Abstract
This article reports the results of a study that investigated the needs and concerns of first-year teachers including the problems they encountered, the support they received, and the degree to which they felt prepared to use technology. Beginning teachers participating in the study reported that: (a) access to computer resources was a major problem; (b) support for technology varied greatly from school to school; (c) their preparation to teach with technology lagged behind their preparation for other instructional strategies; and (d) student teaching had a minimal impact on their preparation to teach with computers. Findings of the study are consistent with the mounting evidence that beginning teachers are not being adequately prepared to teach with technology. The authors recommend increased efforts to integrate technology into preservice courses and field experiences. They further recommend the need for research that documents specifics of current practices, levels of preparation, and approaches that promote effective implementation of technology by beginning teachers.
The trials and tribulations of first-year teachers have
been well-documented. While classrooms may appear as simple
environments, they are in reality extremely complex (Knowles, Cole,
& Presswood, 1994) and it takes time for first-year teachers to
adjust to their multidimensionality (Dole, 1985). Prompted by
mounting evidence that many novice teachers are "professionally
at-risk" (Darling Hammond, 1990; Huling-Austin,1987; Kagen, 1992),
colleges of education have been increasingly concerned with the
professional adjustment and performance of their students following
graduation. Studies that track graduates through their first years of
teaching have proliferated as the National Council for the
Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) emphasizes the importance
of continued support for first-year teachers by the institutions that
prepared them. As colleges of education consider the effectiveness of
their teacher education programs, it becomes imperative that they
look beyond the university classroom to the realities that their
graduates face in schools where they begin their careers.
This article will report the results of a study that investigated the
needs and concerns of first-year teachers in our local school
district. Data were gathered in successive years through surveys sent
out to teachers at the end of their first year regarding: a) their
general concerns, b) the problems they encountered, c) the support
they desired and received, d) and the degree to which they felt
prepared to implement various teaching and management strategies
(including the integration of technology). An overview of the
survey's general findings will be provided as context for this
paper's main focus--technology use by first-year teachers.
First-year teachers face a myriad of obstacles to professional
competency. Gordon (1991) identifies six environmental difficulties
that new teachers tend to face: difficult work assignments, unclear
expectations, inadequate resources, isolation, role conflict, and
reality shock. Beginning teachers have to assume more roles than they
possibly imagined and this can cause mental and physical exhaustion
(Kronowitz, 1992). They have more difficulty applying academic theory
to classroom practice (Godley, Wilson & Klug; 1985) and tend to
have trouble making rapid judgments in a dynamic classroom
environment. Their concerns often focus on controlling the class
rather than on specific tasks of teaching (Fuller, 1969; Hawley &
Rosenholtz, 1985) and they tend to be less aware of instructional
sequences and the meaning of classroom events than their more
experienced colleagues (Carter et al., 1988). Many first-year
teachers are overwhelmed by the mountains of paperwork related to
both instruction and record keeping (Houston, Marshall, &
McDavid, 1990). To make matters even more complex,
first-year teachers are often assigned outside of their areas of
expertise or experience
(Huling-Austin, 1987).
In considering these demands and concerns, how can we expect
first-year teachers to embrace technology and effectively integrate
it into their curriculum? The literature suggests that under current
conditions, it may not be realistic to expect too much early on.
Novak & Knowles (1991) employed a case study methodology to
examine beginning elementary teachers' use of computers in classroom
instruction. They found that the beginning teachers spent their early
teaching experiences struggling to survive as they settled into their
role as teacher. Computer usage was not emphasized because the
teachers viewed computers as "extra" and "special," not as general
tools to enhance the instructional process. As teachers gained
confidence and experience, their use of computers expanded, though
they overwhelmingly felt constrained by time--time to plan for the
computer and appropriate software, and time for students to access
computers during the school day.
Consistent with the findings of Novak & Knowles, Hunt (1994)
reported that time was the most critical factor limiting
instructional computer use by beginning elementary teachers. Hunt
also found that when beginning teachers do use computers, they rarely
venture beyond word processing and/or drill and practice games.
Perhaps the most widely cited use of technology by first-year
teachers has been in the area of telecommunications. Electronic
communication networks are increasingly being used to link first-year
teachers with experienced classroom teachers (Clarken, 1993; Merseth,
1992; Thompson and Hamilton, 1991). While early efforts in such
projects have documented resistance by some teachers due to
logistical and technical difficulties (Clarken, 1993; Thompson and
Hamilton, 1991), the literature clearly points to the potential of
networks to help teachers obtain specialized support, encouragement,
and opportunities for professional development (Honey &
Henriquez, 1993; McMahon, 1997; Merseth, 1992). Teleconferencing,
another application of telecommunications technology, appears to have
much promise as a vehicle for supporting and assisting beginning
teachers (Thomson & Hawk, 1996).
An early, widely disseminated study reported that only 29% of the
respondents to a national survey of education majors felt prepared to
teach with computers (U.S. Congress, 1988). Subsequent studies are
not much more encouraging. In a survey commissioned by the Office of
Technology Assessment (OTA), Willis, Austin, & Willis (1994)
found that more than half of teacher education graduates who
responded said they were not prepared or poorly prepared to teach
with technology. Approximately 25% claimed to be minimally prepared
and the remainder rated themselves as prepared to varying degrees.
The authors reported that "the great majority of respondents in that
study said that technology was not a factor in student teaching
placements and less than one in four were required to teach even one
lesson that incorporated technology" (p. 19).
Topp (1996) found that recent graduates surveyed claim to be
interested in using technology and believe that computer related
technologies are important for K-12 education. A majority of
respondents, however, rate their proficiency as low and reported that
they used computers infrequently.
One study suggested factors that may contribute to improved
preparation for technology use by first-year teachers. From the small
group of respondents in her survey who felt prepared to teach with
technology, Handler (1993) identified several contributing factors:
(a) course work in educational computing and technology, (b) the
degree to which computers were integrated in methods classes, and (c)
the observation and use of computers during student teaching.
The purpose of the current study was to investigate the needs,
concerns, problems encountered, and level of preparation of
first-year teachers in our local school district. While the study
sought to gather specific information pertaining to our teacher
education program and our local school district, it also sought to
add to the general knowledge base regarding to the experiences and
preparation of first-year teachers.
The first phase of this two-year study was initiated in Spring
1994. A 98-item survey that inquired about a wide range of issues was
distributed to 211 first-year elementary teachers. Seventy three
surveys were collected for a return rate of 35%. Eighty nine percent
of the respondents were female; 59% recently graduated from the local
state university, while 41% completed education programs at other
institutions. Seventy nine percent of respondents graduated from
undergraduate programs and 21% completed graduate licensure
programs.
A second survey was distributed the following year to 201 first-year
teachers. The revised 136-item survey replicated items from the
original survey and included additional questions about the beginning
teachers preparation for and experiences with teaching with
technology. Eighty nine surveys were returned for a return rate of
44%. Eighty eight percent of the respondents were female; 70%
graduated from the local state university while 30% completed
education programs at other institutions. Seventy six percent of
respondents graduated from undergraduate programs and 24% completed
graduate licensure programs.
Using a five point Likert scale teachers identified what they
perceived as their greatest problems encountered during their
first-year (1 = not a problem...5 = a major problem). From the list
of 23 possible items during first phase and 24 items in 1995, the
most significant problem identified both years was the lack of parent
cooperation/involvement. Obtaining adequate access to computer
resources was rated as the eighth of the list in 1994 and fourth in
1995. See Table 1 for a listing of the ten biggest problems as cited
by the first-year teacher respondents.
=======================
Insert Table 1 about here.
=======================
After rating the problems encountered, respondents were asked to
elaborate on what they perceived to be their most serious problems.
Of those who described problems regarding computer access, one
respondent stated that there were no computers available for
students, while most cited some, though less than optimal access to
computers and appropriate software. A related issue of time was
raised by some. One teacher wrote, "There are not enough computers
for every room so scheduling computers for your room is almost more
trouble than it's worth." Another stated, "I only had access to one
computer in the classroom. I tried pairing students up to take turns
at the computer, but I felt this was quite ineffective with 34 kids
in the room."
Teachers also rated the degree to which they felt prepared to perform
various aspects of teaching by their coursework and their field
experiences. Based on a list reported in a previous survey (American
Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, 1987) respondents
rated the following statements: (a) The coursework in my teacher
education program effectively prepared me to (do the following); and
(b) My student teaching experience prepared me (to do the following).
A four point Likert scale was used (4= strongly agree, 3 = agree, 2 =
disagree, and 1= strongly disagree). Results from the 1994 survey are
listed in Table 2.
=======================
Insert Table 2 about here.
=======================
In considering both the coursework and student teaching, respondents
rated their preparation for teaching with computers as lower than any
other aspect of teaching listed. One significant finding (p< .05)
regards the comparative rating given to the effectiveness of student
teaching in preparing teachers to use computers. With a mean rating
of 2.5, teaching with computers is the only area in which respondents
rated the value of their student teaching experiences lower than that
of their coursework. It should also be noted that the 2.5 rating is
significantly lower (p< .05) than all other ratings for student
teaching.
The list of desired teaching characteristics was revised in the 1995
survey to specify 40 traits of effective teachers. Respondents were
asked how well their teacher education coursework and their student
teaching prepared them to be competent in these areas. In comparing
the impact of their coursework in the 40 areas, the mean rating for
using computers in the classroom was 2.8, ranking 31 out of 40 (i.e.,
30 other items were rated higher). When considering the impact of
student teaching in this area, the mean rating was 2.5, ranking 39
out of 40. The only item in which the impact of student teaching was
rated lower was for interpreting standardized test scores which
received a mean rating of 2.3.
Respondents in the 1995 study, consistent with the 1994 data,
indicated a significant difference (p < .05) between the impact of
student teaching and the impact of coursework on using computers in
the classroom. The mean rating for the impact of student teaching on
this competency was also significantly lower (p < .01) than the
mean rating on the impact of student
teaching on all 40 desired competencies.
Of the 40 desired teaching characteristics, eight were rated somewhat
lower for the impact of student teaching when compared with the
impact of coursework. Of those eight, the greatest discrepancy
between the value of coursework vs. student teaching was for using
computers in the classroom. Again, the impact of student teaching in
the application of computers in the classroom was perceived as
lagging. See Table 3 for a sample of the
40 items that compare the impact of education coursework and student
teaching on the preparation of first-year teachers.
=======================
Insert Table 3 about here.
=======================
In 1995, teachers addressed additional questions related to their
experiences with and views about technology use in schools. When
asked to rate the importance of technology for instruction in teacher
education, 93% believed that it is important or very important. See
Figure 1 for a complete breakdown of responses to that question.
=======================
Insert Figure 1 about here.
=======================
Sixty percent of the respondents assessed that technology was
important or very important for instruction in their grade level and
content area. While 69% of the teachers took an educational computing
class in their preservice programs, only 25% of the respondents
reported being required to teach a minimum of one lesson using
computers in their field experiences.
The first-year teachers reported varied access to technical support
for technology at their schools. Forty percent of respondents rated
the level of support available as "none" or "poor", while less than
39% rated their access to support as "good" or "excellent" (see
Figure 2). When asked if they would use an email system for mentoring
assistance if it had been available, more than half of the
respondents expressed that it was "likely" or "very likely" that they
would have used it.
=======================
Insert Figure 2 about here.
=======================
Though results of this study cannot be reliably generalized to the
larger population of first-year teachers, some findings are worth
noting. Respondents rated adequate access to computer resources
eighth on a list of 23 problems encountered in their first-year of
teaching and fourth on a list of 24 listed problems. While at first
glance this finding would not seem especially positive, it does at
least suggest that those teachers value access to technology as a
favorable condition to support teaching and learning. This finding is
consistent with other studies that report positive attitudes of
beginning teachers concerning the value of integrating technology
into P-12 education (Topp, 1996; Willis, Austin & Willis,
1994).
Regarding the effectiveness of teacher preparation programs, when
compared to earlier findings (American Association of Colleges for
Teacher Education,1987), the preparation for teaching with technology
appears to be "climbing the charts." The AACTE study reported less
than 30% of student teachers ready to teach with computers compared
with nearly 70% readiness for the next closest category: developing
curriculum. While the current study also shows a relatively low level
of preparation for teaching with computers, the gap between teaching
with computers and other aspects of teaching appears to be
decreasing.
Probably the most alarming finding of the current study involves the
low rating for the value of student teaching as it pertains to
teaching with computers. In the second phase of this study, only one
fourth of beginning teachers were required to teach a minimum of one
lesson using computers in their field experiences. This finding is
consistent with the survey of Willis, Austin & Willis (1994) in
which it was reported that technology was barely considered in
student teaching placements and only a minority of student teachers
were required to teach with computers in student teaching.
Another interesting finding, though not readily generalizable, is the
range of support that teachers reported for technology use at their
schools. The nearly equal distribution of responses from no support
to excellent support (see Figure 3) reflects the full range of
approaches to technology implementation and support within individual
schools.
Findings of the current study are consistent with the mounting evidence that beginning teachers are not being adequately prepared to teach with computers and related technologies. In their recent chapter in the Handbook of Research on Teacher Education , Willis and Mehlinger (1996) conclude that "students are not learning to use technology in their [preservice] programs and without significant changes in teacher education programs, that will continue to be the case" (pp. 1019-1020). While improvement in the amount and quality of course work in educational computing provides one way of addressing these needs, many have recognized that one required class is inadequate to prepare teachers to use technology effectively. Authors have argued that technology use should be modeled throughout university coursework (Bitter & Yohe, 1989; Fulton, 1989; Gunn, 1991; Novak & Berger, 1991; National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education,1997; Rodriquez, 1996; Strudler, 1991; Willis and Mehlinger, 1996) and observed and applied throughout practica and student teaching experiences (Bosch & Cardinale, 1993; Brown, 1992; Handler, 1993; Hunt, 1994; National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education, 1997; Topp,1996; Willis and Mehlinger, 1996).
While exposure to educational computing and technology in
coursework lays a much needed foundation, integration of technology
into field experiences is arguably the most critical need for
preparing graduates to use technology--and clearly, it is the most
sorely lacking. As Willis and Mehlinger (1996) conclude, programs
that are "actively exploring integrating technology into methods
courses and student teaching activities...are so rare that they
cannot even be called cutting edge at this point" (p. 1020).
As has often been noted, making progress in these areas is complex
and requires collaboration within our teacher education programs and
with our university and school district colleagues. Technology
integration is dependent upon adequate computer resources, faculty
development opportunities, and onsite support--all of which require
funding. In addition, as was noted in the recent NCATE task force
report (1997), modeling for education students will be most effective
if done university-wide, not just in education methods classes.
Integrating technology into field experiences very clearly requires a
collaborative effort with local school districts to help ensure
opportunities for preservice teachers to observe and apply technology
with P-12 students. Since technology integration has generally been
implemented unevenly across schools and classrooms, it is difficult
to place education students with teachers who are both accomplished
in technology integration and have adequate access to appropriate
computer resources. Fox, Thompson & Chang (1996) illustrate the
problem:
One major goal is to incorporate microcomputer technology into
student practica and student teaching experiences. Thus far this has
been almost impossible to accomplish. One barrier is that teachers
with whom the students are placed often do not use the technology
themselves. Even when we know computers are available, we do not know
in advance what software will be available in any given classroom.
This makes it very difficult to help preservice teachers to plan
lessons to incorporate the technology (p. 72).
Clearly, the dilemma described above is common and must be
addressed in partnership with school districts. As the Office of
Technology Assessment's report (U.S. Congress, 1995) concluded, if
information technologies are to become an integral part of teacher
education programs, "K-12 and university educators must work together
to integrate technology into curriculum and classroom practice" (p.
165).
Furthermore, preparation for using technology in schools would best
be viewed as the initial phase of a continuum that requires ongoing
professional development and support. As suggested by this study,
support for technology use by beginning teachers varies from school
to school. Without adequate support, even well-prepared first-year
teachers are unlikely to undertake significant integration of
technology into the curriculum. In addition to needing access to
onsite, face-to-face support, first-year teachers would likely
benefit from additional mentoring support via telecommunications. As
Zepeda & Ponticell (1996) note, it is critical to provide
"developmentally appropriate information and assistance" (p. 93)
during the first-year of teaching.
In conclusion, it seems clear that the agenda for those promoting
technology in teacher education and P-12 education must be to
progress from individual "pockets" of innovation--whether they be in
isolated methods classes, P-12 classrooms, or schools--to
comprehensive, systemic change. We must systematically integrate
technology into methods courses and institutionalize the application
of technology in the field by making that expectation explicit when
selecting cooperating school sites. While there have been many
obstacles to moving forward with true integration of technology (e.g,
inadequate computer resources, lack of knowledge about and commitment
to technology integration by education faculty, P-12 teachers, and
administrators), current conditions appear more favorable. The time
may be right to begin institutionalizing needed changes.
As we do proceed with this agenda, it becomes increasingly important
that we gather data to inform our efforts. Willis and Mehlinger(1996)
assert that there is a need for more research that goes beyond
"threshold questions" ("Do you use technology in the course you
teach?" or "Did you use a computer in your preservice program?") to
get at specifics of "what is taught in
which classes using what methods" (p.
1020). We need to consider the growing body of current studies in
this area and build upon that work. Clearly, we need further research
to document specifics of current practices and levels of preparation.
And finally, we need to begin to identify specific approaches that
promote effective implementation of technology by beginning teachers.
Carter, K., Cushing, K., Sabers, D., Stein, P., & Berliner, D.
(1988). Expert-novice differences in perceiving and processing visual
classroom information. Journal of Teacher Education, 3(3), 25-31.
Clarken, R.H. (1993). Computer mediated support for student teaching
and first year teaching. ERIC: ED 361303.
American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (1987).
Teaching teachers: Facts and figures . Washington
D.C.
Bitter, G.G. & Yohe, R.L. (March, 1989). Preparing teachers for
the information age. Educational Technology , 22-25.
Bosch, K.A. & Cardinale, L. (1993). Preservice teachers'
perceptions of computer use during a field experience. Journal
of Computing in Teacher Education, 10 (1), 23-27.
Brown, J.M. (1992). A computer based cooperative learning project for
preservice teachers. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education,
8 (3), 11-16.
Carter, K., Cushing, K., Sabers, D., Stein, P., & Berliner, D.
(1988). Expert-novice differences in perceiving and processing visual
classroom information. Journal of Teacher Education, 3
(3), 25-31.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1990). Teachers and teaching: Signs of a
changing profession. In W. R. Houston (Ed.), Handbook of
Research on Teacher Education (pp. 267-290). New York:
Macmillan.
Dole, W. (1986). Classroom organization and management. In M.
Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed.). New York:
Macmillan.
Dworkin, A. G. (1980). The changing demography of public school
teachers: Some implications for faculty turnover in urban areas.
Sociology of Education, 53 (4), 65-73.
Fox, Thompson & Chang (1996). Computers and curriculum
integration in teacher education. Action in Teacher Education,
17 (4), 64-73.
Fuller, F. F. (1969). Concerns of teachers: A developmental
conceptualization. American Educational Research Journal,
6 (2), 207-226.
Fulton, K. (March, 1989). Technology training for teachers: A federal
perspective. Educational Technology, 12 , 17.
Gunn, C. (1991) Curriculum integration project: An evolving model. In
D. Carey, R. Carey, D. Willis, & J. Willis (Eds.),
Technology and Teacher Education Annual-1991 (pp.
27-29). Greenville, NC: Society for Technology and Teacher
Education.
Godley, L., Wilson, D., & Klug, B. (1987). The teacher consultant
role: Impact on the profession. Action in Teacher Education,
8 (4), 65-74.
Handler, M.G. (1993). Preparing new teachers to use computer
technology: Perceptions and suggestions for teacher educators.
Computers in Education, 20 (2), 147-156.
Houston, W. R., Marshall, F., McDavid, T. (1990). Report of second
year of support program by Houston Independent School District.
Unpublished report, Study 90-03.
Huling-Austin, L. (1987). Teacher induction, In D. Brooks (Ed.),
Teacher Induction: A New Beginning (pp. 3-23). Reston,
VA: Association of Teacher Educators.
Hunt, N. (1994) Intentions and implementations: The impact of
technology coursework in elementary classrooms. In J. Willis, B.
Robin, & D. Willis (Eds.) Technology and Teacher Education
Annual-1994 (pp. 38-41). Charlottesville, VA: Association for
the Advancement of Computing in Education.
Kagan, D. M. (1992). Professional growth among preservice and
beginning teachers. Review of Educational Research, 62, (2),
129-169.
Knowles, J. G., Cole, A. L., & Presswood, C. S. (1994). Through
preservice teachers' eyes: Exploring field experiences through
narrative and inquiry. (p.v.). New York: Merrill.
Kronowitz, E. L. (1992). Beyond student teaching. New York:
Longman.
Lortie, D.C. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study
. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Merseth, K.K. (1992). First aid for first-year teachers. Phi
Delta Kappan (73) 9, 678-683.
McMahon, T.A. (1997). From isolation to interaction? Network-based
professional development and teacher professional communication.
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational
Research Association, Chicago, April, 1997.
National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE).
(1997). Technology and the new professional teacher: Preparing for
the 21st Century Classroom. Washington, DC: Author.
Novak, D.I. & Berger, C.F. (1991). Integrating technology into
teacher education. T.H.E. Journal, 18 (9), 83-86.
Novak, D.I. & Knowles, J.G. (1991). Beginning elementary
teachers' use of computers in classroom instruction. Action in
Teacher Education, (13) 2, 43-51.
Rodriquez, S. (1996). Preparing preservice teachers to use
technology. TechTrends 41 (4), 18-22.
Strudler, N.B. (1991). Education faculty as change agents: Strategies
for integration computers into teacher education programs.
Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 8 (2), 5-8.
Thompson, A.D. & Hamilton, J. (1991). Patterns of use of an
electronic communication network for student teachers and first year
teachers. ERIC: ED 334180.
Thomson & Hawk (1996). PROJECT DIST-ED:
Teleconferencing as a means of supporting and assisting beginning
teachers. Action in Teacher Education, 17 (4), 9-17.
Topp, N. (1996). Preparation to use technology in the
classroom: Opinions by recent graduates. Journal of Computing
in Teacher Education, 12 (4), 24-27.
U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. (1988, September).
Power on! New tools for teaching and learning , OTA-SET
379. Washington D.C: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Wetzel, K. (1993). Teacher educators' uses of computers in teaching.
Journal of Technology and Teacher Education .
1 (4), 350-352.
Willis, J., Austin, L., & Willis, D. (1994). Information
Technology in Teacher Education: Surveys of the Current Status. A
report prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment. Houston,
Texas: University of Houston, College of Education.
Willis, J. & Mehlinger, H. (1996). Information technology and
teacher education. In J. Sikula, T.J. Buttery, & E. Guyton
(Eds.)Handbook on research in teacher education . (pp.
978-1029). New York: Simon and Schuster Macmillan.
Zepeda, S. J., & Ponticell, J. A. (1996). Classroom climate and
first-year]teachers. Kappa Delta Pi Record , 32(3),
91-93.