteen (46%) indicated that the education student assigned to her\/his classroom had “implemented a technology-based resource.” \u00a0Fifteen indicated they had not. \u00a0These responses, that roughly half of those completing the questionnaire did not implement the Web site, indicated a weakness in the program.\u00a0 It highlighted the difficulty of integrating technology use into the mentoring relationship in the classroom, the difficulty of moving “from \u2018pockets\u2019 of innovation to systemic change” (Strudler et al., 2003, p. 42).<\/p>\n The low percentage of cooperating teachers who reported using the student-produced Web sites in the fall 2005 survey might suggest eliminating the program were it not for the high degree of effectiveness reported by those who did use them.\u00a0 For example, of those who did implement the Web sites, 11, or 85%, reported that the Web site was very effective<\/i> (n<\/em> = 6), or extremely effective<\/i> (n<\/em> = 5) “as a single-lesson learning tool.”\u00a0 Ninety-two percent rated the Web site very<\/i> or extremely effective<\/i> “as a permanent resource” for their class, with six rating it a 4 and five rating it a 5.\u00a0 (These data appear in tables 8 and 9 in comparison with data from the spring 2006 survey reported later in the paper.)<\/p>\n The results indicated both promise and problems. The problem was that only 46% of those returning the questionnaire reported that their preservice teacher had developed a Web site in the classroom. The promise was that most of the teachers who had either implemented a Web site in the classroom as part of the program or allowed a student to implement it as part of the field placement, perceived it as very effective, thus providing some validation for the design.\u00a0 These results suggested that instead of eliminating the program, I should work with the instructor to find ways to improve it.<\/p>\n The comments in the questionnaires provided some explanations for why only about half of the teachers used the Web site developed for them.\u00a0 Nine of the 15 teachers who did not use the Web site (60%) described the situation in language suggesting that the preservice teacher either “never mentioned” the project or did not follow up “after initial inquiries.”\u00a0 One cooperating teacher provided a useful explanation: “Although I was asked about areas of curriculum that [the preservice teacher] could develop a Web-based project \u2013 and I offered her the chance to use it in my classroom once she developed it, she never mentioned it again.”\u00a0 These comments clearly indicated reluctance on the part of some of the preservice teachers to follow through on the agreement.<\/p>\n The explanation that some of the preservice teachers did not follow up in presenting their Web sites to the teachers and did not ask to use it with the students was relatively common among the teachers who did not use it, accounting for 60% of the results. I categorized this response as “drop out” to indicate that the preservice teacher and the cooperating teacher had “dropped out” of the T as WD agreement.<\/p>\n\n